Jump to content

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Relation of homeopathy to other therapy forms

I noticed that since Prevalence and legality of homeopathy was forked off, the word "allopathy" no longer appears in this article. As it is in some sense the opposite of homeopathy we should really discuss it. When I looked for a good place to put it in, I realised that there is no section discussing the relation of homeopathy to mainstream medicine. I think there are a few things to be said: E.g. that homeopathy branched off before mainstream medicine became scientific; hostility of many homeopaths to some elements of mainstream medicine and pejorative use of the word "allopathy". If we name it more inclusively, we could also move the current subsections on isopathy, tautopathy and flower remedies there. Any thoughts? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you're opening a can of worms, count me out! Though allopathy has a precise origin and meaning, you will have a hard time explaining that and balancing it against those who detest the term as a form of insult, which I don't think it was originally intended to have but which it soon acquired and has had for many decades. Good luck on trying to find consensus on this topic! Peter morrell 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, allopathy has become a sort of "N word" for physicians. Add to this the fact that it's only partly descriptive. A lot of medicine involves amelioration of symptoms or even basic problems, while waiting for the body to fix itself. However, it would be a mistake to assume that scientific medicine focuses mainly or merely on fixing symptoms, signs and numbers. It does a lot of that, true enough, but only as a means to an end, knowing that the body does not operate well when things are out of whack. Or it may be proper end. Is it "allopathic" to give a malnurished person nutrients, or a dehydrated person water? How about a hypoxic person extra oxygen? Is there a homeopathic remedy for the complaint of thirst after working for a while outside, on a hot day? SBHarris 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The term allopathy should be mentioned and explained as a term that homeopaths use to define mainstream Western medicine. Not as a correct definition of medicince. MaxPont (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That's actually exactly what I wanted to do, so I think it shouldn't be too controversial. There is something I want to clarify about the history of the word. (I tried to start a discussion at Talk:Allopathic medicine. Please have a look there and comment if you are familiar with the early history of homeopathy, which I am not.) Once I have done that I am planning to make a concrete proposal for a new section as described above. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hans, I agree. There needs to be some reference to allopathy in this article. Just as it is good to understand one's own cultural by visiting another culture, a good way to understand homeopathy and allopathy is to acknowledge and differentiate them. By the way, [user:Bryan Hopping] has posted some truly impressive modern RS/NPOV references to the use of the word allopathy here: [1] Clearly, the word allopathy is accepted today by mainstream medical organizations, medical schools, and governmental agencies. DanaUllmanTalk 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
On first sight I find the usage examples more convincing than the books. Linguistically speaking, the effect that an originally pejorative word for the majority of physicians gradually becomes more and more neutral is not surprising. The word slowly acquires the connotations that come with the profession. But I am not convinced that we have already reached the stage where the word can be used without offence to a non-negligeable number of people. Personally I think it would be OK, and probably a good thing for stylistic reasons, to use the word freely in homeopathy articles. I can see two reasons why someone would oppose this: Because they think it is offensive, or because they prefer other formulations like "mainstream medicine" or "scientific medicine" that stress the "fringiness" aspect of homeopathy each time they are used. Don't count too much on me if you want to enforce free use of the word in the article: Once somebody can convince me that they are opposing this for the first reason I will stop supporting that. I also think that this is a relatively minor problem compared with some other style and balance problems in the article, and therefore it's probably not worth fighting over. Or do you feel very strongly about this? My point was really that an article on homeopathy is not complete before the word "allopathy" appears at least once. And I am sure that we can find a consensus to achieve that. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Basic principles

This discussion is now spread over two places. A couple of editors discussed changes to the lede, intending to make it more POV (see ideas vs. theories). After a consensus was reached and these changes were implemented, QuackGuru appeared and complained (see controversial edit). CKCortez jumped in and escalated the situation by reverting to the previous version, giving reasons that could have been taken in account by simply replacing "in particular" with "for example". I suggest that everybody continues the discussion under this heading now to keep it in one place. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone has just reinstated the following text: "In particular, the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of chemistry and medicine". This is a hand-waving statement since it does not cite these basic principles. It is also incorrect. One basic principle of medicine, as stated in the Hippocratic Oath is First, do no harm. The point of dilution is to ensure that the homeopathic medicine is not harmful and so it is consistent with this basic principle. The placebo effect also seems a fairly fundamental aspect of medicine too, being well recognised in medical studies. By this principle, it is is better to give a placebo than no medicine at all.

So, since this statement is wrong and is unsupported, I am removing it. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. But one person's opinion counts for something but not much. And I'm kind of offended by your use of the Hippocratic Oath. Do no harm doesn't quite don't do anything, which is what homeopathy is, the delivery of water to a patient. Um, my daughter knows how to bring me a glass of water, so I'm just appointing her Homeopath promoter for OM's household. Cool. Her 6th grade education was well done! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The statement is correct and can be sourced. I restored the info and added a citation needed. QuackGuru (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have addressed the basic principles of medicine. We should also consider the basic principles of chemistry/physics. It seems that the principle being being appealed to here is the principle of locality - that something must be proximate in order to have an effect. However, this is a principle of common-sense only since science has long since had to discard it. First, it was overturned by the idea of action at a distance which was a key element in the Theory of Gravitation propounded by Isaac Newton. Subsequently it was appealed to by Einstein in his thought experiment to try to overturn quantum mechanics. However, experiment has proved him wrong and the mysterious Bell inequality prevails.

