Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Homeopathy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

This article is very well written, well referenced, and quite interesting. Other than a few minor grammatical errors, which I have fixed, I believe that, for the most part, it meets the current GA criteria. The only other issue that must be addressed prior to GA status is the {{worldwide}} tags in the 'prevalence of use' and 'legal trends' sections. This is not really a major problem, and not worth failing the article outright. The sections do appear as sort of a mix or hodgepodge or random country information, and could be weaved together a bit better. Furthermore, the tags were just added a few hours ago by Adam Cuerden, so it must be addressed prior to GA. I will put this On Hold at WP:GAC for one week while this is addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work hard to get it straightened out. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Can you explain why it didn't meet the NPOV all significant views part? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. That was also mainly due to the {{worldwide}} tags as well. Dr. Cash 22:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article now meets the GA criteria, and will be listed. Good work! Dr. Cash 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions from Sm565 on neutral point of view.

Despite the controversy about the subject in the medical community (Sorry for having to repeat here the WHO and the Lancet reports which reflect this controversy) the article from the very beginning takes a negative position on Homeopathy.

Providing firstly the facts and describing the phenomenon, its history and then separately the criticism and the answer to this criticism is a common practice and common sense for any article, in any encyclopedia - if you want to maintain a neutral point of view.

(It is also rational and the reader can read the best arguments from both sides and can form his/fer own opinion about the effectiveness of Homeopathy.)

It is quite surprising that the contributors and members (who worked and work hard for the article - not matter if they believe or not in homeopathy) don’t object to this irrational practice. --Sm565 04:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In general terms, I disagree. I think the article is now more balanced and genuinely NPOV throughout. It has been largely purged of most purple and weasel elements and its referencing has been tidied up. It is vastly improved compared to its predecessor. Criticism is rightly contained in an article of such a contentious subject, but the tone throughout is IMO factual and neutral. thanks Peter morrell 06:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Sm565, I don't get your point. Exactly where do you find the current version to be biased? What must we do differently to improve it? --Art Carlson 07:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know how it was before - so you might be right that it is improved. Even if I respect the hard work and the good intentions of the people who wrote the article my main points are:

1) If we do agree that in the medical community (WHO etc) there are different opinions about the subject then the beginning statements “Researchers conclude that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect. [6]" or "The meta-analyses that have been done on homeopathy have confirmed that its effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo and those studies that have shown positive results for homeopathic treatments were flawed in design" are highly inaccurate. You could use this in the criticism part accompanied by the counter criticism but not in the main article if you want to be fair. Otherwise the famous NPOV is not maintained from the very beginning.

These two sentences are both found in the introduction, which is required to summarize the whole article, including the criticism section. We can discuss whether the statements are formulated too strongly, but it is essential to include something like that in the intro. --Art Carlson 07:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

2) I think the method I suggested, which is common in every article, ( facts - history criticism and counter critics ) protects the NPOV and the article keeps stable the facts and the history part and it could continually enriches the criticism and counter criticism part with new information and arguments in an elegant way. (Please explain how and why contained criticism not accompanied by counter criticism in a systematic manner preserves the NPOV)

The current structure is roughly

Introduction (summarizing description and criticism)
Description (Sections 1-4 and 6: History, General philosophy, Development of remedies, Treatments, Prevalence and legal trends)
Criticism (Section 5: Medical and scientific analysis)

This seems to be close to what you are talking about. Is the trouble that there is not sufficient counter-criticism in your view? --Art Carlson 07:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is the best way to be subjective. Best. --Sm565 07:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to include the homeopathy point of view in the introduction then. it could also work that way. I agree. But if there is criticism through the article then you have to add counter criticism - it makes it less elegant. If controversies and criticism go at the end there is no need to touch the fasts and the history and you work on presenting rationally the arguments from both sides. . --Sm565 08:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

yes I think counter critism is not present in the beginning. I will write specifically in a while. Thanks for writing all the details.--Sm565 08:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

80% of the article is the "Homeopathy view". 80% of this article is an explanation of what Homeopathy is, How Homeopaths think it works, It's history, Etc. About 20% is what critics of homeopathy say. I actually don't understand your objections. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a matter of percentage you know. Even if you wrote 99% describing the phenomenon and then in the introduction you write "Researchers conclude that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect or "The meta-analyses that have been done on homeopathy have confirmed that its effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo and those studies that have shown positive results for homeopathic treatments were flawed in design" where is the NPOV ? --Sm565 17:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well "NPOV" doesn't mean not stating the facts. The "facts" are that researchers do conclude that positive effects of homeopathy are placebo. This is a fact and it's sourced. No one's saying that "Homeopathy is only a placebo", We're letting the facts speak for themselves by saying that researchers conclude this, which they do. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You should write some researchers.... then.... and some meta analyses..... since there are others studies with different results : BBC and the Lancet recorded very well this controversy on the WHO draft and the critisim from both sides; you can see it I have written about it in the discussion page. If you want to be fair you should refer to them as well. They are also facts otherwhise the LAncet and the BBC wouldnot waste anytime on them. Right? --Sm565 17:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Science works based on consensus and newer better studies trump older or smaller ones. So it would be quite fair to say "Researchers" referring to the scientific consensus in general or to say "meta analysis" to speak of the meta-analysis in general. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is non consesus here in the medical community. Thats why you called homeopathy a controversial subject. The job of the editor is to present all the facts from every side not ot decide who is correct.

There is a disagreement which is expressed in the BBC and Lancet.If they report on this stating the facts which are actually both two years old ( both the metanalyses and the WHO report ) why the article shouldnt? I think you should trust these sourses and report what they say about the studies. --Sm565 17:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

besides that there is a major objection from the homepathy point of view which is not recorded and was expressed during in the BBC report " A spokeswoman from the Society of Homoeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo.

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

I think someone should state thiese objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

How about if we simply say "Many researchers" opposed to simply "researchers"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

to be more precise: in 2005 researhers using placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial concluded ......

then the homeoathy opinion should be added. ...t the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." and of course reference to the WHO draft with its critism form both sides. thats important. look at BBC report it is quite fair. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm--Sm565 18:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, That's just one study. I can cite numerous other studies concluding the same thing. If I cite several other studies with the same, would then "many researchers conclude..." be fair?

Also, Why isn't Placebo trials fitting for studying homeopathy? Why is it unfair? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1)it does not matter, you could write many studies ...conclude and other studies (for the last 40 years - omit the number if you want )support that homeopathy is not a placebo effect according to the WHO draft which Lancet critisized.

We already discussed this above (#Reverting material). If you want to build an argument on published, peer-reviewed articles, then cite them. It is a waste of time if your only source is a news story of a report on an unpublished draft referring to those articles. --Art Carlson 12:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

2)About placebo trial: homeopaths say that if needed they might treat the same disease with different medecin. Placebo trials are designed to test one medecin for the same disease.

It is bizarre to claim that "placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials" are inappropriate for testing homeopathy. In the first place, some homoepaths do prescribe a remedy based on a clinical diagnosis, so traditional trials can at least test that flavor of homeopathy. Testing classical homeopathy is not much harder. You could, for example, let a group of homeopaths choose any remedy they want, and also let them change remedies whenever they want, continue the treatment as long as they want, and decide for themselves whether the patient has improved or not. But half the time you substitute (double-blind, of course) a placebo (i.e. plain water or plain sugar) for the homeopathic preparation. If an improvement occurs with statistical significance more often with the verum, then you have proved that homeopathy works. If a second and a third group replicates the results using the same protocoll, then you will have silenced the skeptics (and earned a million dollars from Randi). --Art Carlson 12:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

3)again the editor's job is to state clearly the oposite opinions on the subject and not to decide if they are correct or if they deserve to be presented.--Sm565 04:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That's almost right. Our job is to describe the opinions of the major groups. If a minority has the "opposite" opinion of the majority, they only "deserve" to be presented if they are numerous enough or prominent enough to be "notable". Determining the consensus of the scientific community is not always easy. If you have some evidence that the editors have done a poor job, then please do present it. --Art Carlson 13:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In the introduction the editor states, “ Researchers conclude that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect” and the “The meta-analyses that have been done on homeopathy have confirmed that its effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and those studies that have shown positive results for homeopathic treatments were flawed in design” (by the way - I don’t see any reference for this …)

There is no consensus for the above opinion. That’s why Homeopathy is considered a controversial subject.. The WHO draft supporting Homeopathy is unpublished but its content and the reaction which has caused are known , verifiable and recorded in the Lancet, and the BBC; the same sources that the editor used to criticize homeopathy. ( BBC about malaria and the Lancet for more studies ). Therefore the editor has the moral obligation to accept their validity and report what they are actually saying about it.

Consensus does not mean that there are no dissidents at all. For all we know, the WHO report was drafted by a loose cannon who has since lost his job and been committed to an institution. In that case, what he wrote has no bearing on the existence of a consensus. What we need is to know is what respected scientists are on the record claiming that the evidence is in favor of efficacy, and, above all, on the basis of which studies this claim is being made. --Art Carlson 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless these objections (which can be found in every major homeopathy website besides the above sources ) are added, there is not neutral point of view.

(Art what I said about the placebo trial is not my opinion. It is stated by the homeopaths. It is their opinion and it is consistent with their principles. So the article has to state their objection about the trials. What you gave as example it is what homeopaths propose but it is not accepted by the hospitals which conduct the trials.)--Sm565 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

At least we agree on what an ideal study would look like. I also know of no studies that have followed this approach. In the article we must at least report on the best efforts to date. I think it would be very interesting to go into the pros and cons of the protocols used. I'm afraid, however, that that would exceed the constraints on a general article. I would like to see an accompanying article that goes into more detail on the scientific tests (being careful to avoid original research, of course). Maybe we could start working on it, if this article is stable enough. --Art Carlson 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A homeopathy website would violate WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and some other points. The NPOV is that all reliable and verifiable sources, peer-reviewed, analyzed, and studied indicate that Homeopathy is, well, bogus. But we dont' use bogus, because that would violate POV. Homeopathy, quite simply, does not work, is dangerous, and that's that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats a really objective view. We could use this as an introduction. I could not agree more. --Sm565 17:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you're agreeing with, but the suggestion that homeopathy be presented uncritically and majority medical opinion should be pushed into a "criticism" section would clearly violate NPOV: Undue weight and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". This subject has to be presented in the proper context of published medical opinion throughout the article. .. dave souza, talk 17:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the way articles are written everywhere: Description, history ....criticism ,counter criticism. I did not invent that. --Sm565 18:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some, but by no means all, other articles are lacking does not mean that this one should follow their lead. This is a particularly contentious area, and it's important to follow NPOV properly. .. dave souza, talk 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you. So, you also suggest to the editors that they should include all the major different opinions using the same sourses which are already in use in the article, and not only the one which "confirm" that homeopathy is a placebo effect . Right?--Sm565 20:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The best way to format an article such as this is the way it's currently formatted. Explanation of topic, Criticism of topic. The two sections should be separated because otherwise we will descend into edit wars of criticism/response/criticism/response..etc...etc. Sm565 is advocating another section below the Criticism section that includes homeopaths responses to criticism. This could easily be included in the criticism section itself, simply stating the facts. For instance after the criticism of a specific aspect of homeopathy we could put "It should be noted that homeopaths believe..." and then explain why they believe the said criticism isn't valid. Then end it there. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that wherever critisism or evaluation appears should be balanced including the introduction or every opinion should be "relocated" in a separate section - if space does not allow.

Stating only "Researchers conclude that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect” and the “The meta-analyses that have been done on homeopathy have confirmed that its effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and those studies that have shown positive results for homeopathic treatments were flawed in design" (and the second statement without any reference) is an evaluation and/or critisism which reflects one view only. We add to that the opposite opinion or we remove everything in a another section.

By the way I m very interested to know where the "those studies that have shown positive results for homeopathic treatments were flawed in design" statement was found. thanks --70.19.106.170 23:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)--70.19.106.170 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dean ME. The homeopathic mustard gas trials of 1941–42 Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a trial in .....1940 does not justify the weight of the statement. This is the last paragraph. 'Forty years later, it was pointed out that the original analysis may have underestimated the efficacy of homeopathic Kali-bich in the first London series, because the placebo group in that experiment was untypical (Owen and Ives 1982). A single larger placebo group would have been a more efficient control increasing the number of participants available to be assigned to each of the test medicines. The pooling of results from separate medicines is also suspect. In spite of these weaknesses, the London mustard gas trials contained many of the methodological safeguards and requirements that would eventually be expected in clinical trials. These include concealed randomization to treatment or control, blinded dual evaluation of outcomes, and independent statistical testing.'

But we will talk about it later -lets agree first on tha we should balance or "relocate" the critisisim in the introduction. Right? I believe we agree now. --70.19.106.170 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "balance or relocate the criticism in the introduction"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(Some) Researchers conclude that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect” and the “(Some) meta-analyses that have been done on homeopathy have confirmed that its effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and those studies that have shown positive results for homeopathic treatments were flawed in design" should go to the critisism chapter adding what you wrote before "It should be noted that homeopaths believe..." and then explain why they believe the said criticism isn't valid. Then end it there

--70.19.106.170 00:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Art what you are saying about WHO report person sounds bizzare.We cannot discredit soemone like that - it is dangerous. This is not a academic or proffesional argument or approach - it could discredit the value of your opionion. There are respected Mds in both sides - you could present equally their opinion and let the reader decide.

Who are we discrediting? What's his name? What are his credentials? Could be a Nobel Prize winner. Could be a crackpot. Because we don't know, we can't appeal to his authority. --Art Carlson 10:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said since you have accepted BBC and the lancet in the articles you have to accept the validity of the report which shows at least the exsiting controversy. Do you believe that the BBC and the lancet would waste their time to respond or critisize a WHO non exisiting draft - something which was so inaccurate ?

Regarding the 110 trials in the article look what they say: it is endless. I m not suggesting to be cited now.

"The report published in the Lancet on homeopathy on 26 August has been questioned by the Faculty of Homeopathy - the professional body that brings together GPs and hospital doctors who also practise homeopathy.

Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, London said: "Having read this report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy."

http://www.emaxhealth.com/60/3369.html

So lets balance the critisism presenting all the sides in a separate chapter.--70.19.106.170 01:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what Homeopaths believe about that specific thing and provide a good link for it and I'll add it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"...in a separate chapter"? Beware of Wikipedia:Content forking. It's best to keep it in the article. -- Fyslee / talk 02:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

what specific thing ? --70.19.106.170 03:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you meant by dealing with the criticisms "in a separate chapter." If you mean a separate article, then you risk problems with policies here. Just read the link. If it applies, fine. If not, ignore it. -- Fyslee / talk 03:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/3/1/145.pdf --70.19.106.170 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.106.170 (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion : there are respectable Mds and studies from both sides as you can see which critisize and sometimes might expose each other as you can see above. (It is ironic that the article contains a study which is heavily critisized by Dr Peter Fisher above.)

About the introduction : Stating simply these major opinions in general, highlighting the main objections equally and keep updating with new important studies and comments from both parts is the only appropiate method and I feel that we should not be even argueing about that - it is common sense. Best to all.--70.19.106.170 05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Support studies on Homeopathy from Sm565

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10784270&dopt=AbstractPlus http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1825800 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.106.170 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471/

http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijim/vol1n1/zicam.xml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14734789&dopt=medline

this is from a well known homeopath website. Itis mentioned in the article as well. http://www.vithoulkas.com/EN/cured_cases.html

low prevalence of homeopathy use in US midleading.

Though the article claims that surveys showed that less than 2% of people claimed using homeopathy in the last year, the amount who have actually done so is most likely much higher due to people who do not realize that they are doing so with certain over the counter medicines (mostly sold by a company called Similasan (someone should probably make an article about that company)). Quite a lot of these are sold where I work (a Walgreen's), and a cursory investigation (making conversation with a few people buying them) has revealed that most people who are buying them either don't notice it says on them they are homeopathic or they have never heard of homeopathy or don't know anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.43.159 (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the observations are nice, but they're OR and thus unusable. Also the sampling group would be too small and not demographically balanced enough to be of any use. Besides, people used to use cod liver oil for a variety of ills, so it's pretty likely that they'll use anything to fix what ails 'em. Jim62sch 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that can't be used, but I felt compelled to point out that homeopathic remedies are much more widespread in the US than a survey would indicate due to many people taking them who are not aware they are different from normal medicine. Looking at the package I see it can be hard to tell that with how there is only one or two tiny mentions of homeopathy on a very crowded label, especially since some of them claim things like "clinically proven to reduce the severity and length of colds", thus making people not think it could be something without a scientific basis. As for the true portion of the population that uses them, I'm not sure exactly how big that would be, and I'm not sure if any reliable data exists. All I know is that the cited data is most likely wildly inaccurate due to that oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.43.159 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And 40% of Americans believe in alien abductions. The irrelevancy of OR of homeopathy usage in the US is beyond belief. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting this to FAC

Wikidudeman, despite your high degree of ownership of this article, I will commend you on the mostly NPOV of the article. If you want to get it to FAC, I will recommend somethings:

The references utilize a whole host of formats. Stick with WP:CITET, especially with the website references. Make certain you put in the access date, so we can tell if it is current or not.
Weasel words abound. Look at User:Tony1#Featured article candidates. Tony is a cranky individual, but his points are valid, and I think he has established the writing style that is encyclopedic.
This article has too many redundant words and sentences. See Tony's tests on that point.
We really need to chop the references. it's making this article way too long (although I think the controversial nature will go against that).
There are a couple of sections that are awfully long. Subsections will help. I'm going to try it in a couple of areas.
I still believe that the LEAD is far far too long. --Filll 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just my thoughts. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your comments on the size of the Lead. Please see WP:LEAD. For an article of this size, a lead section of at least 3 paragraphs is needed to properly summarize it. Any smaller and it would leave out relevant material in the summary and would not be suitable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The paragraph tagged with the POV tag is not POV in my opinion. I have a hunch that the editor who tagged it didn't read the entire paragraph but rather the first sentence which stated: "Homeopathy is considered to have paved the way for modern medical practices including experiments to determine the value of medical remedies, systematic and quantitative procedures, and the use of statistics." This statement is well cited, link, and is a statement of fact. The procedures that early homeopaths used were far ahead of their time as far as systematic and quantitative procedures go. The subsequent sentences (prior to the paragraph being moved) introduced early studies on Homeopathy which then moved onto more modern studies. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I read the whole damned thing, it blows chunks. "is considered to have paved the way"? By whom? Why, because two scientists used a homeopathic baseline? And even if Lister used it, maybe he discarded it because he found it to be bullshit. Or maybe he just wasn't that bright. Were they really ahead of their time? Proof? Please, "You're talking crap, we know you're talking crap, you know you're talking crap, you know we know you're talking crap, we know you know you're talking crap, and we know you know we know you're talking crap. What we don't know is why you're talking crap when you know we know you're talking crap. Why are you talking crap?"