So since these supposed principles have neither been produced or are inappropriate and we still have no citation, I am removing this controversial statement again. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

However, you do not have consensus to remove the NPOV sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Clinging to unsupported rhetoric in the face of reasoned argument is contrary to the basic principles of science. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The Hippocratic Oath is a principle of ethics, not of medicine. Modern physicians routinely use medications, surgery, and treatment whose benefits outweigh their harm, but which nonetheless are known to harm. Were one to take "no harm" literally, one would do nothing. In any case, the Hippocratic Oath - since it is not a scientific principle - has no relevance to the subject at hand. Further, giving someone an ineffective medicine while telling them it's effective is in itself a kind of harm, one which may result in very real consequences if it delays effective treatment. As to the strawman of "locality": just because one thing works at a distance doesn't mean all things do. There is no theory of the operation of homeopathic remedies that correspond to actual scientific principles - unlike the examples you give. Please don't change back to your preferred reading without achieving consensus on the talk page first. It should be obvious by now that your changes are controversial. - Nunh-huh 05:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Orthodox doctors routinely prescribe placebos and cultivate their bedside manner for its healing effect in the mind of the patient. Your arguments are insubstantial and fail to identify the basic principles which homeopathy violates. You seem to be relying upon The Truth rather than science. This is not NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you have mischaracterized what I am "relying on". You, however, seem to be relying on Pronouncements rather than Logic. Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of what is logical; that's why changes such as you envision are discussed first. - Nunh-huh 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
My entry point was noticing an edit of Orange Marlin's. I looked at the diff to see what he was up to and observed the statement which is contested. He was adding this statement and, since it is both wrong and unsupported, I acted to remove this in accordance with the strongest principles of Wikipedia - that we do not tolerate material which is unverified and not NPOV. Moreover, I started the discussion section to explain what I was doing, unlike OrangeMarlin. Folk such as he and QuackGuru seem to be edit warring in support of bad material. This is neither science nor logic nor true to our encyclopedic principles. For shame. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You guys, let's get centered, we aren't discussing neither Hippocratic Oath nor medical ethics. The point here is that homeopathy says that those high dilutions have real effectes on patients that are not explained by placebo effects, and that chemistry says that such an effect is not posible, and (allopathic) medicine does not accept that effect either (and please don't start arguing about the use of the word "allopathic", I just used it so I hadn't to say "scientific" or "fact based" which would have made pressumptions of the use of science by homeopathy) --Enric Naval (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Enric, in fact the dilutions thing is well covered; the main arguing point today is about principles: whose principles, what principles and how/if they are being abrogated. Both sides seem to have a point IMO. Question is, does the present wording suffice or does it need changing? If the latter, by how much and to what? thanks Peter morrell 07:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As I understand it, science doesn't have much in the way of principles. It is, by its nature, questioning and pragmatic. The idea of sticking to rigid principles is older than modern science - I would call it the method of classical scholarship which was based upon the authority of the ancient philosophers, especially Aristotle. This is essentially the same stuff as religion. This is the real scienific criticism of homeopathy - that it is too dogmatic and not keeping up with the latest findings. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That said, and I agree up to a point, how do you reckon the present wording need changing to reflect these ideas? Peter morrell 07:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I could develop my ideas and put them into words but this would have the same problem - it would be OR not supported by a reliable source. I have some sources on the general subject of scientific principles such as Feynmann's "shut up and calculate" but these don't really speak to the issue of homeopathy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There are good sources that say homeopathy has fixed & reliable principles that have never changed and cannot change. Science is questioning and pragmatic, true, but it has gathered around it a range of apparent 'principles' along the way and it seems to know sharply what is probably true and what is false in its own view. However, to compare homeopathy with ordinary medicine is perhaps a better task than bringing science in at all as medicine is not even 50% a true science, and so it complicates things to compare homeopathy with science rather than with mainstream medicine. For example, the biomedical worldview relies heavily on biochemistry even though things happen in a living organism that do not happen in test-tubes and so the gulf between the two is very real and so it is clear that a biochemical view of an organism cannot predict the complex interactions, etc that will occur. This is just one reason why medicine is not a hard science like lab-based, test-tube chemistry. Perhaps we can delineate more clearly what purpose we are serving in this discussion? The idea was to improve the wording and somehow say that homeopathy abrogates certain key science principles. Apart from high dilutions, I cannot see what these so-called principles are, let alone find sources to illustrate the contention. Peter morrell 08:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this is really a semantics issue. What are "principals"?, what is "contradiction"? and so forth. What I think we are looking for is a way to say "according to what we know about the natural world, homeopathy is not possible" without being PoV. Obviously that's a hopelessly badly put sentence, but I think that's the essence of what people are trying to say. Jefffire (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree but we need to identify more clearly what those principles in conflict actually are. Until then it all remains mysteriously vague. I have my own ideas on that but want to see what others can come up with first. Sorry that's a deliberate tease! Peter morrell 09:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to do away with the term "principals". It is too ambiguous. A word for word change would be a bit clunky, so I think we need a whole new sentence. Jefffire (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Where we are now: The longstanding version has been replaced by a new one that several editors agreed was more neutral. The new version was changed in one direction (revert to previous version) by CKCortez, which was undone, and then in the opposite direction (removal of a sentence) by Colonel Warren, which was also undone. We now have the new version with minor changes by QuackGuru. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(I added two notes to this discussion because after so many reverts and little changes the situation has become confusing. I want to avoid that a single editor who misreads the history escalates it again, now that it seems to have settled down. I hope that this is OK for everybody. I am open to suggestions for making these statements more neutral if anybody feels that that is necessary. Sorry for the interruption. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
  • As a general editing approach, I favour cutting out excessive verbiage. The essential point is made in the previous sentence and the sentence in question is merely providing an example. Talk of scientific principles is unnecessary since it is the principles of homeopathy which are being discussed, not the principles of science (whatever they may be). So, I propose the following wording:

Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. For example, homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted that they are unlikely to contain any molecules of their active ingredient.

The first sentence is already cited and the second is presumably verifiable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've got it wrong, the original sentence said: "The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine." So, I'm afraid you have to state what these alleged "fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine," actually are, which some folks say homeopathy is directly opposed to. Unless you do that you cannot put back into the article the above sentence. What is more, you need to cite that exact phrase or give sources that parrot the idea. We have previously agreed about the implausible clause but not the principles clause. thanks Peter morrell 10:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's OK then. No problem. But Jefffire seemed to think there is an issue on that. Maybe he will let us know. Peter morrell 10:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you missed this. Jefffire (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you also earlier said: "according to what we know about the natural world, homeopathy is not possible," and that is precisely the issue. Who 'knows' what and how does that cause homeopathy to be so 'impossible' as you put it? You either want to say homeopathy is in conflict with natural science or you don't. Choose what you want. If you do want that phrase in the article then you have got to delineate what the scientific principles are that homeopathy abrogates. Simple. If you don't, then we leave it out entirely as CW said. Hope that's now clearer. Peter morrell 11:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 2) Well, I think there is an issue with leaving it out completely. While I see that the principles clause is highly problematic, I don't see a chance to get a stable article while leaving it out altogether. (In my opinion it's because of some scientists who make the wrong equation my POV as a scientist = majority scientists' POV = scientific POV and cannot distinguis between scientific statements and statements about science.) The current wording seems to be the best we can do for the moment. I don't think it is productive to discuss this further right now, in the context of the lede, where we are under additional external restrictions. These things should be addressed in detail in the body of the article, and then the lede should be an accurate summary of the consensus that we will have established there. But for this we need the kind of constructive atmosphere that we won't have if either side feels overrun by the other. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that our current scientific knowledge would suggest that homeopathy doesn't work as there is no theoretical reason to expect the laws of homeopathy from our medical and chemical knowledge. One might compare this to how the 19th century's scientific knowledge would have suggested that relativity couldn't work. Worded correctly I shouldn't say that it doesn't work, just that there are theoretical problems. Wording that is tricky, and probably a big group task, but for now I agree that "principals" is inappropriate word use. Jefffire (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be overreaching since our current scientific knowledge would suggest that homeopathy would work in some cases due to the placebo effect. The issue is more that the theory of why homeopathy works is disputed - orthodox scientists would say that it's just the placebo effect while homeopaths would say otherwise. This is not an especially unusual issue in medicine. The theory behind the use of SSRIs is weak and some studies suggest that they too are little better than placebos. Insofar as there's a point to be made it's that theory behind homeopathy now seems especially bizarre. But again that is true of other scientific theories such as the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics. We're dealing here with the human issue of credibility which is rather a soft one, since scientific theories can never be proved - they can only be disproved. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I meant function above placebo. Jefffire (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What do the sources say?

As far as I can determine, only one source has been offered to support the wording "contradiction", namely,

Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American journal of pharmaceutical education 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507.

(This is reference 125 in the current version, but at some point got detached from the "contradiction" statement.) The relevant parts of this reference read

[Homeopathy] is a system of medicine that has been in widespread use for the last 200 years, the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories.6-8

and

The fundamental tenets of homeopathy are completely different from modern medicine, pharmacology, and chemistry.10 Main sources of contention include: the implausibility of homeopathic principles; the lack of a proven or plausible mechanism of action for homeopathy; and mixed results from randomized, controlled trials on homeopathic preparations. These conflicts, coupled with the existence of some high-quality trials that did not show a benefit with homeopathy have caused many pharmacists to conclude that homeopathy is nothing more than quackery.1,10-13

These statements from the "INTRODUCTION" are tempered by some later statements, such as this one from the end of the section on "PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS IN DILUTION RESEARCH":

In short, physical experiments have demonstrated a variety of possible mechanisms for the transmission and preservation of therapeutic properties in highly diluted solutions. Taken together, these findings may lead to a mechanism for how homeopathic medications act and interact on a molecular level.