Oh, the issue OM raised re ownership shan't be a problem any longer. And please don't tell us you're trying to shepherd this piece of guano to FAC status. You're not a shephered, and neither the article nor the editors fed up with your ownership are sheep. Jim62sch 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a ~~basic~~ historical fact that the first homeopathic provings were actually far ahead of their time as far as experimental procedures goes. Hardly POV. "Homeopathy has also been given credit for providing early support for clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine." link, Citation: Ernst, E. Homeopathy revisited. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2162 2164. citation. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you qualify the historical fact as "basic"? A.Z. 01:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It's not that relevant. I'll strike it out if you want. The point I'm making is that homeopathic provings were ahead of their time at the turn of the 18th century and they were among the first to use clinical trials with control groups, quantitative procedures and statistics in their experiments. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jim, why do you have to resort to crudities and personal attacks to try and make your points? WDM has either modified edits or sufficiently rebutted criticisms every time I see him turn around, but it never seems to be good enough in your or OM's eyes, regardless of WDM's repeated good faith efforts. You simply seem dead set on opposing his edits, period. From what I've seen, his edits are consistently NPOV, and yours are consistently POV. He's even shown over and over and over again that he claims no "ownership" of this article, but you don't care. Please, either contribute constructively to the WP project, or find something else to do with your time so good faith editors can continue their work. Thank you. --profg 04:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks again? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ProfG WP is a free site & folks can say what they like more or less. You may not like these folks that much, or what they say, but what would you prefer censorship and punishments? maybe the unpleasantness comes with the freedom in which case stop whining and get on with editing. I suppose you can report them to someone, but ultimately you have to try and get along with such folks. They can also be very amusing if you choose to see it that way. cheers Peter morrell 08:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ProfG, "crap" is not crudity, it is an adjective that expresses precisely what this article is. Look it up in the OED if you wish. Or, if you really must, Webster's.

Sorry, I fail to see any personal attacks, just statements of basic facts.

Oh, the fact that the edits are never "good enough" is simply because I have high standards for an encyclopedia, and, as a linguist (although that is hardly all that I do or am well-versed in) I am quite sensitive to words. Take the word considered: Let's say one were to run for political office, for example, and it was noted that "Candidate JG is considered a tool of the neocon movement", while in another venue it was noted that "Candidate JG is considered to be loyal to the President and a champion of values". Note that considered is a charged word, attempting to lend anonymous authority to both claims. In the long run of course, all that matters is fact: what did the voters consider the candidate to be? Same with homeopathy: what does the consensus of scientists consider Homeopathy to be? Jim62sch 14:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice little dig you got in there, Peter. Touché. Jim62sch 14:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually for all I disagree with Peter, he does know how to write these very subtle digs. I wish I were that capable in subtly attacking others. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Me write subtle digs? Come, come OM I am but a mere learner sitting at the feet of a real master of tongue in cheek jibes and incredible sarcasm razor-sharp. I hope I can succeed occasionally in applying a few whimsical crumbs humbly picked up here and there from Jim, who cracks me up actually it's as simple as that! Have I overdone this one? well, no, it's just that when you see the funny side it all becomes much more fun. Apart from that we folks do get very passionate about what we know, which naturally opens us up to regular public ridicule. thanks Peter morrell 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Clinical trials

This is currently the lead paragrpah for the section Clinical Trails: Homeopathy is considered by some to have paved the way for modern medical practices including experiments to determine the value of medical remedies, systematic and quantitative procedures, and the use of statistics. Early scientists including Joseph Lister and Sidney Ringer stated that they were led by homeopathy to important pharmacological discoveries.[32] However, despite the fact that some of the procedures in homeopathy were ahead of their time, the medical effectiveness of homeopathy has been a point of contention since its inception. Early trials testing the efficacy of homeopathic treatments conducted by Hahnemann himself lacked the scientific rigor of modern scientific studies, and the first modern studies investigating the effectiveness of homeopathy date back to 1906.[64] During the 1940s the British government tested the efficacy of homeopathy on soldiers during World War II to determine whether troops using homeopathic treatments healed faster than those using placebo. Those using homeopathic remedies did exhibit increased healing patterns, however the methods of the studies have been questioned.[65] It was deleted by one editor, reverted by another with the comment that deletion hadn't been discussed. So here's my reasons for agreeing that it should be deleted (I wasn't the one who did the first deletion):

It's largely about some trials that took place so long ago as to be no longer relevant in a scientific sense (Lister, Ringer, WWII). I doubt, incidentally, that a trial that took place in 1906 can be called "modern". Incidentally, I see that the reference at footnote 32 is from the Franklin Institute, which is a museum.
Everything this paragraph says can be rolled up into the following paragraph, which mentions at several places that modern studies have questioned or overturned the resulkts of earlier ones. These are, in fact, those earlier trials. There's no need to detail them like this, it's enough to say that they've since been overtaken.

Cheers. PiCo 06:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, you're a much more civil and patient person than I. This is, FWIW, what I thought too. So I agree, and the edits should stand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Agreed, I'd also add that I find: "Homeopathy is considered by some to have paved the way for modern medical practices including experiments" somewhat dubious and assuming this is intended to be the reference for the statement, not terribly well supported. – ornis ⚙ 07:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that events that took place in 1906 can be called "modern". A.Z. 07:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything from the industrial revolution on can be considered part of the "modern era", but we're talking about medical science, were a narrower definition is warranted. – ornis ⚙ 07:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the word "modern" is problematic and should be avoided. A.Z. 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's unclear how modern is modifying experiments: does it mean the first experiments in the "modern era", or that the experiments were "modern" in some sense? Jim62sch 14:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Confucious Ornis, Why is this source not reliable or supported? Please explain. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a bit less than impressed by a study on human medicine written by two veterinarians. Seems just a bit odd, don't you think? Jim62sch 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a study. It's an article. It was also co-written by Victor J. Stenger, Mahlon Wagner and Robert H. Imrie. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's accepted as a reliable source, how is it supposed to support "Homeopathy is considered by some to have paved the way for modern medical practices including..."? At best the wording I'm looking at might support "Homeopathy has been claimed to have made important indirect contributions to modern medical practices, such as...". The first phrasing is a clear example of WP:UNDUE. ... dave souza, talk 15:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well we can phrase it however you want. Just as long as we mention that key fact that homeopathy is claimed by some to have made important contributions to modern medical practices. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

...claimed by some..." By whom? Where is this claim? Is it supported? If not, it goes poof....as in bye-bye. This really isn't difficult. Jim62sch 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The source says:"Homeopathy has also been given credit for providing early support for clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine." That's what it says. It doesn't elaborate on who exactly has given it credit for that, however the citation in the source is Ernst, E. Homeopathy revisited. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2162 2164. That might elaborate. It's not Original research when it's copied almost exactly(paraphrased so not to violate copyright) from the source. I've added it back clarifying the source and rewording it to better fit the source. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just how notable is this source? The linked author, Victor J. Stenger, "is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado." Doesn't sound like an expert on the history of medical treatments.... dave souza, talk 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say "source rejected". Now, if we could find a source from a professor of culinary arts... Jim62sch 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Sources

I would like to see one source, just one source, from a prominent medical historian that says Homeopathy has anything to do with anything, other than killing people. That we can do in droves. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here ye go: *Hahnemann's followers promised help, but help in the form of pleasant 'water medicine' and sugar pills instead of castor oil and calomel. No wonder homeopathy acquired some popularity. It is a plausible surmise, indeed, that the success of this sectarian guild brought more pressure on the regulars in favor of moderate practice than did the appeals of nihilistic clinicians. [Shryock, pp.144-5]

Yet today in retrospect homeopathy merits a more favorable consideration for its ultimate influence upon the field of medicine. First, along with others, it forced the conventional practitioners to give up the harmful and obsolete practice of bloodletting and the use of calomel. Second, it proved to be the stimulus which led orthodox medicine to improve medical education. [Siddall, p.124]

... in a day when clinicians were condemning heroic practice, homeopaths 'went them one better' by prescribing drugs so diluted that they must have been entirely innocuous... homeopaths avoided the extremes of both nihilism and heroic practice. [Shryock, p.144]

R H Shryock, Medicine and Society in America 1660-1860, Cornell Univ. Press, New York, USA 1972
A Clair Siddall, MD, History of Homeopathic Medicine at Oberlin, Ohio, 1833-1933, Ohio State Med. Jnl, 74, pt. 2, 1978, pp.121-124

Please note Dr Shryock was certainly NOT a devotee of homeopathy. I will dutifully try to find more. Peter morrell 21:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

These are good sources for this:

Coulter, Harris L., 1972, Homeopathic Influences In Nineteenth Century Allopathic Therapeutics Part I, JAIH 65:3, Sept., pp.139-181

Coulter, Harris L., 1972, Homeopathic Influences In Nineteenth Century Allopathic Therapeutics Part II, JAIH 65:4, Dec., pp.207-244

Coulter, Harris L., 1973, Homeopathic Influences In Nineteenth Century Allopathic Therapeutics, Washington, USA

I have copies somewhere and will extract the required into Peter morrell 05:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the chef at Lychee Garden says that by combining accupuncture, herbal remedies and homeopathy he gets up every morning. Jim62sch 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Victor J. Stenger is a professor of physics and astronomy, however he also used to be professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. Stenger has authored numerous books on pseudoscience and skepticism and he is also a Member of Editorial Board, Free Inquiry as well as a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. The source was published in the The Technology Journal of the Franklin Institute and the source was also coauthored by 3 other doctors and experts in their respective fields. This source in every way shape and form meets WP:RS. The source itself actually has citations and the citation for the specific assertion in question is Ernst, E. Homeopathy revisited. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 2162 2164. This would be Edzard Ernst, Author of HUNDREDS of articles focusing on Homeopathy published in peer reviewed journals. Journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, The American Journal of Gastroenterology, etc, etc. Please explain, in detail, how this source does not meet WP:RS. The fact of the matter is that it does. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same source that the veterinarians coauthored? Jim62sch 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's Co-authored by two Veterinarians who have written numerous articles on the topics of alternative medicine as well as Mahlon W. Wagner, a PHD in neurology as well as Professor Emeritus of Psychology, State University of New York at Oswego. The Veterinarians because of the prevalence of use of Homeopathy in Veterinary medicine. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

An astronomer (who used to one be Schlegel reincarnated), a "PhD" in neurology, and two Drs. Doolittle. Sorry, not impressed. Jim62sch 19:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A professor of physics and astronomy who has authored numerous books on pseudoscience and skepticism and is also a Member of Editorial Board, Free Inquiry as well as a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. The fact is that this source meets WP:RS. If you're unimpressed by an article by 4 PhD's, professors, who have extensive ties to the topic in question, which is published in a reliable and notable publication and also which sources it's work then no source would be good enough. Ever. It meets WP:RS. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop being WP:DENSE? Explain how two DVM's are qualified to discuss homeopathy. And I don't give a damn that the guy is a member of the Franklin Institute -- so am I. I really hope you aren't considering a career in sales. Jim62sch 19:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is mis-cited. To begin with, it's cited cited as published in The Technology Journal of the Franklin Institute. While I can find reference to Technology: Journal of the Franklin Institute, I can't find any evidence that this paper was ever published. Since the date on the file is Feb. 2004, I think it's pretty safe to say that this ms was never published. In addition, the text is a direct quote, but lacks quotation marks...that's either plagiarism or a copyvio. Guettarda 20:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote, I paraphrased it. I fixed the publisher. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Early scientists including Joseph Lister and Sidney Ringer stated that they were led by homeopathy to important pharmacological discoveries

Early scientists such as Joseph Lister and Sidney Ringer stated that they were led to important pharmacological discoveries because of homeopathy

Nope, that's not a paraphrase, that's a copyvio. Guettarda 20:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also

Homeopathy has been credited by some for providing early support for clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine.

Homeopathy has also been given credit for providing early support for clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine.

Another copyvio from the same source. Guettarda 20:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole section is rife with problems:

Paracelsus subscribed to many of the same principles as the modern founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann.

Can this be sourced?

Vienna physician Anton Freiherr von Störck and Scottish physician John Brown also held similar medical beliefs to Samuel Hahnemann prior to the conception of homeopathy

This also appears to be unsourced
It strikes me as rather unusual that the von Störck link is to de:, especially when there is an en: article

In Hahnemann's day, mainstream medicine was a degenerate form of Galenism, with a theory of disease based upon the ancient Greek idea of four humours

Source for this statment? After all Hahnemann was a contemporary of Jenner.

Medicine of the time professed to restore the balance of the humours, mostly by employing such measures as bloodletting and purging, use of laxatives, enemas and substances that induced vomiting, as well as suppressing symptoms using complex mixtures of plant and mineral drugs in strong doses. Such measures often made symptoms worse or proved fatal.

Again, this should be sourced - it has a mythological sound to it

By contrast, Hahnemann rebelled against these methods, and the use of mixed drugs in strong doses, favoring the use of single drugs in milder doses. He later came to promote an immaterial, vitalistic view of how living organisms function and thought that diseases have spiritual, as well as physical causes.[17][18][19]

Hahnemann himself isn't the best biographical source (notes 18, 19)

Homeopathy has been credited by some for providing early support for clinical trials with control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures and the use of statistics in medicine. Early scientists including Joseph Lister and Sidney Ringer stated that they were led by homeopathy to important pharmacological discoveries

Copyvio

However, despite the fact that some of the procedures in homeopathy were ahead of their time, the medical effectiveness of homeopathy has been a point of contention since its inception.

Source? What does "ahead of its time" mean? How can that be a "fact" - the assertion that something is "ahead of its time" can never be more than an opinion, never a "fact". So whose opinion is it?

Early trials testing the efficacy of homeopathic treatments conducted by Hahnemann himself lacked the scientific rigor of modern scientific studies, and the first modern studies investigating the effectiveness of homeopathy date back to 1906.[22]

This statement is supported by a cite from a work from 1906; does Bellows talk about "first modern studies investigating the effectiveness of homeopathy" (which had just come out that year)? This reads like OR. Guettarda 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to fix most of the things you've brought up. Some of them should be tagged with a fact tag for a little while for references to be found. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Attention.svg Note - following RFC template nowikied, rfc should not be open on archived discussion page. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

{{RFCpolicy|section=Clinical trials !! reason= Would [http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Medicine/Homeop.html This source] be considred a reliable resource? It's authored by 4 doctors notable in the area in question, published in a notable and reliable publication, and references it's material. Is it a RS? !! time=20:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)}}

Overstating the case

The first sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction now reads, The medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments has been refuted by scientific and clinical studies. Three references are cited. The first of these makes this statement: Despite the available research, it has proven difficult to produce clear clinical evidence that homeopathy works. Many studies suggest that any effectiveness that homeopathy may have is due to the placebo effect, ... The second says this: the efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven. Some think it a placebo effect, ... Finally, the abstract of the third reference cited simply says this: Trials of complementary therapies often have relevant methodological weaknesses. Another good source (cited later) is this, which says in part: The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. and In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Maybe better citations can be found, and maybe stronger statements are made in the full text of these articles, but as it is, the unequivocal formulation in the article is not supported by the cautious statements made in the references. --Art Carlson 16:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. We shouldn't say that the medical efficacy of Homeopathy has been "refuted by scientific and clinical studies" since that is indeed not what the sources even say. For some reason a few editors have added in much stronger and unsupported statements into this article which are unsupported by the sources provided for the initial NPOV text. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to ownership again. Thanks WDM for your sage commentary. Art, science works in careful language. The word "not supported" implies that something may happen in the future, which is most definitely not stated in the language of those references. But you are also not reading those references in the way that I do--"have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition" is pretty clear-cut to me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Jim62sch 18:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should work in careful language as well. We have to be careful not to read anything into the sources. The trouble - and you may actually agree with me on this - is that homeopathy is not a science. I mean, you'll be hard pressed to find a statement that is actually falsifiable, and if you do, for every homeopath making such a statement, you'll find two that dispute it. This makes homeopathy irrefutable in practice. The most we can say is that a fair number of attempts have been made to verify homeopathy is one way or another, and to date none have been unambiguously successful. We could say something like that. Better would be to stick even closer to the language of the sources. Is there a problem with that? --Art Carlson 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in principle, no. In practice, we'll see. Give it a whirl and edit the sentence. Jim62sch 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Claims for the medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments have not been supported by scientific and clinical studies How the new sentence preserves the NPOV since there are studies which suggest the the homeopahty is effective? I have provide the links above.(sm565 links) If we want to be objective we have to add that there are some studies supporting its efficacy. Is not this more appropriate? --Sm565 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. Those that have proven any efficacy have been significantly flawed. Jim62sch 20:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

any other more convincing response? --Sm565 20:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? I realise that English isn't your first language, but could you be a bit more clear? Try it in your native tongue, I might be able to read it. Jim62sch 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How about saying it this way (following the first reference), No clinical study has been able to demonstrate clearly that homeopathy works. Of course, a lot is riding on the little word "clearly", but I think even the proponents might be able to concede that the positive results are far from unambiguous. Later on we need to mention that some studies show positive results, albeit with warts. --Art Carlson 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The version 2 days ago did all of that. It mentioned that no clinical studies have proven the efficacy of Homeopathy and that some studies have shown results above placebo. However that has all been deleted by Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin since then. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it? Really? Got proof? Jim62sch 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly OrangeMarlin.

[[1]]

[[2]]

Though tagging a section as POV when it's clearly referenced doesn't help much either. Nor does saying it needs to be "taken out and shot". That's very unhelpful. It's not constructive. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly be any lamer? Jim62sch 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Insults aren't helpful... Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost fair - I will explain later why I say almost. This and some others studies I have listed support homeopathy.I dont understand who and why disagrees with this. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471/ Please explain. --Sm565 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what you want cited? "Conclusion: The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo." Yippee! And, like wow, it's written by med students. Cool. Jim62sch 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Morag A Taylor, research associate, a David Reilly, honorary senior lecturer in medicine, a Robert H Llewellyn-Jones, lecturer, b Charles McSharry, principal immunologist, c Tom C Aitchison, senior lecturer in statistics. d

"Med Students"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Research associate -- probably gets the coffee. Honorary -- big whoops. Now the immunologist might be OK. But lecturer? Jim62sch 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW: this is pretty telling: "Correspondence to: D Reilly, Academic Departments, Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital, Glasgow G12 0XQ" Jim62sch 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijim/vol1n1/zicam.xml http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10784270&dopt=AbstractPlus

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14734789&dopt=medline

So I think that these papers are a good example of existing studies supporting homeopathy: having been accepted to be published in serious websites, (some) having been cited in many articles, and written by scienticts and MDs they qualify, I think.

Isuppose we agree on this. Best--Sm565 22:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The internet journal of internal medicine? Not peer-reviewed, or did you not notice that!!! AND, Zicam lost some money in major lawsuits. Wow, amazing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

idont know if the specific one is peer-reviewed. The peer-reviewed does not really mean that it will not be challenged later. Studies some times could be "peer reviewed" by "friends" as Peter I think wrote. Look what happened to the Lancet article above. I gave the links.