I am bothered by several things here.

  • The current language in our article is not easily derived from the language in this source.
  • It is not clear whether the authors intend to be expressing their own opinion or speaking for the scientific community.
  • The authors seem to be ambivalent about the question.

It would be helpful if someone with access to a medical library could check the content and wording of these references. (I couldn't find them online.)

  • 1. Barrett S, Tyler VE. Why pharmacists should not sell homeopathic remedies. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 1995;52:1004–6. [PubMed]
  • 6. Chavez ML, Chapman RL. Homeopathy. Hosp Pharm. 1998;33:41–50.
  • 7. Pharmacy and Apotex Continuing Education. Homeopathy. Can Pharm J. 1997;130:28.
  • 8. Riedlinger, JE.; Lennihan, B. Chapter 55: Homeopathic Remedies. In: Berardi RR, Kroon LA, McDermott JH, et al., editors. Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs: An Interactive Approach to Self-Care. 15th edition. Washington, DC: American Pharmaceutical Association; 2006. pp. 1167–93.
  • 10. Harrison J. Should pharmacists sell homeopathic products? Can Pharm J. 1998;131
  • 11. Dillon RL. Homeopathy? Absurd! [letter]. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 1996;53:1336–9. [PubMed]
  • 12. Pray WS. The challenge to professionalism presented by homeopathy. Am J Pharm Educ. 1996;60:198–204.
  • 13. Whitaker S. If we endorse quack cures we really deserve to be dubbed “Baddy Chemists” [letter]. Pharm J. 2002;268:288.

I would like to see language that is either

  • closer to the sources, perhaps including "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories" as an attibuted quote,
  • or else using a completely different formulation, such as that suggested by Colonel Warden, namely, "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. For example, homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted that they are unlikely to contain any molecules of the active ingredient."

--Art Carlson (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well these are not very high grade sources, are they? What pharmacists think of homeopathy cannot really be projected into saying what all scientists think, can it? So I would hold fire on that aspect, as Hans said previously, (a) until we can find better (higher grade) sources and (b) until we can discuss its inclusion not in the lead but somewhere in the main article. thanks Peter morrell 11:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Art, thanks for a very strong and apparently well-researched statement that I agree with. I didn't want to start this discussion now, but apparently it had to be. So I will second what you say, except that I would like to change Colonel Warden's version to "many homeopathic remedies" or "most homeopathic remedies", whichever is correct and can be sourced. Without this qualification it is incorrect because harmless stuff like arnica is often used in dilutions of 1/10-1/10000. See [2] for an example. I think we should make such a minor change before addressing the real controversy, to avoid running into trouble later. Nevertheless I still suggest playing out further down in the article first. (You were probably busy with the research while I proposed that, so perhaps you can say what you think about the idea.) --Hans Adler (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with "many" or "most" (or "common" or "often"). I noticed after I posted that that slipped by me. I don't insist on resolving the language of the lead right away. In general I think it is a better approach to work out the main text first, because the lead follows naturally as a summary of that. What I want to avoid is having to start over again from zero, so I at least want to document the current state of the discussion for later reference. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Detailed quoting of sources is best done in the body where we have the space to develop the points. In the lead, we should aim for succinct summary. Also, if we have some measure of agreement, then we should bank it. Another article on my watchlist is Procrastination... Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Perhaps you can explain what "bank it" means? plainspeak preferred thank you Peter morrell 13:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant to make the change now rather than later, like banking some winnings. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I agree with you. Peter morrell 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