I think that the other studies I gave dont have this "problem". --Sm565 22:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we suppose to discuss everything here and then edit the article? I have some objections for some parts of it but I m not editing it. Should we keep arguing or start editing? thanks--Sm565 01:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

more links : http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/5/393

Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies. Series Editors: David M. Eisenberg, MD, and Ted J. Kaptchuk, OMD the same: [3]

I think that we have more than enough to add about the efficacy of Homeopathy: some studies have shown results above placebo"--Sm565 02:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You might need to review the following: Undue weight, Reliable sources, and Fringe theories. You found three or four out of thousands of articles that clearly state Homeopathy is junk science. We've seen this kind of POV-warrior behavior before, and though I'm not accusing you of such, continued tendentious posting will become problematic. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Who is the Central Council for Research In Homoeopathy, and is it a reliable source? More pertinently, is it a reliable source on whether von Störck's views were similar to Hahnemann's? Guettarda 03:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like the Discover Institute being a reliable source for Intelligent design? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Truth is - I just don't know. At least the DI has a Wikipedia article. Their web page seems to suggest some link to the government of India. But I have no idea. Wikidudeman just added the reference, so I'm hoping he can explain who they are and why he considers them a reliable source. Guettarda 04:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this them?[4] They appear to be regulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, but otherwise operate independently of it.[5] – ornis ⚙ 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ornis is right. I think it's reliable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that establishes that such an organisation exists, and barring evidence to the contrary, we can assume that's their actual website, which would make it a reliable source for their views and opinions. But what evidence is there that it should be a reliable source for comparing von Störck's views with those of Hahnemann? Guettarda 14:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it's an organization regulated by a major world government. I don't see any reason why it isn't reliable. I generally assume a source is reliable unless there is a reason to believe otherwise. After investigating a source in detail, if no good reason arises that would suggest it is unreliable, I use it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Regulated by a major world government? So what. As a study of international politics will show, there's regulation as in application of strict rules and then there's regulation as in a loose affiliation with a government that turns a blind eye. Where India falls on this spectrum, especially in relation to this group, I'm not sure, but my guess would be that given that India tends to be fairly loose with most regulation (think Bhopal), there's really very little if any regulation on the groups activities. Feel free to prove otherwise. Jim62sch 15:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the body is regulated by the Indian government, but the issue is whether this webpage is a reliable source for the history of science. I really think we need a more credible source. Think about it as you would any self-published source - in order to accept a self-published source as being reliable, you need to be able to ascertain whether the author is an expert (of some sort) on the topic; if it isn't self-published, you need to think about editorial oversight. There's no indication that the authors/editors of the web site have any expertise in the field of history of science. Guettarda 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that Self-Published sources from Experts would be allowed? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what he's saying. NO self-published source is acceptable. His point was you can't even identify the authors and their level of expertise. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked him. He said that "in order to accept a self-published source as being reliable, you need to be able to ascertain whether the author is an expert". "In order to accept" means that they can be accepted. So Guettarda, Can Self-Published sources from experts be accepted or are all self-published sources unreliable regardless of whether or not they were authored by experts? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A point re studies from countries where eastern thought predominates: the people conducting these studies are already predisposed toward homeopathic medicine via their reliance on herbal remedies, accupuncture, folk remedies and the like. This casts some doubt on the legitimacy of the studies. One supposes that this argument could be applied to countries in which western thought is predominate, yet in western countries, the scientists conducting the experiments are just as likely to welcome new findings as to confirm old ones. Yes, this speaks to motive, but one must remember that motive is often the driving force in all human endeavours. Jim62sch 17:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a stretch if I've ever seen one. You're going to have to prove that studies done in "Eastern countries" are not as reliable by proving that the scientists doing the studies in such countries have either a record of botching medical studies or are otherwise unreliable. Simply using predominance of a viewpoint in a country to dismiss studies done in said country is absurd. That would be like saying that Studies done on Evolutionary Biology in the United States are unreliable because of the predominance of Americans who don't believe in Evolution. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't really read what I wrote did you? Either that or you didn't understand it. But then, cultural anthopology probably isn't one of your strong suits, is it?

In any case, the most questionable studies have come from Africa and Asia, in part because of a lack of baselines, in part because of incompetence and in part because of a distinct bias. It's kind of like what I mentioned above where "The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo" is taken as a positive finding, when it really is no such thing. Or, maybe it is -- but if that is the best you can hope for ... Jim62sch 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I read and understood what you said. You're insinuating that if a study comes from a specific part of the world it's automatically doubted on that basis alone. This is not reasonable. Again, In order to prevent such studies from being used you're going to have to prove that studies done in "Eastern countries" are not as reliable by proving that the scientists doing the studies in such countries have either a record of botching medical studies or are otherwise unreliable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"casts some doubt" ≠ "automatically doubted on that basis alone" in the dismissive sense in which you mean it. However, as with any study from everywhere in the world you need to look beyond the stats and look at the following: who paid for the study? who conducted it (this speaks to both bona fides and potential COI issues?)? what were its aims? how was the hypothesis used in the testing constructed and described? Often, these questions need to be asked before one can lend any credence to the data. For example, in America under Bush, allegedly "scientific" studies are undertaken to prove a previously determined conclusion, and only a fool would dismiss such concerns.

No one has said that they wished to "prevent such studies from being used"; the point however was to ask the questions I have just delineated for you, before spewing forth nonsense regarding purported "government regulation". Jim62sch 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue semantics with you, However your initial comment was "This casts some doubt on the legitimacy of the studies". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And so it does. Thus, one applies the questions I described and if the answers are all kosher, one can proceed to look at the actual data. That's the way good science works: you verify the source, then you verify the data. Get it? Jim62sch 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

SM565 - why The neutrality of the introduction and "clinical trials" are disputed.

Even if I respect all the labor and kind intentions of the editors I feel that I should summarize my objections here.

1. “Researchers conclude that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect. [6]"

Here are studies supporting Homeopathy which qualify to be cited. having been accepted to be published in serious websites, (some) having been cited in many articles, and written by scienticts and MDs they qualify, I think.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1825800 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14734789&dopt=medline

“Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies. Series Editors: David M. Eisenberg, MD, and Ted J. Kaptchuk, OMD” from here: [6]

2."The meta-analyses that have been done on homeopathy have confirmed that its effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo and those studies that have shown positive results for homeopathic treatments were flawed in design" are highly inaccurate and supported only by this.: Dean ME. The homeopathic mustard gas trials of 1941–42 (this is the last paragraph) 'Forty years later, it was pointed out that the original analysis may have underestimated the efficacy of homeopathic Kali-bich in the first London series, because the placebo group in that experiment was untypical (Owen and Ives 1982). A single larger placebo group would have been a more efficient control increasing the number of participants available to be assigned to each of the test medicines. The pooling of results from separate medicines is also suspect. In spite of these weaknesses, the London mustard gas trials contained many of the methodological safeguards and requirements that would eventually be expected in clinical trials. These include concealed randomization to treatment or control, blinded dual evaluation of outcomes, and independent statistical testing.'

3) The WHO draft supporting Homeopathy even if it is unpublished its content and the reaction which has caused are known , verifiable and recorded in the Lancet, and the BBC; the same sources that the editor used to criticize homeopathy. ( BBC about malaria and the Lancet for more studies ). Therefore the editor has the moral obligation to accept their validity and report what they are actually saying about the existing controversy on Homeopathy. Ithink it is a fair request.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm and the Lancet. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673605671590

4) This following reference is also seriously challenged. “In 2005 The Lancet medical journal published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The study concluded that its findings were compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects.”

The report published in the Lancet on homeopathy on 26 August has been questioned by the Faculty of Homeopathy - the professional body that brings together GPs and hospital doctors who also practise homeopathy. Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, London said: "Having read this report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230

5) One basic objection from Homeopaths in not stated: it can be found in every major homeopathy website and it can be summarized: “that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool for all cases in homeopathy since many times the same disease is treated with different medicine. --Sm565 04:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on SM565 - why The neutrality of this introduction is disputed.

Regarding the first point - of the four papers you mentioned, two are experimental studies. We aren't in a position to assess them, per WP:NOR. The Kleijnen et al. paper is a meta-analysis which has been cited 247 times according to ISI - so it shouldn't be hard to find good secondary sources which discuss it. The Jonas et al. has been cited 29 times - again, it should be possible to find people who have discussed the results in context. Those are usable, these aren't, because they require us to interpret findings. Guettarda 04:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The second point, about the Dean paper - citation, please. Guettarda 04:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The third point, about an unpublished WHO study, you say "Therefore the editor has the moral obligation to accept their validity and report what they are actually saying about the existing controversy on Homeopathy" - I'm not sure what you are asking - that we accept the validity of the BBC story and the Lancet article? I don't see why not. Obviously a controversial unpublished WHO report isn't something we can use as a source for this article. Guettarda 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the fourth point, it seems appropriate to include a comment in the footnote that the results were questioned by Fisher. Guettarda 04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the fifth point - if the homeopaths are like the intelligent design folks, and they want the definition of science re-written, then yes, a well-referenced statement to that effect should really be in the article. Guettarda 04:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The WHO draft supported homeopathy and the Lancet attacked it with the BBC reporting as you can see. This is an evidence of a major controversy in the scientific community which the rational and objective editor must sensibly record in the introduction.

Every study is experimental including the ones which are listed in the article. Our job is not to ...interpret the studies but to see if they are reliable and if they have accepted for publication from a serious website. I don't think you could ......interpret the ones which are currently listed. --Sm565 05:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm565: The WHO draft supported homeopathy and the Lancet attacked it. The WHO draft wasn't published. Since the Lancet article and BBC story are over two years old, I'm guessing that WHO has decided not to publish the draft. We can report it exists, but we can't consider it authoritative in any way.

Sm565: This is an evidence of a major controversy ... which the rational and objective editor must sensibly record in the introduction. No, it isn't "evidence" that we can "report on". See WP:NOR. We can't look at this and call it anything. We can report if other people have described it that way, but we can't call it that, or look at a sequence of events and say they mean one thing or another.

Sm565: Every study is experimental including the ones which are listed in the article - no, one of those papers is a review paper, and another is a meta-analysis (you can see the methods in the links). Those are far more valuable papers than ones that report on a single study. Single studies are almost meaningless at the level of an article like this one.

Sm565: Our job is not to ...interpret the studies but to see if they are reliable and if they have accepted for publication from a serious website. No, that isn't the case at all. Experimental studies are primary sources - while we can report on their findings we can't say "X is the case", but only "X was reported by Y". If we want to report on the findings of studies about the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments, we can't take all the published literature and make our own conclusions. To begin with, most of us are not qualified to assess the studies, see their strengths and limitations, interpret them in light of the body of work that makes up the field, etc. And even if we were, that would be original research. Guettarda 13:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the POV comments. There is a big divide between allopathic medicine and homeopathic. It is NOT bridged by those with closed minds, and the double-blind placebo controlled trials are not suitable for assessing homeopathy (in fact, they are not suitable for allopathic medicine either, as it is common to find a series of trials which show a mix of "effective", "ineffective" and "not clear" results for the same substance in varying trials. There is ample proof to show that observer bias influences outcome - indeed this is to be expected if you hold to the subtle energy theory of wellness. This is frightening to so-called scientific approaches, because it shakes the very foundations of allopathic medicine. And well it should. (I speak as a medical doctor with classical training in western medicine) Clearly then, applying these test methods will not give any clear proof. Equally clearly, homeopathic approaches will not suit western medical ideas. Unbridgeable gap at the moment. However, there is ample evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, and this should be reported as part of the homeopathic article. Allopathic concerns should be addressed, but they belong in a subsection of the article, not in the main body. docboat 04:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Docboat wrote:There is a big divide between allopathic medicine and homeopathic. It is NOT bridged by those with closed minds, and the double-blind placebo controlled trials are not suitable for assessing homeopathy - if the homeopaths want to re-define the scientific method, they need to suggest modifications of the scientific method which allows for such a thing to be assessed.

Docboat wrote:they are not suitable for allopathic medicine either, as it is common to find a series of trials which show a mix of "effective", "ineffective" and "not clear" results for the same substance in varying trials - which is what you would expect unless you have identical test subjects in identical conditions, and even then we would have random chance.

Docboat wrote:There is ample proof to show that observer bias influences outcome - indeed this is to be expected if you hold to the subtle energy theory of wellness. This is frightening to so-called scientific approaches, because it shakes the very foundations of allopathic medicine. And well it should - which is why you have things like double blind controlled trials. Why should that be disturbing to anyone? The problem of observer bias is one of the factors that underlies the scientific method.

Docboat wrote:homeopathic approaches will not suit western medical ideas - are there competing western and non-western philosophies of science? Please do tell.

Docboat wrote:Clearly then, applying these test methods will not give any clear proof. How do you get to that conclusion? If observer bias is a problem, then you need to minimise it, not maximise it.

Docboat wrote:there is ample evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy and this should be reported as part of the homeopathic article'' - evidence that is independent of observer bias? Can you provide a link to these studies? I'm also terribly curious about the non-western philosophy of science to which you seem to be alluding. Links?

Docboat wrote:Allopathic concerns should be addressed, but they belong in a subsection of the article, not in the main body. No, that isn't the way Wikipedia works. But if you can supply links to these "non-western" studies which are independent of observer bias and published in reputable sources, I'm sure they can be incorporated into the article. Guettarda 13:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Every time someone like docboat comes to this type of discussion and makes a broad statement that XYZ (whether it is quack medicine, Creationism, or the existence of Aliens at area 51) cannot be tested in a scientific manner (for any number of reasons), I am reminded of the essential precepts of what makes pseudoscience in each of these areas. Essentially, those that make these pseudoscientific claims do so because the results of scientific testing refute the possibility that there is any theoretical support for each of these areas, whether homeopathy or the existence of Noah's Ark. If there is a faith that homeopathy works, well that's not medicine or science. There is only medicine--there is now Western or Eastern versions, it's either tested scientifically and accepted (happens all the time), it's tested and fails (most of the time), or no one has tested it at all (which means it's not medicine). There is no evidence whatsoever that has stood up to rigorous analysis of any evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy.

oh dear, poor thing you. Someone like docboat - is like what? Are you used to proposing vague statements and general slurs as a method of discussion? Because if so - as suggested by your recent diatribe, there can be little exchange of factual information and views, more an argument, and that is a shame.

Tested in a scientific manner? Homeopathy most certainly has been scientifically tested and found to be effective. You have your references already. But the issue I pointed out - had you cared to ponder awhile - indicated the unbridgeable gap between allopaths and homeopaths, and you are manifesting that truth in great fullness.

Faith that homeopathy works - well, the placebo effect is 30%, which is more than some medications I can think of, such as SSRI's - if they could bottle that success, they would make a fortune. And homeopathy does better than placebo

Tested - did you know that only 30% of what doctors do is based on evidence? I should know, as I am a practising doctor. So 70% is not evidence based. Such as prescribing antibiotics to children with middle ear infection. Of all children tested, only 5% need AB, but in general 100% receive them.

But hey! If you choose to stay your particular course, that is fine. We need an article about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy. I think you just proved that point. docboat 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Homeopathy most certainly has been scientifically tested and found to be effective." Has it really? I've yet to see a test that proved its efficacy, I've seen some that suggest that maybe, even given that the testing was incomplete due to proper baselines, there might be some evidence it might just may have some effect. 30% efficacy for placebo? Really? I've never seen a placebe effect that high for any drug (y'know, real drug). As for your claim that antibiotics are only needed in 5% of otitis media cases, I'd love to see the proof for that. Is you argument that viruses cause 95% of otitis media cases, or that docs are misdiagnosing swimmer's ear as otitis media (odd given that most cases occur in the winter)? Or, are you saying that otitis media is self-limiting? If so,then...no, you answer first...I so love this. Jim62sch 16:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Holland in the 1980's or early 1990's - well known investigation, no reference to hand, but it is a standard quote in allopathic circles. I am surprised you do not remember the article. Otitis media was examined, all children given NSAID and returned after 2 days. 5% required follow up with ABs athe rest were improving. That was an evidence-based study and set the tone for re-discovering how little of our current medicine is actually evidence based. But I am a doctor, you may not have the knowledge and so you may wish to get the basic information? I am guessing here, but usually a doctor would have heard of that study. So back to you - that was the evidence, and your POV is what? docboat 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently docboat failed to read the identifying features of pseudoscience. :) I think his comments violate all the points, including taking it personally. I don't. I'm not anti-Homeopathy, I am pro-scientific reasoning. I don't believe in anything, I like to test theories, continue to test theories, then finally accept the theory, until it needs to be tested once again. Homeopathy = Creationism. Believe in something, ignore the science. Oh well, I don't care actually. If we can balance this article enough, maybe the person who gets this stuff off of google hits will realize, "hey maybe I should see a real doctor." Oh, BTW, I love this shit too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Balance is alwys good. Open mind is always good. We need both of those attributes here. Mind you, I only just discovered this topic, and so I have missed a whole load of opinion. Pro-scientific reasoning - good. So can you tell me why you reject observed results? The ones which show an effect for homeopathy? You don't "beleive" in anything - well, I hope you believe in your scientific principles - right? Those same principles which prevented the colleagues of Semmelweiss (qv) from accepting his observations? But hey - whatever floats your boat. docboat 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.^[1]
Failure to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).^[2]
Lack of suitable controls. This is particularly common of some alternative medicines, particularly homeopathy where a demonstration of an effect above and beyond that of a placebo is often absent [7].
Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor)^[3]
Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.^[4]

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

Assertion of scientific claims that cannot be falsified in the event they are incorrect, inaccurate, or irrelevant (see also: falsifiability)^[5]
Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict^[6]
Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance)^[7]
Over-reliance on testimonials and anecdotes. Testimonial and anecdotal evidence can be useful for discovery (i.e. hypothesis generation) but should not be used in the context of justification (i.e. hypothesis testing).^[8]
Selective use of experimental evidence: presentation of data that seems to support its own claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.^[9]
Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g. an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than the claimant.^[10]
Appeals to holism: Proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the “mantra of holism” to explain negative findings.^[11]

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference").^[12] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forego the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.^[13]
The science community expects authors to share data necessary to evaluate a paper. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claimed results is a lack of openness.^[14]
Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.^[15]

Lack of progress

Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.^[16] Terrence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia.^[17]
Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.^[18] By contrast, theories may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence.^[19]

Personalization of issues

Tight social groups and granfalloons. Authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent, and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.^[20]
Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.^[21]
Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims (see Ad hominem fallacy).^[20]

Use of misleading language

Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless.
Use of uncommon terms for common substances can also be misleading. For example referring to water as dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) and proclaiming that it is the main constituent of most toxic compounds.

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

POV established

This article has plainly been written with a heavy anti-homeopathy POV bias. It is a good article, but it is not about homeopathy, rather the approach of allopaths to detract from homeopathy. This is fine, but it needs to be noted in the header, and another article about homeopathy should be written. For example, a homeopath never dilutes the remedy, s/he potentiates it. docboat 05:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a fringe theory. It would be undue weight NOT to describe the massive criticism against it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is also pseudoscience, because it relies upon an unscientific, untestable, and unprovable claims. It should be criticized because the use of pseudoscientific methods to treat dangerous conditions often lead to the death or harm to a patient, violating one of the ethical precepts of medical practice--Do No Harm. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My what a lot of prickly and uninformed closed mindedness here - plainly this article is - as I suggested - better to be renamed "anti-homeopathy", for it most certainly is written from a biased POV stance. But first your point "Do no harm" and one fact. The #3 cause of death in the USA is "properly prescribed medication which has been properly dispensed" public domain information (although people do quibble as to whether doctors are #3 or #4 cause of death. 120,000 annual deaths. First, do no harm. I quite agree. docboat 15:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I so love when statistics are presented without sourcing and in an elective and highly subjective manner. It reminds me of sports fans who select tiny segments of data to show just how well or how poorly a team is performing, being utterly oblivious to the full facts, the full data, the full statistics. Does homeopathy and the diluted piss-water given to its believers cause death in and of themselves? Probably not. Do these practices and "medicines" prevent people from seeking proper medical care until the disease is no longer remittable, curable, i.e., until it's too late. Damned right they do. How many of these deaths that you allege are cause by real meds are due to the fact that the disease has been left to fester beyond the point of recovery? Have any stats on that? Jim62sch 17:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you cannot get away with that trite comment. First off - who is responsible for their health - the patient or the doctor? Yes, the patient. Damn right they are. So are you saying people make poor health choices? Damn right. Smoking, lack of exercise, poor nutritional choices - these are the causes of the vast majority of disease. 4/9 of the annual UK health budget is due to the effects of stress, obesity, smoking and hypertension (1990's info, so that is out of date, but you can look that up for yourself too) Mainly lifestyle issues. As for unsourced statistics - did I not just tell you it is in the public domain? This you can check for yourself. Now I do not particularly care what you are reminded of, personally I am reminded of candyfloss , and that is completely irrelevant. What are the facts? 120,000 dead in the US annually. So back to the point I made, and which you have ignored qute successfully - the page should be renamed to "anti-homeopathy" and we need another page on the topic of "homeopathy". docboat 23:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> BrianWalker/docboat, you do not seem to understand WP:UNDUE. Homeopathy is pseudoscience and/or quackery, no matter how you slice it. If you want to have some vanity page or blog that describes it in another way, feel free. However, this is an encyclopedia and we have to follow rules. And this page is way way way too favorable to homeopathy as it is, and if we can manage to get it back to where it should be, it will be far more negative towards homeopathy. So you might feel more comfortable somewhere else. Because we are not going to be shills for some sort of nonsense theory subscribed to by some kooks and assorted fruitcakes. Sorry.--Filll 01:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Let us be clear on this topic: homeopathy is based on a different model to the classical 3-D biochemical models we have of health. It is based on the theory of subtle energies. It is different. If you wish to subject a 3-D biochemical model onto homeopathy, you are going to get funny results. Let me ask you this then - how does a placebo work? How can something such as "the mind" influence death rates? Why can someone turn their face to the wall and die, while another one decides to live, and does? I have observed both those behaviours personally, in clinical medicine. I am sure you have too, if you are in any way medically active, and not just a theoriser. There is a different layer to health than the current classical medical approach. Homeopathy, and a whole slew of other methods which are based on subtle energies, works on this aspect of wellness. Now - as for "rules" - an encylopaedia is a collection of facts and opinions which reflect the state of current society. This article is heavily biased against homeopathy, and the title of the article should reflect this. There is nothing wrong with that - you are entitled to put that POV across. BUT - the article does the topic of "homeopathy" an injustice. Those seeking information about homeopathy need to find information about homeopathy, and not merely reflect the opinions of those who find homeopathy unacceptable. docboat 05:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackery not Pseudoscience. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice POV statement WDM. Quackery is actually a pejorative and subjective term. Pseudoscience is nearly an exact description of homeopathy. Time to move beyond your POV-warrior statements.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling other editors "POV warriors" isn't helpful. Please stop. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, OM, you mustn't conflate truth with insensitivity toward the feelings of others. Jim62sch 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is either is not relevant anyway because either one is an interpretation and you should not be leading the reader to conclusions, just giving them the info...for them to decide, thanks Peter morrell 13:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, as long as the reasons why people might call it pseudoscience or quackery are presented, I don't see actual need for the labels. They may be useful for summarising criticism in short form, but people can get overly hung-up on them: For instance, the supply of information abruptly dries in the lead of Intelligent design so that we can have two sentences that say people call it pseudoscience and junk science. With named organisations that call it that.

Let's try to avoid that bit o' pedanticism here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Some homeopathic remedies are medicinal at some potencies. For instance, I have personally used a product called Sinus Buster which does cause the sinuses to be cleared. It uses capsicum as the active ingredient. This is a homeopathic remedy. It may not be what homeopaths use, but as a principle of same (sinus irritant) causing remedy of problem (sinus congestion) at least on a temporary basis, it is demonstrable. Whig 05:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:UNDUE. – ornis ⚙ 06:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ornis, but I am not conducting original research, nor positing unverifiable data for the article. In the discussion, I may state my own personal knowledge. I have done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs) 06:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I protest Adam Cuerden's removal of my effort to add a single scientific study to the article as "POV-pushing."

I agree with the OP that this article is heavily anti-homeopathy POV. Here is the removal of my text as referenced above. Whig 06:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called cherry picking. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you changed the wording to "collected weight" instead of the gratuitous "many" studies previously claimed to not support homeopathy. If the article is to be balanced it must include scientifically valid studies that do support it along with any objections or further non-confirming studies. Whig 06:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

50,000 articles say the sky is blue. One article published in the Journal of Polka-Dot Sky says the sky is green polka dots on an pink background. 50,000 articles is notable and verified. One article is just not. The fact is that every single study of homeopathy that showed favorable results has been debunked either because the results were not repeatable, the design of experiments was biased, or the results were published in journals that do not utilize a rigorous peer-review system.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I cite to the Journal of Polka-Dot Sky? No. You are excluding evidence without considering it because it goes against what you believe. Debunk the specific study, or do not, but bringing in fictitious journals is not helpful. Whig 18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for personal testimonials. Nothing has been ever found in many many many careful studies to support homeopathy. Nothing that we know of from other branches of science gives us any reason to believe it would work. No medical studies have shown that it works. It is pure hokum. And the article should reflect that. Period. If you don't like it, then there are many other sites to go to.--Filll 12:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so Filll there is much evidence to the efficacy. Period. Medical studies have shown that it works. Period. The article should reflect that. Period. Sorry about the allopathic dose of periods, but it seemed the appropriate remedy. docboat 12:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On removing the POV sign.

I think that some members dont believe that the dialogue on Homeopathy should be public.

Perhaps thats why they keep removing the under dispute sign from the article. Dont you think that the individual reader should be invited to this dispute.

Is this a rational responce ? It seems very religious and dogmatic..... --Sm565 07:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think a POV sign is needed at THE START of the whole article; it just seems crazy? It is not specific enough; place it specifically where you think the problem lies and NOT at the start of the lead...surely this is clear enough? thank you Peter morrell 07:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the section which is under dispute.Not the whole article. Tell me where you want me to put it ? --Sm565 07:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Do you think this is the reason they remove it?--Sm565 07:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I think it should go specifically at the point of dispute not as a broad banner across the top which IMPLIES that the whole article or the whole lead is under dispute, which it plainly isn't. Can't you just use a 'bracket-fact-bracket' tag instead at the specific point you have a probem with? what specific point is in dispute? thanks Peter morrell 07:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could say this section is under review? I'm not 'au fait' with all the wiki signs and tags so you will have to choose.Peter morrell 07:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful to claim something's POV without giving reasons. As it stands, every criticism section is being tagged as POV - which is effectively POV pushing for the homeopathic side, though probably not intentional. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave reasons above please take a look.

The version 2 days ago did all of that. It mentioned that no clinical studies have proven the efficacy of Homeopathy and that some studies have shown results above placebo. However that has all been deleted by Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin since then. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

After this I havethe right to question the section s NPOV.--Sm565 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should ask from an administrator to intervene. I m surpised that you dont comment on what Jim62sch removed. It was a Wikidudeman edit. take a look above. --Sm565 08:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Until then I think POV should be there. --Sm565 08:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I m not deleting anything like Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin - this is important - Idid not see any one objecting to this (by the way).

The current dialogue should be public and not hidden. I think it is more healthy and everybody agrees besides the members who keep removing the sign.--Sm565 08:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any concrete examples of what it is specifically you dispute in the article. – ornis ⚙ 08:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you did not see it. Look above. SM565 - why The neutrality of the introduction and "clinical trials" are disputed.Itis awhole chapter. --Sm565 08:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I rarely agree with Peter Morrell, but you're getting out of hand. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

New drugs

Ahem, Aconite had been in use for centuries before homeopathy! and apart from that you should say SOME modern drugs. Not too sure about nitroglycerine it is a homeopathic remedy forsure but was it around before? Peter morrell 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Added "Some". In order to determine exactly the details of homeopaties contribution to Aconite, I'd need the full text of the source. this one. If anyone has it, Please E-mail it to me. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

As I had anticipated

The reluctance to leave the text in the sandbox longer and invite more input has lead to the current situation. It is already dangerously POV and tons of POV warriors are arriving to push it further yet to proclaim homeopathy as some wonderful medical and scientific advance supported by testing. This is just pure nonsense. What a mess.--Filll 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How is the article itself POV? Please give examples. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, the article waits until nearly the end of the introduction (after two lengthy paragraphs) to state that the claims of effectiveness of homeopathic remedies are unsupported by scientific studies. I have no idea how many readers come through WP to read this article, who may be in dire need of healing the particular things that ail them. But the statement that the remedies are unsupported by evidence (referring to the hundreds double-blind and other properly controlled studies that have been done) should come right after the first paragraph, not after the lead summary of the history. (See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.) In other words, even right in the lead, the second and third paragraphs should be reversed. Also, given the overwhelming weight of independent experimental evidence, the statement "Claims for the medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies." should probably be in bold typeface. The latter is something I'll proceed to do now. Perhaps a statement to this effect should even be in a disclaimer at the top of the article, prior to the lead text. ... Kenosis 18:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Boldface for emphasis is generally frowned upon. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Boldface WP:Manual of Style - Text Formatting. I changed the text to be in italics instead. No comment on whether or not I agree that this text should be emphasized though. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Any user who reads the article can clearly see "Medical and scientific analysis" in the table of contents. You can't just add a "disclaimer" anywhere in the article as that's against WP:MOS. No articles do that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Meaning that it doesn't support your aims to point out clearly that Homeopathy is pseudoscience. Quite the shame, really. Not too sure which part of WP:Undue Weight you don't grasp, but you'd better give it that old college try or this article will just descend further into a morrass of effluvial piffle. Jim62sch 19:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of WP:Undue Weight says that Homeopathy must be said to be a pseudoscience? I've read WP:Undue Weight and it says no such thing. What it does says is that you shouldn't give undue weight to a fringe topic. This article does no such thing. No part of this article even argues that Homeopathy works. Not a single sentence. Saying that "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience" would actually be in violation of WP:Undue Weight. However saying that "So and so says it's a pseudoscience" wouldn't. If you're going to reference policy, you should clarify exactly what part of that reference backs what you're saying up. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing says that it must be. However, as the scientific consensus is that homeopathy is pseudoscience, then the rules for undue weight come into play. None of this is difficult, and I'm beging to feel like I'm discussing this with someone far less than half my age. Jim62sch 20:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is prima facie evidence that you "own" the article. Why can't you walk away. First, you blame me and Jim for being mean to you. Then, Filll. What now? Kenosis and Guettarda? How about the rest of the project? Good to see support from the usual POV-warriors for your POV writing. Frustrating. You really need to walk away. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't own the article. I'm just trying to improve it and I will continue to do so. I've proven numerous times that none of my behavior exhibited corresponds to thinking I own the article and I've asked you numerous times to give clear examples of how something I do corresponds to the contention that I "Own" the article and you've failed to do so. Stop accusing me of "Owning" the article and Stop accusing me of being a "POV warrior". Both are unhelpful. I'm tired of asking you politely to be civil towards me and other editors. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And we're getting tired of trying to explain the bleeding obvious to someone who refuses to listen, and merely parrots his own responses ad nauseum. And here we are. Jim62sch 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess WDM doesn't understand the word prima facie. You accuse me of accusing you of owning the article. The evidence is in this thread. You don't ever try to get a consensus, you just tell everyone they are wrong. That is the evidence, on the face of it, which makes me believe you would rather own the article than try to build consensus (and the exact reason why so many people opposed your RfA). You haven't learned why you were opposed. This article needs work, but accusing me of whatever, accusing others of being in league with me, or making accusations whatsoever is not a good trait. Many people have problems with the NPOV of this article. How about building it. But, accusations work too. BTW, never once called you a POV-warrior, because you aren't. You're just accepting their help, because you don't want any changes to the article. Sad, actually. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm being exceedingly polite. You should hear what I'm saying about you to my computer screen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me 1 example of where I did not try to build consensus but rather told "everyone they were wrong". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How about you read your various dismissals of every point raised to you by anyone other than Morrell? You so desperately want your various piss-ass sources to be valid that you absolutely refuse to listen to any criticism regarding their lack of validity. Jim62sch 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? If I think a source is valid and reliable then I will defend such beliefs to other editors. Nowhere in WP:OWN does it say that editors can't defend their beliefs...Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You know what, you're getting tendentious. Are you intentionally ignoring what I wrote above? I said this thread is prima facie evidence of your ownership--not building NPOV is just a consequence. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem prima facie to me. I'm making a very simple request. If my behavior exhibited gives the impression that I "Own" the article then give 1 example of such behavior. You claim that I don't try to build consensus but rather "tell everyone they are wrong"? Well my simple request is that you give 1 single example of such behavior as it relates directly to this article (since we're talking about consensus building here). Can you give one single example? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Rawk! Jim62sch 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, it does look to me as if there are some WP:OWN problems here. I have said the LEAD is too long maybe 20 times. Several others have said the same thing. And I and others were just told, over and over and over and over, to jump in the lake. This to me is a sign of a problem. However, there are many many many other problems here.

I also think the claim that homeopathy is not pseudoscience or pseudomedicine or whatever is the most amazingly outrageous statement I have seen in a while. What the heck??? On what basis can anyone make such a claim?--Filll 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fill, No one told you to "Jump into a lake". In response to your criticism that this lead is too long, I cited WP:LEAD. For an article of this size, a lead section of at least 3 paragraphs is needed to properly summarize it. Any smaller and it would leave out relevant material in the summary and would not be suitable. Discussions work on the basis that both individuals in the discussion respond to each other. Saying that the lead is too large and not responding to my rebuttal doesn't get us anywhere. You say the lead is too large. I respond in disagreement. You never respond back. You say the lead is too large again a few weeks later, I respond with the same disagreement. You never respond back. What am I left to do? I disagree with you and believe the lead is a good size. I've offered my reasons and you have never responded to them. I never told you to "Jump into a lake". I was NEVER dismissive of your criticism either. I simply said that I disagree and offered my reasons. You never responded back, not once. The Evolution lead is about the same size as this one. Is that one too large also?

As far as "Homeopathy" being a pseudoscience, Maybe it is by definition. Maybe it isn't. Both the idea that it is and isn't can be represented in the article coinciding with WP:Weight Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It is so clearly pseudoscience that it hits nearly all of the points that define the issue. Yes, you do say jump in the lake, by intentionally or unintentionally ignoring comments. But remember, you have accused me, Jim, Filll, CO, and others of getting on your case. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If I ignored comments then why do I reply to them? I can't both reply to comments and ignore them at the same time. Everytime Filll has brought up anything I have responded to it if I disagreed with it. See this for the example just recently. I disagree with his claim that the lead is too long. I do not ignore it, I respond to it directly and explain why I disagree with it. That's how wikipedia works. Please correct your assertion that I "ignore comments". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to ownership. And since when is it your responsibility to fix the lead? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I started editing wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikidudeman responded. To me and others. And basically told us we had no grounds to complain. And I disagreed, and others disagreed, but what are we supposed to do? Get into a big uncivil fight? I had already put many many hours into the article, and a good fraction of my efforts were flushed down the toilet when Wikidudeman showed up and "took over" the article. I did not want to bang my head on the wall, over and over, pointlessly or get into another fight. The article is improved in some ways for sure, but in other ways, it gives me pause. I have not looked at the evolution LEAD for a while, but if it has ballooned to the same size as this one with as much detail, it is too long and needs to be trimmed. I am not the only one who said this. Several others said it, with the same results. And to dispute the pseudoscience nature of this article is one of the most hilarioius ridiculous statements I have ever seen. That alone tells me that Wikidudeman might have to recuse himself from editing this article.--Filll 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Filll, You're essentially putting words into my mouth. First you claim I told you to "Jump into a lake" when I said no such thing or anything even remotely like that and then you claim that I told you that you had "no grounds to complain"? That's totally false as well. If you want to discuss the lead then we can do that, however if you want to try to claim I said things that I didn't then that is another issue. Concerning the lead, Allow me to cite directly from WP:LEAD:

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs. The following suggestion may be useful:

< 15,000 characters	around 32 kilobytes	> 30,000 characters
one or two paragraphs	two or three paragraphs	three or four paragraphs

This article is 78.2 KB long and has about 48,000 characters. Thus, Per WP:LEAD the lead needs to be about 3-4 paragraphs long to accurately summarize the article. I am disagreeing with you. I'm not dismissing you. I want you to reply and tell me why my reasoning for keeping the length of the lead is wrong and why it needs to be shortened. That's how discussions work. If you can't handle someone disagreeing with you and take all disagreements personal then I can't help that. However if you propose something that I disagree with then I will explain that I disagree. You say that the alternative to sitting back and doing nothing is getting into a "big uncivil fight". Let me say that this is totally untrue. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If I was to try to change it, obviously this would be World War III, given your attitude I am afraid. At least that is my opinion. Sorry if you do not see it that way. I do not want to fight. It would take me mounting a massive offensive with maybe 20 or 30 friends and take weeks of time to change anything. If we are going to put that kind of effort in, we might as well do something more substantial than just change the LEAD. --Filll 00:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, Firstly, I don't edit war. If you make an edit that I disagree with I firstly revert and alter the reversion in an attempt to create common ground. If that is reverted then I bring it to the talk page for discussion. If you fail to discuss it then I revert it again in a few days. I don't edit war. I've made numerous offers for you to explain your reasoning behind wanting the lead smaller and you've never done so. Secondly, You accuse me of WP:Own yet state that you could or would attempt to force consensus? Not only would that be a violation of WP:OWN, It would also be WP:CANVAS. Trying to get a large number of editors not previously part of the article to force a consensus in an attempt to have the article a way you want it would be Canvassing and would be a violation of the guideline. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You do not think there are 20 or 30 pro-science people that have edited this article and have an interest in it? Hmm...And I didn't say I was going to do that, only that that might be the only way to establish a consensus that was pro-science here and also might tighten up some more of the article, including the LEAD. However, it is just exhausting to go through these endless fights. I could go and prepare alternate leads in a sandbox and count the number of characters in your LEAD here and the extraneous material included in the LEAD that might be trimmed and compare it to a baseline of FA articles and their LEADs. However, I get tired of this. And this article is on a piece of quackery/pseudoscience.--Filll 02:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Filll, Firstly, and again, Sending some sort of message out to people in an attempt to force consensus would be WP:CANVAS. Period.