References to more meta-analyses

This article is missing reference to many meta-analyses in highly respected medical journals. In this light, I am recommending the following addition to this article. You will note that I have integrated some critique of some of these meta-analyses. It is strange that this article ignores the impressive and high quality work of Reilly, the Cochrane review of clinical trials on Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu, and the 3 studies on childhood diarrhea by Jacobs and team. The first sentence below is taken directly from the article here, though I have added my recommendations for what should be said next. DanaUllmanTalk 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] However, various meta-analysis have found a greater effect from a homeopathic medicine than a placebo [Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al (1997). "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials". Lancet 350 (9081): 834–43. PMID 9310601. Linde and colleagues analysed 89 trials and found a mean odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 2.05–2.93), in favor of homeopathy. When considering just those trials of “high quality” and after correcting for publication bias, the findings actually remained statistically significant (means odds ratio of 1.86). The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.” The authors later analyzed these trials and concluded that higher quality trials were less likely to be positive than those of lower quality, though they acknowledged that this is true of conventional medical research too, saying in the first sentence of the article, “There is increasing evidence that more rigorous trials tend to yield less optimistic results than trials with less precautions against bias.” Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6.] and several meta-analyses evaluating the homeopathic treatment of specific diseases has also found positive results. [Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.] [Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.] [Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633.] [Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.]
A review of 67 in vitro studies was conducted, three-fourths of which have been replicated with positive results by independent investigators. [Claudia M. Witt, Michael Bluth, Henning Albrecht The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 128-138. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2007.01.011] The researchers of this review concluded, “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.” However, they also acknowledge, “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.” DanaUllmanTalk 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS, these do not appear to be RS. Jefffire (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
For some purposes they would be considered reliable sources, so it is not fair to dismiss Dana's suggestion so lightly. Since there now appear to be dozens of publications calling themselves meta-analyses, we have to ask if these sources are among the best (most reliable) that are available to address a given question. Some of the relevant criteria are the prestige and neutrality of the journal (Lancet is better than Complementary Therapies in Medicine), and the number of trials analyzed (3 trials on childhood diarrhea or 4 on perennial allergic rhinitis arguably are too small to be called meta-analyses). We've been around this circle many times. I would like to see a branch of this talk page that lists all the studies that are proposed for inclusion with the information we need to prioritize them. Eventually, it will turn into a great resource, and we will be able to short-cut a lot of discussions by pointing to that page. Unfortunately, making such a page involves work, so we would need a selfless volunteer to do it. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
GTBacchus is planning such a thing. (BTW, Dana, could you add some more line breaks in the right places, or perhaps italics that make it easier to understand the structure of your post?) --Hans Adler (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of these analyses say that the evidence found was not good enough to come to definitive conclusions and call for more good quality research, and several are 8 years or more old, so we also need to consider more recent results, such as the attempt by Lewith et al. to repeat Reilly's results[3], which concluded that while there were some unexplained differences between the groups, "homoeopathic immunotherapy is not effective in the treatment of patients with asthma". In the case of the 2007 analysis of in-vitro studies, as well as saying that the results were not consistently reproduced, the abstract (I haven't seen the actual paper yet) also appears to cast doubt on the quality of the trials: "A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments". This suggests that these were not generally adopted in the studies considered. Brunton (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I referenced these particular meta-analyses and reviews of research because they are known reviews of high quality research. The Cochrane report is but one example. The Reilly research is widely recognized as high quality (Brunton, your summary of the Lewith effort to replicate was good because most people tend to erroneously summarize it as a simply an unsuccessful result, when, in fact, there were differences in effects between the treatment and the control group. Reilly has commented on this trial as NOT being a replication trial due to many differences in the design, its inadequate repetition of the remedy--just 3 doses--over 3 months (!), and more (I don't have the reference to his response at this moment but can provide it if anyone is interested). The Jacobs trials are notable because 2 of the 3 trials were published in major pediatric journals, and although the lead researcher was the same person (Jacobs), she used different homeopaths as prescribers for each trial. As for the review of in-vitro studies, I recognize that the journal in which it was published was not of the same highest caliber as the others, however, this review is available online and seems to be a high quality review (I encourage others to read it). DanaUllmanTalk 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a link to somewhere the Witt et al. review is available? I can't find it anywhere that doesn't require a subscription. Brunton (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: the lead researcher can (and he is actually supposed to) order the prescribers to do stuff on a certain way and not other, and completely bias the research even if accidentally, so that fact is *very* important. We can safely assume all 3 trials have the same bias --Enric Naval (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Are these studies highly regarded by the scientific and medical community? Jefffire (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out what I already wrote at Talk:Homeopathy/Selection of studies: I attempted to pull together reliable secondary sources a few months ago: here's the archive of it...nobody responded to my work. Everything I list there is a review or meta-analysis. — Scientizzle 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The table consists of individual studies (with all the problems of primary sources, expecially the danger of cherry picking) and doesn't say much if anything about the conclusions. The list is better, but 398 papers is much too much to deal with (as you noticed yourself). If there are really that many "reviews and meta-analyses" out there, then we need a tertiary source to pick out the most important ones for us. Maybe some citation statistics on this list would be a good start? Or a selected list published by a major medical organization? --Art Carlson (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
398 is certainly too much, but the usable number is actually probably a third of that--a lot more papers end up under the "review" tab at pubmed than should. When you skip over nonreviews and obvious crap from altmed journals, the number is much better. Still, though, the utility of reviews is that they're (ideally) comprehensive enough to include reference to and information from prior works. Therefore, we needn't actually sort through every review ever, but can pull from the most recent works from the best quality journals.