Secondly, This lead is good. This lead got this article to GA status. This article has never been to GA status. Perhaps you're wrong about the lead and making it smaller would only hurt the article. Is that a possibility?

Thirdly, Truly improving Wikipedia is exhausting. It's not easy. If you want the easy way out and want me to simply agree to everything you say and never put up any arguments then that isn't going to happen. Sorry. You seem to interpret constructive discussion as "fighting".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I would be careful about lecturing about canvassing if I were you. And I know what it would take to move things in a more balanced direction.--Filll 06:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Filll, Firstly, I don't Canvass. Canvassing is sending messages in an attempt to shift consensus into your favor. When I send mass messages I send them to ALL major contributors of an article to alert them of a pending rewrite. Regardless of their views. That's not canvassing. There's a big difference.

Secondly, What would it take to get this article more balanced? I'm all for improving the article. However not via means of breaking policy or guidelines. I want to improve the article the right way. That means usually the hard way. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully expect to see "20 or 30 pro-science people" suddenly show up and start tag-team edit warring and high-five 3RR'ing, as usual. I'm simply blown away by the hypocrisy and bad faith I see exhibited here. WPD has made his point, and glaringly so. To the point of embarrassment for others, if they could only see it as observers do. This is a good article, well-balanced, with excellent NPOV information. WPD has done all he can to help bring it to that point, without "owning" it at any point in the process. There truly should be some red faces on the other side of those screens, but I doubt it's happening. It sure would be nice if, instead of throwing accusations and tantrums, editors would just resolve to work together to make a good article even better, and not just threatening to bring even more POV-warriors like themselves here to "take care of business." --profg 04:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but think I would be careful about making such accusations if I were you.--Filll 06:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

He's just bitter: those pro-science, anti-religion, commie-atheist-bleeding-heart-liberal-fascist types didn't vote properly.

As for the rest, that screed would be utterly devoid of value were it not for the fact that it clearly betrayed the alleged professor's very real and troubling anti-knowledge POV. Certainly were I to raise my children in such an environment I should be very red-faced indeed, but I'm sure that growling face on the other side of the screen isn't the least bit tinted.Jim62sch 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Relevant policy discussion here only please

At WP:MOS, it says that italics should be used sparingly for emphasis. I don't see any compelling reason why this sentence should be emphasized any more than any other sentence. If there is a compelling reason why, please provide here as I don't think Kenosis' argument above is compelling enough. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason either. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we'll await his answer, then. Jim62sch 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

RfC alert

I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:

Link to RfC at alternative medicine.

-- Fyslee / talk 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Help tag article

I am in the process of adding numerous new sources to the article and I thought I would ask everyone here to go through the article and add a "citation needed" tag to anything that they believe needs a citation so that I can add one. Please don't delete any information, simply add a tag and I will follow behind and add a reference for everything that has been tagged as needing a citation. Thank you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, I started tagging statements that are not clearly supported by references. In addition, I found a problem with the reference given in one case:

The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and first appeared in print in 1807,[28] although he began outlining his theories of 'medical similars' in a series of articles and monographs in 1796.[29]

Notes 28 and 29 do not support the statements in the sentence, they merely provide links to the publications mentioned. They do not support the statement that the term homeopathy first appeared in the 1807 publication or that Hahnemann began outlining his ideas earlier. Guettarda 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to fix that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW - some of the things I tagged may be supported by a single paragraph-wide ref at the end of the para, but there's no way to tell without reading the ref. They may just look uncited. Guettarda 14:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the case in some instances. I'm going through and making it easier to recognize. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Article has been listed at - Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment#Homeopathy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am proposing that this article be delisted according the following criteria:

It is well written. In this respect:
(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and
I will agree that it mostly is.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.^[22]
Lead does not meet this standard.
It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;^[23]
No. References are all over the place.

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;^[23] and
Improper sources are utilized, including unverified and unpublished sources, and sources that are used to quote other sources.

(c) contains no original research.
Mostly original research. Should be rewritten.
It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;^[24] and
Fine.

(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
Fine
It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Violates WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR. Vast majority of research articles published in peer-reviewed journals criticize Homeopathy. However, less than 1/3 of the words in the lead are written as criticism. The critical analysis of the field is placed at the end of the article. Undue weight is given to support of the field. Not enough information written about harming patients. Too much information written about regulation of Homeopathy, which infers acceptability. Pseudoscience tag has been removed.
It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.^[25]
Constant reverting of NPOV material by owners of the article. Edit history shows the lack of stability and lack of consensus.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.^[26] In this respect:
(a) the images are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; and

(b) non-free images meet the criteria for fair use images and are labeled accordingly.
Fine.

OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're just posting this to help improve the article then you're going to need to offer a LOT more details on what problems you see with NPOV, OR, etc. If you are actually trying to get the GA status reviewed then you need to bring it here: WP:GA/R so that other editors not involved can comment on how to improve it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any editor can revoke the GA status. I intend to do so unless my points are addressed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Explain in detail and give examples of how...

The lead does not meet[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|manual of style]] guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Please offer detailed examples corresponding to the aforementioned guidelines.
Explain what parts of the article contain no original research and be very specific including exact sentences and or sections.
Explain in detail including giving examples of how it Violates WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR.

Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Because you WP:OWN the article, you refuse to participate in any discussion. You do not gain consensus except with two (count them TWO) editors, one of whom is so pro Alternative stuff, you couldn't gain a consensus from as much as you could from me, and the second of whom is just out to pick a fight with anyone who disagrees with his Creationist babbling, and he knows the pro-science people edit these Alternative articles too. Your manner is of a "fuck off, I know better" attitude. I don't feel as though you spend a nanosecond engaging me or other editors in our issues with this article--you utilize a highly passive-aggressive style of argumentation. We criticize something and you take it personally, rather than building consensus. But you act as if you're trying, when all you do is defend yourself. If I were the only one with a tendentious attitude toward this article, your attitude might be acceptable. But the number of editors that have been frustrated with you and just give up is getting large. You refuse to answer any of our complaints and just attack us with a "I'm better than you and smarter than you" response. So, you do not rate my reply. I will let the GA and FA people help out. I'm delisting the article in a couple of days unless you address my complaints. The article is POV. Let me use the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" analogy. This is a duck. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for examples of where I exhibit ownership of the article and you've failed to ever provide any. Let's try to keep on the topic of the content of the article then. You've made criticism of the article and I'm asking for detailed examples. You can't delist the article without providing examples of your complaints. I can't improve the article without examples. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have some concerns as well. I certainly wonder about some parts, such as the level of detail in the LEAD. I also wonder that this article goes into such great detail about legal details around the world, and has such little description of the tests of homeopathy and its failures. I also think that the potencies should be described in greater detail as I outlined in the previous draft. However, I am not sure this belongs in this article, but it would be very valuable for the average reader to understand homeopathic remedies to have it available someplace on WP.

I think the LEAD should state very succinctly what homeopathy is, and the immediately state because of WP:UNDUE that it is basically quackery, and why. The average reader is not going to want to wade through a huge long description in the LEAD.--Filll 16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that the lead should give more weight to criticism of homeopathy than to what homeopathy actually is? This article isn't titled "Criticism of Homeopathy" but rather simply "Homeopathy". This means that more detail should be given explaining what exactly homeopathy is and how it supposedly works than criticism of it. After all you can't criticize anything without explaining what it is. The part about legality is very important because not only does it blend into prevalence of use around the world, but also legality is relevant to the subject. It must be elaborated upon and if we do it with one country then we must be through in our coverage. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know darn well I did not advocate this approach, of shoving everything in one article and then squeezing out all balancing material. This is a pseudoscience/quackery article, and to remove all that material or downplay it since there is now no room for it is just basically a bit of slight of hand. However, I think few pro-science editors are fooled.

By this argument, Intelligent design would just be a recruiting document for the Discovery Institute, and include no or minimal critical material, since one just has to "describe" it. However, the relevant point is that according to well over 99% of scientists, in the fields in which intelligent design purports to be valid, view intelligent design as pure crap. Homeopathy purports to be a form of medical treatment. Most scientists and allopathic medical practitioners in the relevant fields believe homeopathy is pure crap. Therefore, an article in an NPOV encyclopeida should present the majority view, just as is done in the case of intelligent design. --Filll 17:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Filll, The previous situation was a large collection of a mess of articles that were impossible to navigate and contained redundant informatin, copied and pasted. Also, No one is saying that there is "No room" for anything. If you think something should be added then post what you think should be added so we can discuss it. I've never once claimed that criticism should be excluded because there was no room. I would support adding more information on various studies and their results. The current version basically summarizes the meta-analysis of the studies, however if you want to go into some more detail then we can do that as well. And again, Making it clear that the scientific consensus is that Homeopathy does not work does NOT MEAN that you have only that information. Right now the article does make it clear that Homeopathy is not supported by the mainstream science. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it should not be only material about the negative features of homeopathy. But by WP:UNDUE, the fraction of negative material must be roughly proportionate to the negative views in the mainstream. The intelligent design article is not only about the negative aspects of intelligent design, but contains substantial amounts of expository material as well. --Filll 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE means that more weight should not be given to the contention that Homeopathy works than to the contention that it does not work. The article does no such thing. WP:UNDUE doesn't mean that more weight should be given to the criticism of a topic than to what the topic is actually about. This article doesn't contain a single sentence adding to the idea that Homeopathy "works". It has a few sentences about Homeopathies contributions to modern science as far as experimental studies goes in the early 19th century but that's it. The vast majority of the commentary in this article about the efficacy of homeopathy is that it does not work. Other information such as philosophy and history have nothing to do with it's efficacy and thus can't be counted as weight in support of homeopathy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:29, 2 October 2007 (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.

Discussion of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

The standard GAR procedure is to list the article at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and allow an independent editor who has not edited the article to assess it against the Good Article criteria. It is strongly discouraged for editors who have contributed to articles to act as reviewers in either the listing or delisting process. This poses an obvious conflict of interest. In response to Orangemarlin and Fill's concerns I have listed the article on the review page for a neutral review. Please add specific points of concern to this page. Tim Vickers 22:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I read the GAR procedure for reassessment, and it says to:

2. Leave a message on the article talk page detailing any remaining problems. If appropriate, add maintenance templates to the article.

3. Allow time for other editors to respond. If the article still does not meet the criteria, it can be delisted.

I was following procedure. I must have misunderstood the process. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct about the rest of the process, but point (1) is the most important here, rather than points (2) or (3). Neither you, I nor anybody else involved in writing this article should become involved as reviewers in the GA process. However, while we can't make impartial judgements on this, specific and detailed comments on the GAR page are welcome from anybody. Tim Vickers 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I thought, and I could be incorrect, that WP:GAR says to try to fix things at the article and talk page before requests reassessment. That's what I thought I was doing. I didn't think I had to list it at GAR until I, as an editor, became dissatisfied with the results. That's all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, everything seems to be moving along properly right now. Just for future reference, fixing problems in an article yourself is encouraged, but certainly not mandatory. Homestarmy 01:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Orange, There would have never even have been a need for a GA review if you would be more specific in your criticism. You make it impossible to improve the article due to your vague criticisms and failure to provide detailed examples. I would appreciate everyone to constructively criticize the article so that it can be improved accordingly, however simply saying it's "POV" or It contains "Original research" without providing a single example is very unhelpful. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is true WDM. However, you have to learn to read the signals that others have sent to you for months now. Just pounding ahead over the objections of other seasoned editors is not the best policy.--Filll 13:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I shouldn't have to attempt to read subtle signals from other editors. If you see a problem with the article then elaborate on it, give details and examples, then let us discuss it. Otherwise there's nothing that I can really do. I want to improve the article as much as possible. You've brought up the lead, I disagree with you on that. If you want to trim down the lead a little bit then let's figure out a way that we can accurately get a consensus on it. Here, You can edit this lead here on a subpage of my userpage:User:Wikidudeman/leaddraft. I won't edit that page at all. You can make edits to it until you're satisfied with how the lead should look and then I can look at the differences and see what has changed and then add comments so that we can get to an agreement on how the lead should be. I think this is a good way to do it as it avoids unnecessary reverts and edits to the actual article until we have an agreement. Tell me what you think. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given specifics before. I'm tired of your actions, but please go ahead with your holier than thou attitude. There are so many diffs to use against you in your next attempt at RfA, it will be amusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well let's start with the Diffs where you gave specific examples of the problems with the article. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Passive aggressive baiting of me won't work. How about dealing with one issue--the leads gives too much weight to Homeopathy. The bulk of words should attack this pseudoscience. There. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're essentially saying that the lead give more weight to criticism of homeopathy than explanation of what homeopathy actually is? Please explain your reasoning behind this. WP:WEIGHT doesn't mean that an article need give more weight to criticism of a subject than to an explanation of the subject itself, It means that it shouldn't give more weight to the idea that the Homeopathy works than to the idea it doesn't. This article gives ZERO weight to the idea that homeopathy works at this point. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We're starting over again here. No, that's not what I desire with respect to undue weight. But in describing the various isms (I'm not even sure how to categorize it), it does appear that this area has a wealth of valid research--that's the impression I get. So, I disagree. It does read like homeopathy works. I guess that's where I find a difference between how I read the article and how you do, and why I keep accusing you of ownership. Maybe it's not ownership as it is that it's hard to read one's own writing from a neutral POV--you might think you know what you were saying, but the casual reader does not. I'm trying to make myself clearer here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said below, this seems mainly a problem in the history sections, where it's also the most understandable, and, perhaps, hardest to fix. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a start at doing this by moving some material on the history of skeptical thought on homeopathy into the history section. Tim Vickers 17:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you support it staying a Good Article, Tim? If so please add your support or comments at the reassessment. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts on this article

(Copied from the GA review)

In the context of alternative medicine articles, almost all of which are simply awful, homeopathy stands as a rare example of an article that actually attempts to do it well.

Is it perfect? No. It's awkward in a couple points, and, yes, it wouldn't be unreasonable to be a bit more critical here and there. Could it be better? Yes. But it deserves more praise than it's getting from people who haven't participated in the process, and don't know what a long haul it is.

Does it violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE? When Wikidudeman asked me, I said "Technically, yes". But that, perhaps, is not nuanced enough for here.

Homeopathy violates basic principles of science, and so comes under the guidelines for pseudoscience and fringe views. The article does contain a fair bit of justified criticism - while describing miasms, and dilution and succussion, we do break to mention the problems with these ideas. Is it criticised enough? No, some of the criticism - notably of the high dilutions - is not particularly well-written, and more criticism of other homeopathic concepts wouldn't be inappropriate. The section on "Concepts", and, to a lesser extent, the other history sections, are probably the worst offenders: Hahnemann's ideas are presented as if they were true, and criticism is absent. This is a fairly easy trap to slip into when writing about how someone came about their views when your primary reference is their writings. But it's still not good.

Again, however, I'd like to point out that it's better, in this respect, than pretty much any other alternative medicine article. If we want to make it better, we are going to have to be willing and ready to get some people very, very angry at us.

As for the sources... Well, Hahnemann's writings are fairly omnipresent, but given alternative medicine and other fringe theories' well-documented resistance to change, this isn't as bad as it might sound. The sources could definitely use a little clean-up, formatting of sources is inconsistent, and source 35, "The Naturopathic School. NCNM. Retrieved on 2007-09-13." does not really support its sentence. Source 128, "Homeopathy in Malaysia. Whole Health Now Homeopathy. Retrieved on 2007-09-25." - is probably not reliable enough for what it's used for.

Should it be GA? Well, if compared to other alternative medicine articles, perhaps yes. On objective standards, perhaps no. In any case, let's not downplay the achievement of getting it this far. Alternative medicine articles are an uphill battle that Wikipedia has only just started to fight. Attacking the people that began the struggle is inappropriate. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well written. But, if we can make Intelligent design work, this should be easier. But I could be in denial. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello - I saw this on the FTN. I've changed around one section (5.1) which seemed awkwardly worded. Still, ~~it certainly looks like a good start~~this article looks good, especially compared with some of the other alternative medicine articles. Hal peridol 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I also think the Homeopathy article is well done. Maybe wordier than necessary. Here are a few specifics where I think it could be improved.

1) I think I can guess the meaning of "vehicle" in paragraph 2, but I should not have to.

2) I think the sentence starting “Although the ideas of homeopathy no longer form part of mainstream science...” is too long.

3) QUOTING: "It should be noted however that not all homeopaths advocated extremely high potencies. Many of the early homeopaths were originally doctors and generally tended to use lower potencies such as "3x" or "6x", rarely going beyond "12x". A good example of this approach is that of Dr. Richard Hughes, who dismissed the extremely high potencies as unnecessary. This was the dominant pattern in Europe throughout the 1820s to 1930s, but in America many practitioners developed and preferred the higher dilutions. This trend became especially exemplified by James Tyler Kent and dominated US homeopathy from the 1850s until its demise in the 1940s."

There are a bunch of vague references in these sentences. It is not clear if “This was the dominant” refers to high potency or low. Also: “this trend” refers to what? Finally, does its demise mean demise of homeopathy or demise of “this trend”?

4) “The first symptomatic index of the homeopathic materia medica was arranged by Hahnemann. Soon after, one of his students Clemens von Bönninghausen, created the Therapautic Pocket Book, another homeopathic repertory. The first such Homeopathic Repertory was Dr. George Jahr's Repertory, published in 1835 in German and then again in 1838 in English and edited by Dr. Constantine Hering. This version was less focused on disease categories and would be the forerunner to Kent's later works. It consisted of three large volumes. Such Repertories increased in size and detail as time progressed.[57]”

It would be less confusing if the first Homeopathic Repertory was mentioned first.

5) The paragraph “Medical and scientific analysis” and the next one “higher dilutions” say the same thing in part.

I believe that the first paragraph is kind of a summary. I didn't think it was too repetitive. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC) - I'll read it again. Wanderer57

6) The editors of the Canada and Mexico articles will be surprised to find they are now part of Australia. Wanderer57 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously weren't keeping up with the news. Australia invaded Canada last week. They defended themselves with hockey sticks, but alas, it was quick. It was so quick you might have missed it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC) - I gotta get away from the computer more. Wanderer57

Just Wondering

"As well, since water will has been in contact with millions of different substances through its history, critics point out that any glass of water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance, and so by drinking water one would, according to homeopathic principles, receive treatment for every imaginable condition.[71]"

This quote from the article brings to mind a question. The prior history of the water used in dilution seems to be relevant. Where do homeopaths obtain water to use in the dilution and succussion process?

(Likewise for any other liquid used for dilution.)

I don't see an answer to this in the article. Wanderer57 13:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent question. If you don't get an answer here, you might try over at the Reference Desk. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer is that this is pseudoscience, and pseudoscience ignores minor issues that are logical problems with the theory. In real science, that would be an issue that would probably blow the whole theory out of the water...pun intended. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer is that potenziation is more than dilution. The dilution must be interspersed with succussion (roughly, shaking). (That's the answer, but then you can ask what the difference is between a waterfall and a potenziation machine that runs continuously. Sooner or later you still hit the pseudoscience.) --Art Carlson 19:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is why Heinz instructs you to shake the bottle before use. Otherwise you would get unpotentized ketchup, which tastes quite different. Tim Vickers 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had only known. Now, precisely how many shakes does it take? I want to make sure I get the best flavor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Art. I wonder if the turbulence that water encounters going through a pump in a water treatment plant is strong enough to cause succussion.

I am not sure everyone is treating this subject with the gravity it deserves. Wanderer57 22:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we are giving it precisely the gravity it deserves. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources Interpretation and counter critisism.

Here are some fragments from the cited references and its interpretation in the article. Everybody could draw his/her own conclusions.

Article’s interpretation. 1. More recent controlled clinical trials on homeopathy have shown poor results, showing a slight to no difference between homeopathic remedies and placebo.[1]

Cited reference [8]

a b c Questions and Answers About Homeopathy. National Institutes of Health. This section summarizes results from (1) individual clinical trials (research studies in people) and (2) broad analyses of groups of clinical trials. The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials.g Recent examples of these types of analyses are detailed in Appendix II. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.

Article interpretation. 2. Early meta-analyses investigating homeopathic remedies showed slightly positive results among the studies examined, however such studies have warned that it was impossible to draw conclusions due to low methodological quality and the unknown role of publication bias in the studies reviewed.[82]

The medical effectiveness of homeopathy has been studied in detail since at least the 1980s. All large studies showing homeopathy to be effective for medical purposes have been methodologically flawed, and earlier studies showing positive results have been questioned.[82]

Cited reference (pay attention to the added adjective and the omitted sentence at the end.) [9]

Clinical trials of homoeopathy.Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G.Department of Epidemiology and Health Care Research, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. RESULTS--In 14 trials some form of classical homoeopathy was tested and in 58 trials the same single homoeopathic treatment was given to patients with comparable conventional diagnosis. Combinations of several homoeopathic treatments were tested in 26 trials; isopathy was tested in nine trials. Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homeopathy. CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well-performed trials.

3. Article

In 2005 The Lancet medical journal published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The study concluded that its findings were compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects.[6]

Is the following criticism included in the article?

“The report published in the Lancet on homeopathy on 26 August has been questioned by the Faculty of Homeopathy - the professional body that brings together GPs and hospital doctors who also practice homeopathy. Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, London said: "Having read this report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy." [10]--Sm565 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You want me to add in the fact that the lancet analysis isn't without it's own criticism? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you. I think it needs some more weight - almost similar to the Lancet statement. You could use that (I think) Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital argued that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy." citing the article. Something like that. --Sm565 17:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

3 questions.

1.I think that both negative and positive trials on Homeopathy’s effectiveness should be included. . At this point only negative trials are included which are not all metanalyses and some editors refuse to add the positive ones. Is this a NPOV?

In my opinion it is a violation of NPOV. I have attempted to add double blind placebo controlled studies with the hope that any criticisms which tend to debunk them would also be provided as appropriate. The omission of these studies altogether is pure suppression and indefensible. Whig 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

2.Of the three meta analyses one is heavily criticized for being selective and the interpretation of the other is problematic (see above). The other are negative trials. Shouldn’t the editors remove them for the sake of consistency (if they don’t want to add the positives )keeping only the metaanalysis?

(It was Tim Vicker's suggestion which I dont find it ideal "My personal viewpoint is that if experts have assessed the literature in a review or meta-analysis then summarising the results of such reviews is a better way of approaching controversial subjects than simply picking a set of positive and negative trials ourselves".

3.Homeopathy’s objections to the placebo randomized trials method (as not always be the best tool for testing homeopathy) should be included, briefly and sufficiently explained and -of course- strictly criticized using the mainstream scientific criteria. Isn't it inappropriate to exclude this important homeopathic view and its appropriate criticism (by the mainstream science) from an encyclopedia article on Homeopathy? --Sm565 18:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on sm565 questions

Could someone please explain what this means: "The other negative trials are original research." (quote from point #2 above.) Thanks. Wanderer57 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wanted to say positive and negative trials. --Sm565 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. All relevant trials should be mentioned regardless of their findings.

2. I'm not sure what this question is asking.

3. We've discussed this before. If Homeopaths criticize placebo controlled trials then there at least has to be some sort of reasoning behind this or else it can't be added. We can't simply say "Though it should be mentioned that homeopaths object to the validity of placebo randomized trials" without adding in "because...".Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy in Canada

I separated out Canada and Mexico from Australia. That change lasted about six minutes till they were merged again

After separating out the part on Canada, and before it was merged again, I read it more carefully. Ugh! Here is the beginning of the Canada piece for reference:

"In Canada, a study detailing the use of alternative medicines by children in Quebec found that 11 % of the sample of 1911 children used alternative medicines and 25 % of those who did use alternative medicines used homeopathy. The study also pointed out that homeopathy is more commonly used in children in Canada than in adults, 19 % of whom used alternative medicine used homeopathy."

Questions relating to this:

1) The statistics compare children in Quebec to adults in Canada; which used to be called comparing apples and oranges. Also, the percentage of adults who use "alternative medicines" is not given. Is the conclusion that homeopathy is more commonly used in children than in adults warranted? Can any useful conclusion be taken from these statistics?

Doesn't matter. It's just there to show approximately how many people in Canada use homeopathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Terminology:

2) Is homeopathy an alternative medicine OR alternative therapy OR some other term?

There is medicine and there's...something else. There's no alternative medicine. Best term is quackery or pseudoscience, but that's used in the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In Wikipedia, there is such a thing as alternative medicine. Whig 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the most widely understood meaning of "medicine" is "a substance or preparation used in treating disease", as in "that medicine tastes awful" or "if you take your medicine without kicking daddy, I will give you a candy". To someone with this understanding, I think "alternative medicine" is liable to be confusing. Wanderer57 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd, Wanderer. Whig 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

3) Which is better? Homeopathy is used in children OR on children OR by children?

4) Is homeopathy used in/on/by children, OR is it practised on children? "Used" suggests a decision to use was made by the children.

The sentence structure needs work, but I wonder first if there is any point to keeping this stuff.

(1911 was coded 1911. An interesting link, which I removed.)

Apparently you should read WP:MOS. Linking dates is appropriate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Except in this case, 1911 is the number of children. It is a fig., not a date. Wanderer57

Finally, the article switches between Homeopathy and homeopathy. Let's pick one. Feedback please. Wanderer57 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just a noun so should be in lower case. The article on drugs doesn't call them "Drugs" in the middle of sentences. Tim Vickers 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources Interpretation #2

Article states:

Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for ….. dementia,[6

Source says:[11]McCarney R, Warner J, Fisher P, Van Haselen R (2003). "Homeopathy for dementia". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD003803

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia. The extent of homeopathic prescribing for people with dementia is not clear and so it is difficult to comment on the importance of conducting trials in this area.

I think that this is a mistake since the source does not really support its sentence.

So I will edit it, I m thinking of removing the word dementia for now. Any objections? Best to all. --Sm565 03:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"absence of evidence" => "found no evidence". Sounds like an accurate paraphrase to me. --Art Carlson 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Art Carlson is right. The McCarney et al. found no evidence that supports the contention that homeopathy helps dementia, thus this is the same thing as "absence of evidence". An absence of something means that something isn't there. It wasn't found. This doesn't mean that Homeopathy doesn't help dementia, It just means that the studies found no evidence that it does. Which is what the article says. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How does the phrase it is not possible to comment not exclude the study from being used either as positive or as negative?

They concluded MAIN RESULTS: There were no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and no data to present REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS:In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia.

Using only "Found no evidence" implies that one looks into data for something but one finds no evidence in this data to support or not the hyphothesis ( that homeopathy works for example ). They state "No data to present " which means they have nothing to look into so their final statement is "It is not possible to comment". How can they make it more clear? Best. --Sm565 15:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should change the wording to read "Evidence was found that homeopathy is not beneficial" for the other conditions listed? --Art Carlson 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. if you make sure that the study states that.I think we should be precise and report exactly what the studies say.But I think at this point no data means - no comment ( which is what they state ) --Sm565 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no other objection and we agree.--Sm565 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

My two cents

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine with metaphysical underpinnings, first elaborated in the eighteenth century, widely popular in the nineteenth century, decreasingly popular in the twentieth century, and still maintaining a following today, though among just a small minority. It has been widely and vigorously criticized by scientists as baseless and ineffective.

Homeopathy is based on a vitalist philosophy, which sees the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. The remedies are formulated to "treat like with like": substances are chosen which, in large quantities, would cause symptoms similar to those of a presenting illness, but are then administered in extremely diluted form. In fact, in many common homeopathic dilutions no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain^[27], a fact which is central to criticism of the tradition by physical and biological scientists.

Homeopathy was first conceived in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann, who noted some similarity of the symptoms created by giving undiluted cinchona bark extract to healthy individuals, to those of malaria (which the bark was conventionally used to treat).^[28] Hahnemann concluded that, to be effective, a drug must produce the same sorts of symptoms in healthy individuals as those experienced by the patient with the illness that the drug is supposed to treat^[29]. From this reasoning, a series of substances were selected whose administration created symptoms in patients similar to those they were suffering from. The original substance is then repeatedly diluted, and, at each stage of the dilution, the solution is shaken. Finished homeopathic remedies contain few or even no molecules of the original substance, but homeopaths contend that the shaking causes an imprint (or "memory") of the diluted substance upon the vehicle (the diluting water or alcohol itself). Proponents of homeopathy claim that homeopathic treatments can harmonize and re-balance a theorized vital force in the body, thus restoring health.

Claims for the medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments, however, have been roundly rejected as unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33] Homeopathic philosophy has been characterized as strikingly at odds with the laws of chemistry and physics, since it postulates that extreme dilution actually makes drugs more powerful (by enhancing, homeopaths believe, their "spirit-like medicinal powers"^[34]). Scientists have asserted that there is no evidence of water or alcohol retaining any sort of imprint of a substance that was once dissolved in it, and that any positive effects of homeopathic treatments must be due simply to the placebo effect.^[35]^[28]^[30]^[31] Furthermore, some health advocates have accused homeopathic practitioners of giving false hope to patients who might otherwise seek conventional treatments that have withstood testing by the scientific method.^[36]^[37] Many have pointed to meta-analyses which — they contend — confirm the fact that any benefits of the medicine are due to the placebo effect; they have criticized apparently positive studies of homeopathy as being flawed in design. These findings, they say — along with the common practice of homeopaths to proscribe their patients from receiving conventional medical treatments for a given malady while being treated for it with homeopathy — argue for labeling homeopathy as a brand of quackery^[38]^[39]^[40] whose use might ultimately even endanger the patient's health.

Friarslantern 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a straw man description of homeopathy. Whig 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Explain! This statement makes no sense to me. Friarslantern 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraphs are too short and I see no reason for their formulation. Why is the first one split from the second one?
The "widely popular in the nineteenth century, decreasingly popular in the twentieth century, and still maintaining a following today" part doesn't read like an encyclopedia. It's part of the first sentence which is way too long.
The entire lead is difficult to read. If I didn't understand what Homeopathy was then I would probably not know much more after reading that lead.
Many of the statements aren't referenced. Due to the conflicts, everything must be properly referenced.
Not many people are actually disputing the lead except until just recently and I don't see how this formulation would solve those specific disputes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This LEAD is much much too long and has way too much detail. I also think it does not succinctly describe the main points. --Filll 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK here is a new version of it. Short, I think, and to the point, and neutral. I'm working on it at User:Friarslantern/HomeoIntroDraft.

Friarslantern 01:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

“

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine with metaphysical underpinnings, first elaborated in the eighteenth century and still maintaining a small following today. Treating "like with like", substances — which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease they are meant to treat — are administered in heavily diluted formulations in hopes of stimulating the body to respond and remove the symptom. The theory and practice of homeopathy has been widely and vigorously criticized by scientists as baseless and ineffective.

Homeopathy was first conceived in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann. Hahnemann noticed a similarity between the symptoms created by giving undiluted cinchona bark extract to healthy individuals and the symptoms of malaria, which the very same cinchona bark had been conventionally used to heal.^[28] Hahnemann concluded that, to be effective, drugs should produce the same sorts of symptoms in healthy individuals as are being experienced by the patient with the illness that the drug is supposed to treat^[29]. The homeopathic practitioner repeatedly dilutes the chosen substance, and, at each stage of the dilution, shakes it. Finished homeopathic remedies are so dilute they contain few or even no molecules of the original substance,^[27] a fact which is central to criticism of the tradition by physical and biological scientists. Homeopaths contend that the shaking causes an imprint (or "memory") of the diluted substance upon the vehicle (the diluting water or alcohol itself); ingesting the resulting remedy harmonizes and re-balances a theorized vital force in the body, thus restoring health.

Claims for the medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments have been repeatedly rejected as unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies.^[30]^[31]^[32]^[41] Homeopathic philosophy has been characterized as strikingly at odds with the laws of chemistry and physics, since it postulates that extreme dilution actually makes drugs more powerful (by enhancing, homeopaths believe, their "spirit-like medicinal powers"^[42]). Scientists have asserted that there is no evidence of water or alcohol retaining any sort of imprint of a substance that was once dissolved in it, and that any positive effects of homeopathic treatments must be due simply to the placebo effect.^[35]^[28]^[30]^[31] Furthermore, some health advocates have accused homeopathic practitioners of giving false hope to patients who might otherwise seek conventional treatments.^[36]^[37] Many have pointed to meta-analyses which, they contend, confirm the fact that any benefits of taking homeopathic medicine are due to the placebo effect; apparently positive studies of homeopathy have been criticized as being flawed in design. These findings, they say — along with the common practice of homeopaths to proscribe their patients from receiving conventional medical treatments for a given malady while being treated for it with homeopathy — argue for labeling homeopathy as a brand of quackery,^[38]^[39]^[40] reliance on which could effectively endanger the patient's health.

”

I like this version much better. It seems to be fair. I am still reading about homeopathy in order to better understand it, so I cannot vouch for its accuracy in all parts. Whig 08:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Two bad edits?

Adam – rather than just label an edit as a “bad edit”, please explain what you see as wrong with the edit which added the bolded words to this sentence in the first paragraph?

“Substances, which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease, are administered in heavily diluted formulations, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, in hopes of stimulating the body to respond and remove the symptom.”

To me, the last part is helpful as it summarizes the chief point of doing homeopathy.

I’m quite prepared to listen to suggestions of a better way to word it, but I think the intention was sound. Wanderer57 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

These two edits were bad for a number of reasons, which I described in my edit summary. The "stimulating the body to respond" sentence is textbook original research. Homeopathy denies any sort of germ theory in that it does not allow for external forces to produce disease in a healthy individual. Only a "disturbance" in the "vital energy" of a patient can produce adverse symptoms. There is simply no room in homeopathic theory for any sort of physiological response. Leaving aside the fact that this assertion was added with absolutely no reference or discussion of a "stimulated response" in the rest of the article, this is a baldfaced attempt to legitimize the topic by vaguely associating it with a vaccine-type mechanism.

The second edit is also unacceptable because it obfuscates the lead argument that a sufficiently diluted solution cannot contain any of the original molecule, and ignores the fact that homeopathic solutions that are not diluted out of existence don't work either. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Skinwalker is totally right. The idea that Homeopathic remedies cause the body to "respond to a symptom" to remove it from the body would suggest some sort of outside agent inflicting itself upon the body which is contrary to homeopathic philosophy. As Skinwalker mentioned, Homeopaths see sickness as disturbances of some "vital energy" which causes symptoms. Homeopaths prescribe small doses of substance that cause similar side effects in hopes of "canceling out" the symptoms and getting rid of the disturbance. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. I am concerned with the first of the two edits Skinwalker mentioned, which (for reference) is about the sentence:

“Substances, which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease, are administered in heavily diluted formulations, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, in hopes of stimulating the body to respond and remove the symptom.”

My edit was to add the words “in hopes of......remove the symptom”, (borrowed from a previous editor) and to make the next sentence, which talks about the early history of the subject, the start of a new paragraph.

This sentence says what (we think) a homeopathist does without indicating what the purpose is. This is incomplete information. If, as you say, “in hopes of stimulating the body to respond and remove the symptom” is technically wrong, (and I’m in no position to argue the point), how should the sentence be completed?

“Substances, which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease, are administered in heavily diluted formulations, with shaking at each stage of the dilution, in order to_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.”

I think, in fairness, an indication of the intent is needed here (even though some editors may consider the whole enterprise fruitless or even fraudulent.)

Since the following sentence talks about the early history of the subject, it does not answer the question of the intent. Wanderer57 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Skinwalker is not correct. Homeopathy "does not allow for external forces to produce disease in a healthy individual" is entirely false. From the Organon, Section 64:

During the primary action of the artificial morbific agents (medicines) on our healthy body, as seen in the following examples, our vital force seems to conduct itself merely in a passive (receptive) manners, and appears, so to say, compelled to permit the impressions of the artificial power acting from without to take place in it and thereby [alter] its state of health; it then, however, appears to rouse itself again, as it were, and to develop (A) the exact opposite condition of health (counteraction, secondary action ) to this effect (primary action) produced upon it, if there be such an opposite, and that in as great a degree as was the effect (primary action) of the artificial morbific agent on it, and proportionate to its own energy; - or (B) if there be not in nature a state exactly the opposite of the primary action, it appears to endeavor to indifferentiate itself, that is, to make its superior power available in the extinction of the change wrought in it from without (by the medicine), in the place of which it substitutes its normal state (secondary action, curative action).

Whig 01:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the second edit he removed, his claim that the small amount of substance in a homeopathic dose causes it to be ineffective does not mitigate the fact that a small amount of substance is present in dilution or trituration. Currently, the article imagines that the substance must magically vanish due to dilution, that is a violation of the laws of physics. Whig 01:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

At the highest dilutions, there's a ridiculously miniscule chance that a molecule remains, because it's been diluted so far. You'd have to drink a sphere the size of the solar system to have a reasonable chance of getting just one molecule. This is because there are only a certain number of molecules in the original preparation. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

That may as well be true at highest dilutions which could be arbitrarily large, of course. Nothing in dilution or trituration would cause the substance to be molecularly or atomically taken apart, at any rate, but we can surely say that if a substance is divided over 30C there are still likely to be a very small number of particles of the original substance in a dose. Whig 02:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

30C is 1 in 10^60. We can estimate the number of original atoms using Avogado's constant, which tells us there are 6.022 x 10^23 atoms in a mole of substance. A mole of a substance has a weight measured in grams (the number of grams is based on its molecular weight, and hus can't be less than 1). Even if we presume that we start with a kilogram of the substance - that's less, perhaps substantially less, than a thousand moles - there is still less than a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that a single molecule remains in a litre of the original. Any dilution greater than about 1 in 10^24 has this problem. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Accepting your math for the moment, what dilution would 10^24 correspond to? Is 6C still too dilute? Whig 06:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

About 12C, though the maths vary a bit depending on the amount in the original, and how much of the final remedy is actually taken. Given the size of homeopathic pills, I suspect that it'd actually be a little lower - 10C or so. However, remember, this is for there being a statistical likelihood of one molecule being present. If we're looking for, say, a part per billion - which is about the minimum limit of what could actually be detected - that's at most 4.5C. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

So we must express very clearly that in a 6C potency (which is a common homeopathic dose) there is clearly some small quantity of the original substance. It has not disappeared regardless of its detectability with your equipment at that concentration, because you know that physics won't allow it to have vanished. Whig 08:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. It says "at many common homeopathic dilutions". That's a true description, and your random quibbles can be ruthlessly ignored as the POV-pushing OR they are. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have the right to ruthlessly ignore facts you don't like, Adam. Whig 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And I have never heard of a modern homeopath that denies the germ theory of disease. What a straw man. Whig 01:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas. As cited and referenced in the article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article says he thought the antibiotic treatment of syphilis would cause secondary and tertiary problems. Nowhere does it say he denies the germ theory of disease, but perhaps he has done so. You have failed to make a valid citation. Whig 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. Tell me what you think of the clarification I just added. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

References interpretation #3

Article states:

Systematic reviews conducted by other researchers found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for osteoarthritis,[7]

Source says:

The authors conclude that the small number of randomized clinical trials conducted to date, although favoring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.