Another point: given the nature of the general nonacceptance--and, indeed, active ignoring--of homeopathy by mainstream medicine and the desperate attempts to claim legitimacy by proponents, tertiary sources are likely, in my opinion, to be decidedly less common from the skeptical angle...then again, I've not really looked and maybe I'll be surprised! — Scientizzle 16:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Linde '97 has been destroyed by reviewers and is contradicted by later, better work. In vitro assays, frankly, don't mean crap when it comes to clinical efficacy. The reason Homeopathy doesn't have support in the medical literature is all those caveats that even the positive reviews have to place: low reliability, power, and repeatability...and vanishing effects as these increase. — Scientizzle 15:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But a reproducible in vitro result would be more convincing than even an excellent clinical study because there is much less that can go wrong. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
No way. A reproducible in vitro study is usually the basic requirement to justify even starting a pilot clinical study. The list of excellent in vitro work that fails to translate into viable in vivo mechanisms & treatments is extensive. — Scientizzle 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't we already have this discussion on some other talk page? Are you going to just shop around until you find some page that you can put this meta-analysis into, Dana? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what? Can you link that page where Dana presented this same study so we can see the arguments used? Dana is on probation on the homeopathy-related pages and if he has presented the same argument without citing the arguments because the study was rejected on the former discussion or mentioning the rejection then he's clearly breaching it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Check out Talk:Arsenicum album. The discussion of it is spread out over several sections, but we're definitely talking about the same study. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If it's the 1997 Linde et al. analysis[4] you mean, the study Dana was pushing on the Arsenicum album talk page is not the same one - that one was published in 1994[5]. There was a certain amount of confusion, and mentions of the 1997 paper from other editors, because Dana initially failed to cite the 1994 'Human and Experimental toxicology' paper correctly. Brunton (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as the 1997 Linde paper goes, as mentioned on the other page in the 1999 paper Linde and his co-authors wrote "The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments" (Linde et al. 1999[6]), and in 2005 in a letter published in The Lancet Linde and Jonas wrote, "Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven"[7]. Brunton (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking of the Witt et al. 2007 paper when I made that comment, which he briefly mentioned there. However, it still is quite interesting that he'd come here pushing the 1997 Linde et al. study, given all the arguments presented against it there (despite the fact that he wasn't actively pushing it then). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"quite interesing", now that's an interesing wording :) You can comment it at Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#pushing_articles_on_talk_pages --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Brunton is correct about the mistakes made by Enric about the Linde meta-analyses. The 1994 meta-analysis focused on 105 studies in environmental toxicology, and we achieved some consensus on it at Arsenicum album. I generally appreciate the work and mind of User:Scientizzle, but I think he is erring here. The point of doing homeopathic in-vitro studies is first and foremost to simply show that homeopathic doses have a greater effect than a placebo, and there is now a significant body of replication evidence here to confirm this, though as I also note in my description of the Witt (2007) review, no study has been replicated by ALL workers. User:Scientizzle wrote that Linde's 1997 meta-analysis was "destroyed by reviewers," but I am quite confident (though not certain) that he is not correct here. The review of research that has received the most significant criticism has been the 2005 Shang review. As for the Linde 1997 article, the Lancet published an editorial along with the meta-analysis that attacked the results simply because he asserted that all homeopathic research is "a game of chance between two placebos", but he also acknowledged and confirmed that "The meta-analysis is completely state of the art."[8] Obviously, the writer of this editorial is very antagonistic to homeopathy, and yet, he had the highest compliments for the work of Linde and team. That said, my original writing above includes reference to Linde 1999 article in which I wrote: The authors later analyzed these trials and concluded that higher quality trials were less likely to be positive than those of lower quality, though they acknowledged that this is true of conventional medical research too, saying in the first sentence of the article, “There is increasing evidence that more rigorous trials tend to yield less optimistic results than trials with less precautions against bias.” As for the 2005 reference to Linde saying that homeopaths should not say that his work "proved" homeopathy. No meta-analysis can "prove" all of homeopathy, so Linde's statement is relatively meaningless. In fact, Linde has NOT conducted a newer analysis, and based on his original work and his updated comments, we can and should still say that his work shows that the placebo explanation is inadequate for explaining if and how homeopathic medicines work. As his 1997 work highlighted, the 26 high quality clinical trials still had a 1.66 odds ratio, suggesting that the effect from homeopathic medicines was greater than that of placebo. Ultimately, my writing above sought diligently to maintain RS and NPOV. Please read again in the light of this information. DanaUllmanTalk 03:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some short replies:
  1. saying all homeopathic research is "a game of chance between two placebos" is not a compliment to homeopathic research. It's more like... totally the opposite of a compliment
  2. if there is a real effect caused by the substance studied, there will arrive a moment when increasing the rigor by a wide margin on the study will not reduce the success rate on results by a measurable margin. That's when you can start thinking that you have eliminated all bias and are actually measuring real effects. That point has not been reached yet by homeopathic research, and that's what makes it different from modern medicine
  3. don't label my posts as misinformation [9], specially when my "misinformation" consisted of verifiable facts that were confirmed by other editors at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents‎. The fact that you place an incivil statement on the edit summary does not make it less uncivil, and you have been warned before about your edit summaries --Enric Naval (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To reply to Dana's post as well...I stand by my statement indicating that Linde '97 has been effectively marginalized.
Regarding the in vitro work--I'm quite aware of the justification for doing it. The fact is that homeopathy was grandfathered into clinical work without any preclinical justification. This is true of many standard medical modalities, naturally, but it's standard practice in evidence-based medicine nowadays that any clinical exploration must have extensive supporting evidence of safety and efficacy in cell line work and animal models before any institutional review board will greenlight even pilot work in humans. Certainly, there are standard medical treatments that were developed long ago that have bypassed much of the preclinical work on account of their longstanding perceived success, but there is a lot of modern research involved in elucidating the relevant mechanisms of these paradigms, in essence backtracking into preclinical work to better facilitate next-gen clinical explorations. However, altmed research (in general, homeopathy included) seems to skate by with a distinct lack of preclinical justification for their clinical work. (I know this has been commented on in several sources that don't currently lie at my fingertips...) The case of trying to induce degranulation of human basophils is pretty clear to me: almost 20 years of work has revealed no consistent effect, providing no support for any in vitro justification of any claimed in vivo effect. — Scientizzle 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the body of (weak) scientific studies should be refered and summarized. Studies where other RS have critizised that particular study should still be mentioned, but with the critique mentioned too. A disclaimer should be integrated in this section with general comments about study design, potential sources of error, that most studies give a negative result etc. We (WP-editors) are on a slippery slope towards Original Research if we try to do the job of evaluating a complex body of scientific studies and second guess what peer reviewed journals have published.MaxPont (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Max that there should be SOME balanced mention of these studies and that they should be covered by every viewpoint of their interpretation so the reader can access them and make their own mind up. Even though they present a complex problem, they should at least get some mention somewhere, either in the main article or in that daughter article of studies. Peter morrell 07:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Balance. Neutrality. But the problem remains, out of thousands of published studies and hundreds of reviews and meta-analyses, how do we pick out the handful that we can discuss in the article? Without doing original research. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That's really outside of our competence. What would be ideal is a bunch of expert m.d's, and even then there would be controversy. We can generally assume that recent reviews in high impact journals are more authoritative though, so I would stick with those. Jefffire (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So it's OR to describe a controversy then is it? What happens in other wiki articles where there is strong controversy, such as Intelligent design and Creationism? Are you saying that those articles are composed entirely of OR and are thus worthless? That seems to be the logical consequence of what you are saying. We should surely be able to say something fairly neutral about a bunch of trials. Or is that too much to expect? Peter morrell 08:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think it can be such a big problem. For a start, we needn't build this in article space initially. We already have Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ, and this can serve a similar purpose. We can start with everything we already have. I think what we really need is a dozen or so of the best metastudies that can be read as supporting one side, and a dozen or so for the other. Both sides could do this separately, but I believe the result will be better if they do it together. (Also, I believe I am fairly neutral, and there are quite a few others here who I couldn't categorise as being for or against homeopathy.)
In talk space, original research isn't a problem. What is a problem is getting a consensus among the most active and most vocal editors. Currently it's hard to do anything because there is a range of opinions from "homeopathy has been proved to work and everybody who says otherwise wants to kill patients" to "homeopaths are quacks who want to throw us back into the middle ages". Almost nobody is as extreme as that, but as soon as we do anything substantial, it only takes one extremist to polarise everybody. I see the collection of meta-studies as a project for developing a community sense. Everybody should know what everybody else thinks, and why. Once we have reached that stage there will be hardly any room left for assuming bad faith or irrationality.
I believe the trick for reaching a consensus is to understand that this is not a zero-sum game. There are ways of changing an article so that one side thinks it's a lot better, and the other thinks it's slightly worse. Therefore after two such opposite changes everybody will feel the article is much better. But I don't think doing such changes can be traded. What we need is an understanding of the justified interests of the other side, which are often not completely incompatible with one's own side. Also some generosity plus the willingness to see the generosity of the other side.
I am afraid that wasn't particularly clear, but I'll press "Save page" anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK no isue with all that but I suspect what Jefffire was saying is that even to make a choice of which studies to include involves a bias. And he is right about that. My point simply was that to place something in the article is better than placing nothing. Myriad trials exist as also do their interpreters. It is undoubtedly a minefield, a can of worms, but some mention of all aspects of that should be included in the article. How we make choices and what goes in is then up for discussion. Hopefully, as Hans says, this balance can be achieved through give and take, consensus and mutual respect. Peter morrell 09:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Scientizzle stands by his remark about the criticisms for Linde 1997, but he hasn't provided any references to such critique. I previously showed that a strong critic of homeopathy made reference to the Linde meta-analysis as "completely state of the art", and he wrote about this in an editorial in the Lancet (cited above). I even included another quote from this editorial to make it clear that this author is quite antagonistic to homeopathy, and yet, he had VERY kind words to say about Linde's methodology.
As for the way forward...I simply suggest that we do what a good encyclopedia that strives for NPOV should do: We should say that some meta-analyses and reviews of research claim that there is no effects distinct from a placebo (and then give those references), while other meta-analyses and reviews of research claim that there is a distinct effect from that of placebo (and then given these references). Does this make sense? DanaUllmanTalk 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you proposing to include all 398 reviews and meta-analyses that Scientizzle dug up? --Art Carlson (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fine. Vandenbroucke may have thought the meta-analysis "state of the art," but he said the authors were "'leaning over backwards' to show the robustness of their findings". Linde et al were criticized for failing to provide the primary results of the contributing trials. In this critique the author is dubious of the value of the results, urging caution at positive interpretation of the results and stating "a rational basis for choice of homoeopathy, or any particular modality of it, is lacking". This one pointed out that Linde et al incorrectly interpreted and used some studies inappropriately, concluding "all the data in Linde's report should be carefully checked, since his group's prejudice in favour of homoeopathy is obvious". This one criticized Linde's "correction" for publication bias. Trial studies published after Linde et al completed their analyses were negative and Linde et al's results "may well be slightly more positive for homoeopathy than recent published evidence implies." This overview of the study concludes: "there just is not enough information in any one condition with any one homeopathic treatment to say that homeopathy should be used. If this were a new treatment in conventional healthcare, we would look at it with a very cold and fishy eye. Certainly no conventional therapy would be allowed to have so many different conditions and variations bundled together to try to reach a conclusion."
The fact that Linde et al (1997) "found insufficient evidence...that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" is not positive data. And of course, in 2001 Linde backed off even more: "the quality of the trials was highly variable, the majority had important shortcomings in reporting and/or methodology". In 2003, Linde and others wrote that "evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine".
So...I still stand by my statement. — Scientizzle 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Friends, remember that all scientific theories are falsified all the time. There will always be a few studies with contradictory results and a few phenomena that are unexplained. Just because a few studies show that homeopathy has an effect does not mean that the entire body of established scientific knowledge has to be discarded. The actual practice of science is not strict Popperian. Look at Lakatos [10] for a deeper discussion. The pro science camp can relax. Including a few studies with positive results is not a proof that homeopathy works. I think that the pro-homeo studies can be mentioned and referenced in a narrative with disclaimers. MaxPont (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