So the article should state the exacts findings:

Studies have shown that although favoring homeopathic treatment, the study does not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Article states: Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma,[4]

Reference: [13]

RESULTS: Six trials with a total of 556 people were included. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but of variable quality. They used different homeopathic treatments which precluded quantitative pooling of results for the primary outcome. Standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised. No trial reported a significant difference on validated symptom scales. There were conflicting results in terms of lung function between the studies. There has been only a limited attempt to measure a 'package of care' effect (i.e., the effect of the medication as well as the consultation, which is considered a vital part of individualised homeopathic practice). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma. As well as randomised trials, there is a need for observational data to document the different methods of homeopathic prescribing and how patients respond. This will help to establish to what extent people respond to a 'package of care' rather than the homeopathic intervention alone.

They clearly say that they could not actualy test the homeopathic idea. To do so they need observational data and well designed studies. Therefore they concluded that there is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma.

I m almost certain everybody agrees that the sentece in the article should reflect exaclty this.Objections? Best wishes to all.--Sm565 06:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, let's just cut the damn thing. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Molecules

Much of the above talk about straw man germ theory and dilutions is theoretical nonsense. Nobody knows what matter is or what happens when something is diluted. Hahnemann and his followers believed he had hit upon a genuine new discovery about matter in solution. Who is really to deny this? Chemistry and the molecular theory is merely a model of how matter seems to behave; we do not know all the answers and to claim we do is dishonest. Maybe some molecules do remain at 30c who knows? To deny this is to assume that the avogadro limit is absolute when in reality it is merely an average. On average no molecules remain after 10 -23 but in reality nobody knows. Nor does anybody know what the shaking does. Violent shaking of the solution is certainly regarded by homeopaths as crucial to the potentiation process. Regarding germ theory homeopaths may or may not acceopt the theory but what is clear is that they regard the cause of disease as an internal matter within the organism and no external agent is regarded as that powerful except insofar as it can impact internally upon the vital force. Kent said forget the bacteria and fix the vital force. It says it all. The vital force is the key concept in homeopathic philsosophy because it 'explains' so much about how these remedies work and also how folks behave when treated for sickness and how they respond to the remedies. Most of the folks here have never used homeopathy, are not medically trained, know little about close observation of the human subject in sickness and cure so how can they say either way? These issues can only be fully explained when you have a degree of experience in such matters. Being a very sceptical 'spectator' to these matters does not really allow one to fully understand how it all works. Unless you engage with the subject then how can you udnerstand it? That goes for any subject. Scoffing and being full of disbelief wanting desperately to disprove something ...well how can these attitudes allow an unbiased understanding to occur? Same goes for anything alien to our usual understanding. However, there are issues about efficacy and trials but hopefully new trials will be better devised and reveal more interesting outcomes. just a few thoughts thanks Peter morrell 06:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, I think you have a similar perspective to my own, which I would call zetetic. I am currently reading the Organon in order to understand the idea behind homeopathy as expressed by its original detailer. Currently I am up to Section 100, which says (in reference to those who claim that "homeopathy rejects the germ theory of disease"):

In investigating the totality of the symptoms of epidemic and sporadic diseases it is quite immaterial whether or not something similar has ever appeared in the world before under the same or any other name. The novelty or peculiarity of a disease of that kind makes no difference either in the mode of examining or of treating it, as the physician must any way regard to pure picture of every prevailing disease as if it were something new and unknown, and investigate it thoroughly for itself, if he desire to practice medicine in a real and radical manner, never substituting conjecture for actual observation, never taking for granted that the case of disease before him is already wholly or partially known, but always carefully examining it in all its phases; and this mode of procedure is all the more requisite in such cases, as a careful examination will show that every prevailing disease is in many respects a phenomenon of a unique character, differing vastly from all previous epidemics, to which certain names have been falsely applied - with the exception of those epidemics resulting from a contagious principle that always remains the same, such as smallpox, measles, etc.

Clearly the science of modern microbiology did not exist when he was writing, but he accepted contagion. Why are people spreading disinformation about homeopathy? Whig 07:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. These rants are a little uncalled for. If you investigated, you would find several PhDs and MDs among the other editors here. We have experts in statistical analysis of data. We have mathematicians. Several others have used homeopathic remedies, myself included.

And there is a phenomenal volume of evidence for the "molecular theory" and the "germ theory". We have even imaged atoms.

I dispute just about everything written above. I could go through it point by point, but this might add to the trouble here. Please, try to not engage in this kind of grandstanding and vioation of WP:SOAP.--Filll 14:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You can dispute whatever you like and who really cares what folks like you think of it from your theory armchairs. Manifestly, you don't know much about homoepathy that is plain to see for all the endless talk on these talk pages...MDs PhDs so what? utterly irrelevant to the field of experience and true empiricism in which homeopathy exists. You just demonstrated the vastness of your ignorance, Filll. Grandstanding? are you serious? for goodness sake what utter nonsense. Peter morrell 14:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter I would remind you of how close you have come repeatedly to being banned and blocked here for uncivil behavior. It is only because of your special knowledge that you were even permitted to be in Wikipedia, frankly. So please try to restrain yourself.--Filll 15:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry if it seemed I was growling at you Filll, it was in fact a mere squeak. Talking of uncivil behaviour of course reminds me to say that there are abroad in WP far worse offenders than I, mostly on your side of the fence, who seem to 'get away with it' unpunished on a daily basis and with everyone they choose to hurl it at. Pot calling the kettle black, no doubt? best wishes Peter morrell 15:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, well not sure about disinformation. Certainly many garbage articles exist that are factually and historically inaccurate and which contain misinterpretations and these get recycled within the scientific community as facts which they are clearly not. It suits big business and pharmaceutical multinationals to disparage homeopathy in every way possible and at every turn. Always that has been true. It also suits science because it disbelieves in the power of infinitesimal doses on THEORETICAL grounds alone. However, science is rather simplistic & composed mostly of reductionist models that only approximate to reality at best. In any case Hahnemann was a good observer and the Organon an evolving work in progress, and like a scientist's notebook, is composed of two things, as any science notebook should be: observations and deductions, all of them provisional and always revisable in the light of new experience. In this crucial sense homeopathy is entirely a truly empirical science because even its burden of 'theory' is provisional and was constantly revised in his lifetime as a corpus of ideas NOT as a dogma. Though I know folks think different, that is a more accurate statement of his position. He was passionate about his declarations but ultimately each of them was pulverised, revised and replaced in the light of new observations. If that is not the attitude of a good scientist then what is? Peter morrell 07:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Our science of the very small gets into the subject of quantum chromodynamics, molecular theory is inadequate. Whig 09:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's complete bollocks and original research. Quantum mechanics, funnily enough, is defined by a series of mathematical equations that calculate probabilities. It doesn't just automatically justify whatever stupidity you want it to. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam, you are nonserious. I have corrected you repeatedly. Whig 18:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

A nice attempt at dismissal, I'm sure, but you can't just make up stuff and expect it to go into the article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not such thing. I made good, conscientious edits to the article, which I provided ample citation, and which you deleted and have never bothered to respond to. Whig 19:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

1.The fact that scientists cannot explain today the effect of the (homeopathic) substance or to detect its mechanism is not a proof that it does not exist.It has some effect and this is clearly shown even in some of the studies which are cited in he article - if we decide to really read them. [14]Not to mention the studies which have clearly shown positive effects but they are not included at this point for unknown reasons.[15]

Yeah, they aren't included because of hundreds of studies, you're choosing unreliable ones that show slight results, then talking them up into great justifications for homeopathy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Slight results" is added by the editors. Whovever wants to know what the studies say please click here and compare. [16] [17]

2. I think that the statement 'The scientific community asserts there is no evidence that water or alcohol retain any memory of a substance and that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect.[7][13][8][9]" is not supported.

Are you asserting that the references given do not reject the efficacy of homeopathy, or that the authors (NIH, NHS, AMA) are not representative of the scientific community? --Art Carlson 09:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

He's asserting that all criticism should be removed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam you realize -of course- you might discredit yourself with this kind of statements.How will you argue that you views are objective and you are qualified to moderate a discussion misrepresenting the others people opinion? I wrote many times that mainstream critisim should be included and even extented.

Studies, MDs, scientists and sources you have used in the present article ( BBC and LAncet) are asserting that inside the scientific community there are different views. Thats why I keep mentioning the WHO draft supporting Homeopathy (which could be right or wrong) and its critisism - as a proof (not just evidence) of this controversy.Best wishes.--Sm565 18:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about the CONSENSUS - that is, the majority, widely agreed upon view. Gind some sources equal in weight to the ones we have that say that most scientists support homeopathy, and we'll talk. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is not CONSENSUS on this. Even the references you used state that ...."The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory".....

In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. [18] Do you assume that there is any consensus ? .--Sm565 20:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean the second part of the sentence. The scientific community includes MDs, researchers and hospitals which practice homeopathy everywhere in the world. Even in the World Health Organization there was a major controversy 2 years ago (on an unpublished -so far draft- which favored homeopathy) covered by BBC [19] and the Lancet [20].

The WHO draft again? Yawn. --Art Carlson 09:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for god's sake. Do you even know what the word "draft" means? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Therefore the phrase the scientific community asserts that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect is inaccurate. It is a significant part of the scientific community which believes that and we could talk about its exact size. --Sm565 08:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

These are ludicrous statements. There is essentially no competent scientist that would agree that there is any evidence whatsoever for homeopathy. There is no competent scientist that would assert that there is a valid theoretical underpinning to homeopathy. This sort of WP:SOAP is uncalled for.--Filll 14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Filll, please, again, cool it, man. No need to be so serious. We get the picture. Then again who really cares what scientists think? competent or otherwise. Peter morrell 15:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We are only interested in the views of competent scientists at Wikipedia. We have no interest in the ravings of quacks. It is not permissible to reject academic consensus in such a manner, because this is what Wikipedia is built to reflect. Moreschi ^Talk 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these competent scientists? If no please explain why.

[21]

[22]

best--Sm565 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC) If someone is a professor of complementary medicine, it is not clear if one is a competent scientist or not. However, the arthritis study was inconclusive, and had too small a dataset to be useful in any case. It is not something easy to measure in any case. The allergy study had only 51 participants, and the results were mixed by my reading of it. And this is balanced by immense studies with thousands upon thousands of participants and metastudies with many more showing no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy whatsoever. To be useful, not only must the results be statistically significant, but they must be repeatable. Probably several times, given the controversial nature of this field. And as far as I know, nothing close to this has ever happened. So it is pseudoscience, pure and simple.--Filll 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For the evaluation of medical papers look above. Statistics metanalysesis and are also another field you must have an expertise. It is not our job to do that here according to wikipedia of course.

"If someone is a professor of complementary medicine, it is not clear if one is a competent scientist or not" Well.....click here .[23] ........no comment. --Sm565 23:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone is a professor of complementary medicine, it is not clear if one is a competent scientist or not. However, the arthritis study was inconclusive, and had too small a dataset to be useful in any case. It is not something easy to measure in any case. The allergy study had only 51 participants, and the results were mixed by my reading of it. And this is balanced by immense studies with thousands upon thousands of participants and metastudies with many more showing no evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy whatsoever. To be useful, not only must the results be statistically significant, but they must be repeatable. Probably several times, given the controversial nature of this field. And as far as I know, nothing close to this has ever happened. So it is pseudoscience, pure and simple.--Filll 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if you look at WP:NPOV/FAQ, you will find the helpful statement "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Even some of the references which are cited now in the article they favor homeopathic treament. Even the cited metanalyses find positive evidence and suggest better designed studies to explore. I dont think they would not do that if they considered homeopathy as a sort of quackery [24] [25] [26] [27] After reading carefully what they say- please explain why the above scientists are incompetent including the ones in the article and why they are not part of the scientific commnunity. If you give a rational explanation then we can keep the term scientific community....otherwhise it must change to a big part of scientific community...or whatever the size is.Best to all.--Sm565 17:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Fisher is not a scientist, he's a homeopath. As for the other two, read the full text. The BMJ one says "Because of the exacting screening, strict qualification criteria, and the prospectively defined requirement to stop enrolment before the pollen season, we did not recruit the number of patients that the power calculation had estimated we required." - in other words, it's statistically worthless. The Rheumatology one says "This study was designed as a feasibility or pilot study rather than a definitive clinical trial". Both, therefore, are worthless. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

These are examples of why homeopathy is valid? A study by psychiatrists about fibromyalgia, a vague complaint with no good diagnosis? A study with only 62 people in it? No good way to measure the outcomes? An uncomfirmed study not repeated by peers? This is pure nonsense. Sorry. A comment by a pseudoscientist that his field is not pseudoscience? Please...--Filll 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Dr. Fisher is a respected....scientist [28] I dont think that anybody here in this discussion is qualified to evaluate medical published papers unless someone wants to take the risk to ridicule himself.Even if someone were qualified it is not appropriate to do so in this space. The editor s job here is not to evaluate the studies but to set some criteria to decide what is a reliable source and report the results and conclusions as stated without changing them - the way it is done now. ALL the studies above qualify according to the wikipedia's criteria. Therefore the editors have to include them reporting their findings negative or positive. Critisism from valid sourses should be added if exists. There is another option which TimVickers suggested "My personal viewpoint is that if experts have assessed the literature in a review or meta-analysis then summarising the results of such reviews is a better way of approaching controversial subjects than simply picking a set of positive and negative trials ourselves." I msure Tim would not object that Critisism from valid sourses should be added if exists. These are the only serious options if you want a NPOV article. Best--Sm565 19:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Note

Dr Peter Fisher MA MB BChir FRCP FFHom is a Cambridge medical graduate and Physician to the Queen since 2001. To say he is not a scientist is to say a medical degree from Cambridge is not a science degree. Please amend or retract your comment. thank you Peter morrell 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the dispute about here? What would solve it? Please clarify in brief explanations what exactly the dispute is. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't encourage the trolls. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment Adam: Peter, this shows you to be the either utterly nonserious or seriously confuddled, "Nor does anybody know what the shaking does." This, "...who really cares what scientists think?" speaks to the very ignorance you accuse others of. Yes, Peter, if it will make you happy, all existence and reality is just a metaphysical playground and via modern day alchemy we can find the truth. Jim62sch 16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view: Homeopathy and neutrality

It seems there are three actual separate issues confused above.

The description of homeopathy is one thing. There are descriptions of how homeopathists see it, and descriptions of how scientists see it, and so on. These are all descriptions. A description of homeopathy is going to draw on multiple views. It will describe what it is, and its concepts, structures and processes and so on, but without saying any given item is "true" or "not true" on either side. It describes.

However, when it comes to the validation and verification aspects of homeopathy, then the main view is science, since scientific testing methodologies carry significantly more weight than other methodologies. In this area, one has to reflect the balance that the bulk of reliable sources on testing of homeopathy are those conducted by scientists.

Likewise discussion of the theoretical basis of homeopathy is also predominantly the realm of science, which has a very good uunderstanding how molecules and reactions work. The reliable sources for theoretical underpinnings and comments on its "making sense" are predominantly going to be scientific ones. Alternative views how the world works may be notable, but are given less weight in this question.

In this manner, we can construct an article that fairly reflects both sides of a debate, with due weight.

Hope that helps.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Of course I've been saying this for months. The article currently reflects this. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman, I am new to editing this article, but I do not agree with you that the article is anywhere near NPOV at present. That there is an obvious NPOV dispute cannot be unknown to you. Your defensive statements that the article is presently wonderful are not helpful. Whig 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:NPOV if you're a new editor. This article is relatively close to NPOV, considering how much Pseudoscience is expressed in this article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor. Thanks. Whig 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are disputes doesn't mean they have validity. Some people are arguing that the article is POV for homeopathy and some are arguing that it's POV against homeopathy, what do you think? You say the article is POV, How so? POV for or against homeopathy? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Format lead please

The lead has excessive white-space and most articles I'm aware of don't have that. Could someone please get rid of the extra whitespace Separating paragraphs in the lead? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What would be needed to fix this article

We have a bad situation here. We have two or three POV warriors that want frantically to describe Homeopathy according to some narrow criteria associated with "true believers". There are occasional other pro-homeopathy editors who visit and fight to change the view of the article. This is so annoying I would almost be ready to advocate deleting the article and blocking any efforts to create a new one in its place.

This pro-homeopathy view is contrary to all of science and medicine, which are the fields which Wikipedia must agree with, according to its design. If editors want a pro-homeopathy article, they will have to leave Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of article. It is against the very structure of Wikipedia, and has no place here.

A reasonable homeopathy article will have some description of the method and its history, and have a substantial measure of material that demonstrates it is pure bunk, hoakum, quackery, dishonest nonsense and unscientific claptrap. All the way through it. In the LEAD. In the body. All the way through. Lots of links to studies that show homeopathy is unmitigated crap. So if your vision is something other than this, perhaps you do not belong here.--Filll 19:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Filll has demonstrated his bias. He would scorch earth rather than allow this article to be other than what he wants it to look like. I recommend he read WP:OWN. Whig 19:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My POV is the same as the medical community and the scientific establishment and also in accord with what Wikipedia is aiming to do because of WP policies. If you do not find your views in accord with this, I think you should see that as a sign. Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE --Filll 20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is entitled to be given pre-eminent weight, Filll. That does not mean you get to exclude alternative theories. Whig 20:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said a thing about excluding alternative theories. However, by the rules of WP, they have to be presented from a mainstream perspective.--Filll 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't actually seem to know the rules of Wikipedia. Whig 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And how do you figure that? Let's see. You have about 1100 mainspace edits and less than 2600 total edits. I have 9300 mainspace edits and over 20300 total edits. Maybe this is one of your sockpuppet accounts and you have another account or two. But from this evidence, it seems I have at least as much idea as you do how WP runs, doesnt it?

You've already been corrected by Art Carlson. Quit arguing, you're wrong. Whig 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh is this the same Art Carlson who has less than 2100 mainspace edits and less than 3400 total edits? So lets see, the two of you together have less than 6000 edits, and I have more than 3 times as much as the two of you combined. Hmm...--Filll 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You win the high score! Whig 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have worked on plenty of articles that are controversial. And guess what? By the rules of WP, we present the mainstream view and give it most of the weight. We do not present fringe ideas as mainstream. We show that minority viewpoints are just that, minority viewpoints. We do not give them WP:UNDUE weight. And if something is pseudoscience, we make it clear that most people think it is pseudoscience and why. That is what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We are not here to promote nonsense and myth and call it science. If you do not like it, you are free to go elsewhere.--Filll 04:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep your shirt on, Filll. Wikipedia is not written from a mainstream point of view, but from a neutral point of view. We can't say "Homeopathy is crap." At most we can only say "The mainstream thinks that homeopathy is crap." That's enough, too. Be cool. --Art Carlson 22:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well actually in the case of situations like this, the mainstream gets most of the weight because of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.--Filll 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE - This page offers guidance on establishing which non-mainstream "theories" should have articles in Wikipedia, and to an extent how those articles should approach their subjects. - There is no question that homeopathy is notable enough to be covered in its own article.

WP:UNDUE - Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. - We describe homeopathy "in great detail", and where it is "appropriate", namely in the section on studies of efficacy, we clearly present the view of the majority.

Seems clear enough. --Art Carlson 06:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

...."The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory"..... In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. [10] This one of the citations which supports the articles view that there is a consensus that homeopathy has no effect over placebo. Do you assume that there is any consensus in this Art?. --Sm565 23:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Art, you cannot say what the mainstream thinks. You can say what certain scientists and organizations have said. Whig 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE:

On the other hand, where existing primary sources are available, they may be carefully used in addition to secondary sources. WP:NOR strongly encourages the collection and organization of information from existing secondary sources, and allows for careful use of primary sources; such information is not "original research", but "source-based research", and is essential to writing an encyclopedia.

Please take this as my suggestion that you read the Organon of Medicine by Samuel Hahnemann in order to comment properly upon what it says. Let us make this a serious article, shall we? I'm still reading it myself. Whig 20:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I read big pieces of it. It is crap. So what?--Filll 22:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your most insightful and encyclopedic commentary. Whig 22:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam_Cuerden deleted the above comment. I have restored it -- now twice. It is not a personal attack. Whig 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

Homeopathy isn't controversial, nor is it a form of 'alternative medicine'. It has been debunked scientifically since it's inception, with the best in the publication 'The Memory of Water' which outlined homeopathic principles and their inherent impossibility as well as backing it up with empirically measured statistics. To give credence by using terms such as controversial, or alternative medicine, would be the equivilent of adding weasel working to say, Fairies stating that some people don't believe in them, thus indicating others do. The desperate, the profiteering, and the poorly educated are the only people who believe in alternative medicines. This should be addressed in this article most thoroughly. Jachin 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. The desperate, the profiteering, and the poorly educated are the only people who believe in alternative medicines . You said "this should be addressed in this article most thoroughly".

This could be also added if you provide some citations . Best wishes. --Sm565 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because something has been debunked doesn't mean it's not an alternative medicine or isn't controversial. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Question

This is a straight question, and I hope not an absurd one.

I know from my own experience that the practise of chiropractic has changed substantially in the last 30 years. (I do not know if this is true of all chiropractors, very likely not, but it is certainly true of some.)

Chiropractic at its best is much different than it used to be.

I'm wondering if something comparable can be said for homeopathy. Are the work and the views of Samuel Hahnemann, about 200 years ago, a fair representation of the views and practises of modern day homeopathists? Wanderer57 22:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we cannot really say what the views of homeopaths are as a single entity, only what certain homeopathic practitioners have said. Obviously, Hahnemann is a primary source, but later practitioners should also be cited. Whig 22:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The principles are the same but they are differences. go to vithoulkas website - is a good sourse to look into. --Sm565 22:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the term Scientific community used in the article (intro) is not supported

Sorry for taking so much space - I have to summurize.

The scientific community asserts …….that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect.[7][13][8][9] not only it is not supported by the references but the references themselves indicate that there is no consensus in the scientific community; furthemore there is clear evidence that a signifignat part of the scientific community strongly disagrees .

Therefore “The scientific community asserts” at the second part of the sentence should be replaced with “Many scientists assert that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect…..and others believe that Homeopathy treatment has an effect over and above placebo. What I m suggesting is consistent with what the already cited references use: many,some... others.

Here are all the sourses the editor(s) have used.

1. The source is not related with the sentence about scientifc consesus and it is one study only. [29]

CONCLUSION: Trials of complementary therapies often have relevant methodological weaknesses. The type of weaknesses varies considerably across interventions.

2. Here it says many ....not the scientific community.

Many medical doctors and scientists do not generally accept homeopathy because its claims have not been verified to the standards of modern medicine and scientific method. Some scientists argue that homeopathy cannot work because the remedies used are so highly diluted that in many there can be none of the active substance remaining. Supporters of homeopathy counter the scientific arguments with claims for a high success rates in babies, infants, and animals. Others argue that much of the research conducted into the effectiveness of homeopathy is not representative of routine homeopathic practice and that homeopathic treatment cannot be properly tested through standard clinical means. [30]

3. The Lancet article is criticized for being selective to discredit Homeopathy by another well-known institution, which belongs also to scientific community. One study again Not consensus again. [31] [32] [33]

4. It is obvious that there is not consensus on Homeopathy according to this statement.

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory"..... In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. [34]--Sm565 03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You still fail to understand the meaning of scientific consensus. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I could agree with some of your cited references which support the sentence. You could use exactly that (#2) and I think will be NPOV. Why don't we use it? Do oyu think they are POV or inaccurate?--Sm565 04:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Censorship ?

Dear Adam

I think hidding my new suggestions and examples including my summarized arguments because you have a different point of view is unacceptable. I will escalate the incident to other administrators. Meanwhile my suggestion to the curious editors is to read and then decide.--Sm565 04:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You've made the same suggestions several dozen times, and been refuted each time. This is a waste of time. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam, your behavior in this talk forum has been incredibly rude, you delete and conceal statements you disagree with and refuse to accept factual correction. Please stop trying to WP:OWN this discussion. Whig 04:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines are clear: "Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission." Whig 04:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Strikeout looks like this: ~~strikeout~~. It's commonly used to indicate the editor is happy with what's been done, and so withdraws their objection. It is not the same as hab/hat.

Please read the guidelines. Editing others' comments is not acceptable. Whig 04:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I haven't touched the actual text, just put it inside a collapsing template. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no point continuing discussion until you can actually bring something new to the table, instead of shoving productive discussions off the talk page by repeating the same points over and over. Has someone put a message on a homeopathy forum canvassing people again? Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to continue discussion if you don't want to. Whig 04:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Adam 1. Tell me where exactly I proposed the following exact sentence supported with the new arguments and in our discussion. .

Therefore “The scientific community asserts” at the second part of the sentence should be replaced with “Many scientists assert that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect…..and others believe that Homeopathy treatment has an effect over and above placebo. What I m suggesting is consistent with what the already cited references use: many,some... others

2. If you think that I dont bring something new why did you answer me and you did not immediately hide my old arguments?--Sm565 04:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying the "scientific community" is shorthand for the "overwhelming scientific consensus" which is appropriate here. I have to agree with Adam here. I see nothing new.--Filll 04:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggested "overwhelming scientific consensus" since it is not supported by the sources. I suggested that we use almost the words being used in the NHS Direct which is a cited reference in the article and "supports" the sentence. A Filll do you think they are not accurate or they are POV?--Sm565 04:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam if you find where I suggested the exact sentence supported by the above arguements a dozen times, please let me know. Thanks--Sm565 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

more

Please read this about science: The Faculty of Homeopathy, the professional body for doctors who practise, takes a different view, arguing that enough evidence exists for their subject to be classed as a science.

Dr Peter Fisher, spokesman, said: "We disagree strongly with the assertion that homeopathy is unscientific. There are 50 positive (and very few negative) peer-reviewed placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy.

"This is far too large a body of evidence to dismiss and warrants further investigation in an open-minded, unbiased spirit of proper scientific enquiry. Universities are just the places to lead this work." [35] thanks Peter morrell 06:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's the job of the spokesman for the Faculty of Homeopathy to say that. The NHS, also cited in the article ("insufficient evidence of effectiveness"), is more likely to be objective. The reporter (whose bias and expertise we do not know) summarized, "In fact, there is a wide body of evidence to support that homeopathy has a therapeutic benefit but very little to suggest that this benefit is anything more than a placebo." What are we supposed to learn from this? --Art Carlson 07:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not seek only the "objective" view, because we cannot say what view is more objective, or better. We can describe and characterize the debate and give the respective positions with proper citations. Whig 08:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We're permitted to use common sense. Someguy1221 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No. We are required to follow NPOV. Whig 16:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No and yes. Assuming that everyone who says anything about homeopathy to be equally reliable contradicts both common sense and NPOV. Those promoting the practice have an obvious conflict of interest and should not be trusted to the extent of independent, peer-review journals, or to the exent of well established and trusted national organizations such as the AMA and the NIH. Someguy1221 19:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

We are trying to establish what the view of the mainstream scientific community is concerning the efficacy of homeopathy. The NHS is an official body which has some authority to speak for the mainstream. The Faculty of Homeopathy has an obvious conflict of interest. Therefore the NHS position is a better source to answer this question (whether they are right or not). (Don't get me wrong. I am not satisfied with the current wording either.) --Art Carlson 08:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

How WP:NPOV works, we do not give undue weight, but we do not exclude the minority viewpoint. The NHS position is relevant and should be contextualized, and so is that of the Faculty of Homeopathy. Wikipedia does not allow only the mainstream view to be presented. It is a violation of WP:NPOV. Whig 16:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Art; thats exactly I asked Adam: if we could use NHS words.Please read it is there : [36] you can see it above as well. --Sm565 08:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy.Non consesus. Look at whole statement. I know Adam hided it so you cannot see it but clikc on show. Art the editors used this citation to support the phrase the "scientific community asserts" not me.Why did not you object before? I suggested its use since it was a trustable and reliable sourse according to the editors. I agree with them that it is ...--Sm565 07:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC)Nicely quote-mined there, well done. It takes real skill to use an article that clearly shows the scientific consensus is that homeopathy is a steaming pile of bunk, and cite it as though it were an example of precisely the opposite. Have highly potentised cookie... – ornis ⚙ 07:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

So ConfuciusOrnis in the sentence "Some scientists argue that homeopathy cannot work because the remedies used are so highly diluted", Some scientists = the scientific community ?--Sm565 23:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I read the NHS abstract, it states that there is no substance to homeopathy at all, and that only a few crackpots here and there make wild claims for it and basically twist the facts to justify their beliefs.--Filll 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the NHS Results page is not a totally clear statement one way or the other and thus can be interpreted to support either side of this discussion to some extent. This is unfortunate when the discussion includes as much hairsplitting as this one does.

I do not see how NHS could be interpreted to say “there is no substance to homeopathy at all, and that only a few crackpots here and there make wild claims for it and basically twist the facts to justify their beliefs”. I think some moderation in the rhetoric of this discussion would be helpful.

My reading of NHS Results page is that homeopathy has no efficacy beyond a placebo effect, but it does not exactly say that. Wanderer57 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

^ e.g. Gauch (2003) op cit at 211 ff (Probability, "Common Blunders")
^ Paul Montgomery Churchland, Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind (1999) MIT Press. p.90. "Most terms in theoretical physics, for example, do not enjoy at least some distinct connections with observables, but not of the simple sort that would permit operational definitions in terms of these observables. [..] If a restriction in favor of operational definitions were to be followed, therefore, most of theoretical physics would have to be dismissed as meaningless pseudoscience!"
^ Gauch HG Jr. (2003) op cit 269 ff, "Parsimony and Efficiency"
^ Hines T (1988) Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books. A Skeptical Inquirer Reader
^ Lakatos I (1970) "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." in Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge pp 91-195; Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery
^ e.g. Gauch (2003) op cit at 178 ff (Deductive Logic, "Fallacies"), and at 211 ff (Probability, "Common Blunders"). e.g. [37] Macmilllan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3, "Fallacies" 174 ff, esp. section on "Ignoratio elenchi"
^ Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3, "Fallacies" 174 'ff esp. 177-178
^ Bunge M (1983) Demarcating science from pseudoscience Fundamenta Scientiae 3:369-388, 381
^ Thagard (1978)op cit at 227, 228
^ Lilienfeld SO (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology Guildford Press (2004) ISBN 1-59385-070-0
^ Ruscio J (2001) Clear thinking with psychology: Separating sense from nonsense, Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth
^ Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas (Warning 469 kB PDF)*Peer review – process, perspectives and the path ahead; Lilienfeld (2004) op cit For an opposing perspective, e.g. Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity
^ Ruscio (2001) op cit.
^ Gauch (2003) op cit 124 ff"
^ Gauch (2003) op cit 124 ff"
^ Lakatos I (1970) "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." in Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge 91-195; Thagard (1978) op cit writes: "We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations."
^ Hines T, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1988. ISBN 0-87975-419-2. Thagard (1978) op cit 223 ff
^ name=Ruscio120>Ruscio J (2001) op cit. p120
^ The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.
^ ^a ^b Devilly GJ (2005) Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Austral NZ J Psych 39:437-445(9) Cite error: The named reference "Devilly" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ e.g. archivefreedom.org which claims that "The list of suppressed scientists even includes Nobel Laureates!"
^ Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.
^ ^a ^b Where in-line citations are provided, they should give proper attribution using either Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the Scientific citation guidelines.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed.
^ Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ A lack of images does not disqualify the article from GA status.
^ ^a ^b "Similia similibus curentur (Like cures like)". Creighton University Department of Pharmacology. Retrieved 2007-08-20.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference nccamnih was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference homhist1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference nhspseudo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Cite error: The named reference amapseudo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference pmid11416076 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2007). "Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Mayo Clin Proc. 82 (1): 69–75. PMID 17285788.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann's "Organon Of Medicine" translated by Dudgeon Fifth Edition § 269
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference pmid16125589 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference pmid9243229 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference pmid8554846 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference pmid11316508 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference pmid8255290 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference pmid1376282 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2007). "Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Mayo Clin Proc. 82 (1): 69–75. PMID 17285788.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann's "Organon Of Medicine" translated by Dudgeon Fifth Edition § 269

[1] .g. Gauch (2003) op cit at 211 ff (Probability, "Common Blunders")

[2] Paul Montgomery Churchland, Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind (1999) MIT Press. p.90. "Most terms in theoretical physics, for example, do not enjoy at least some distinct connections with observables, but not of the simple sort that would permit operational definitions in terms of these observables. [..] If a restriction in favor of operational definitions were to be followed, therefore, most of theoretical physics would have to be dismissed as meaningless pseudoscience!"

[3] Gauch HG Jr. (2003) op cit 269 ff, "Parsimony and Efficiency"

[4] Hines T (1988) Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence Buffalo NY: Prometheus Books. A Skeptical Inquirer Reader

[5] Lakatos I (1970) "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." in Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge pp 91-195; Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery

[6] .g. Gauch (2003) op cit at 178 ff (Deductive Logic, "Fallacies"), and at 211 ff (Probability, "Common Blunders"). e.g. [37] Macmilllan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3, "Fallacies" 174 ff, esp. section on "Ignoratio elenchi"

[7] Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol 3, "Fallacies" 174 'ff esp. 177-178

[8] Bunge M (1983) Demarcating science from pseudoscience Fundamenta Scientiae 3:369-388, 381

[9] Thagard (1978)op cit at 227, 228

[10] Lilienfeld SO (2004) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology Guildford Press (2004) ISBN 1-59385-070-0

[11] Ruscio J (2001) Clear thinking with psychology: Separating sense from nonsense, Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth

[12] Peer review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas (Warning 469 kB PDF)*Peer review – process, perspectives and the path ahead; Lilienfeld (2004) op cit For an opposing perspective, e.g. Peer Review as Scholarly Conformity

[13] Ruscio (2001) op cit.

[14] Gauch (2003) op cit 124 ff"

[15] Gauch (2003) op cit 124 ff"

[Lakatos1-16] Lakatos I (1970) "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." in Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge 91-195; Thagard (1978) op cit writes: "We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations."

[17] Hines T, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1988. ISBN 0-87975-419-2. Thagard (1978) op cit 223 ff

[18] =Ruscio120>Ruscio J (2001) op cit. p120

[19] The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience.

[Devilly-20] Devilly GJ (2005) Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry Austral NZ J Psych 39:437-445(9) Cite error: The named reference "Devilly" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[21] .g. archivefreedom.org which claims that "The list of suppressed scientists even includes Nobel Laureates!"

[22] Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.

[Harvard_and_cite.php-23] Where in-line citations are provided, they should give proper attribution using either Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the Scientific citation guidelines.

[24] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed.

[25] Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[26] A lack of images does not disqualify the article from GA status.

[homsim-27] "Similia similibus curentur (Like cures like)". Creighton University Department of Pharmacology. Retrieved 2007-08-20.

[nccamnih-28] Cite error: The named reference nccamnih was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[homhist1-29] Cite error: The named reference homhist1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[nhspseudo-30] Cite error: The named reference nhspseudo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[amapseudo-31] Cite error: The named reference amapseudo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[pmid11416076-32] Cite error: The named reference pmid11416076 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[33] Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2007). "Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Mayo Clin Proc. 82 (1): 69–75. PMID 17285788.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[34] Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann's "Organon Of Medicine" translated by Dudgeon Fifth Edition § 269

[pmid16125589-35] Cite error: The named reference pmid16125589 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[pmid9243229-36] Cite error: The named reference pmid9243229 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[pmid8554846-37] Cite error: The named reference pmid8554846 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[pmid11316508-38] Cite error: The named reference pmid11316508 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[pmid8255290-39] Cite error: The named reference pmid8255290 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[pmid1376282-40] Cite error: The named reference pmid1376282 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[41] Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E (2007). "Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials". Mayo Clin Proc. 82 (1): 69–75. PMID 17285788.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[42] Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann's "Organon Of Medicine" translated by Dudgeon Fifth Edition § 269

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

GA Review

Opinions from Sm565 on neutral point of view.

Support studies on Homeopathy from Sm565

low prevalence of homeopathy use in US midleading.

Getting this to FAC

POV tag

Clinical trials

Good Sources

See also

Overstating the case

Sources

SM565 - why The neutrality of the introduction and "clinical trials" are disputed.

Comments on SM565 - why The neutrality of this introduction is disputed.

Pseudoscience

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation

Lack of openness to testing by other experts

Lack of progress

Personalization of issues

Use of misleading language

POV established

On removing the POV sign.

New drugs

As I had anticipated

Relevant policy discussion here only please

RfC alert

Help tag article

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Discussion of Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

My thoughts on this article

Just Wondering

Sources Interpretation and counter critisism.

3 questions.

Homeopathy in Canada

Sources Interpretation #2

My two cents

Two bad edits?

References interpretation #3

Molecules

Note

Outside view: Homeopathy and neutrality

Format lead please

What would be needed to fix this article

Quackery

Another Question

Why the term Scientific community used in the article (intro) is not supported

Censorship ?

more