user:Scientizzle, first, it is a pleasure having a substantiative dialogue with you, and I hope that others are benefiting in the process. First, your reference to Vandenbroucke who in his editorial in the Lancet acknowledged that the Linde 1997 meta-analysis was "state of the art," but then you wrote: "he said the authors were "'leaning over backwards' to show the robustness of their findings"." HOWEVER, you neglected to mention the second half of this sentence about how they were leaning over: "the authors present an analysis of the best randomized trials with the highest dilutions; again, the effect is confirmed." Heck, I hope that most researchers lean over backwards to review the BEST quality studies! That is not cherry-picking; that is what good researchers and evaluators of research should do! Am I wrong? Also, it is NOTABLE that the statistical significance was for the high homeopathic potencies...and THAT is one of the fundamental issues here. Some of your other references were to "letters to the editor", which in no way should in their totality constitute "destroyed by reviewers". Heck (again), the Lancet was almost required to have letters that were pro and con this meta-analysis. I previously asserted (correctly) that the Linde 1997 meta-analysis was RS and notable, and more, I acknowledged his follow-up points about how more recent studies may have weakened it, but no one to date has conducted the formal re-analysis of the data to date. Further, your reference to the evidence not proving that homeopathic medicines are effective for one specific condition is only partially true and partially false. Linde and team defined "proven" efficacy as having 3 independent researchers testing the same treatment on the same disease. The Linde meta-analysis was in 1997, and in 1998, the 3rd study on Oscillococcinum was published. And in 2003, the 3rd study on childhood diarrhea was published. In other words, at the time of Linde's writing, he was accurate, but based on his team's guidelines, one can now say that homeopathic medicines have been proven efficacious for influenza-syndromes and for childhood diarrhea. DanaUllmanTalk 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Dana, I think it's quite clear that you and I will likely look at the same study and interpret it differently.
I see objections raised by critical commenters to be foundationally damaging criticisms of a caveat-filled work--that the author himself has even admitted overstated the case (due to fundamental weaknesses within the data set) and inappropriately hailed as a greater success than it should by those who seek to promote homeopathy--in which the conclusions are called into question by later work of greater quality and scope. For a modality that suffers from serious deficiencies in plausibility (at several levels within the paradigm), I necessitate a strong data set in support to overcome Occam and friends, and instead see in the relevant literature tenuous evidence in support at best, and decidedly negative evidence of an effect at worst, for the efficacy of homeopathy.
You see (if I'm not misinterpreting or mis-stating) a landmark publication that provides substantial support for the efficacy of homeopathy, that stands up to criticism by agents of a closed-minded medical establishment. Since you are already convinced in its value as a treatment option, you find objections raised about plausibility and trial quality to be of insubstantial concern (perhaps sufficiently addressed already, or entirely likely to be so in the near future).
As stated, I'll need far more clear positive evidence of efficacy and plausibility before I'll be convinced that homeopathy deserves serious consideration as a valid medical treatment; I'm not sure what would change your mind...in any case--it's not important: we're not going to convince each other, neither will probably nudge much from our current stances without a serious shift in the trajectories of homeopathy research.
All that said, there is a middle ground, I'm sure. I'll address that below your other comment here... — Scientizzle 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst ref #16 added today

Here is the abstract for this item: "Homeopathy is a popular but implausible form of medicine. Contrary to many claims by homeopaths, there is no conclusive evidence that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are different from placebos. The benefits that many patients experience after homeopathic treatment are therefore most probably due to nonspecific treatment effects. Contrary to widespread belief, homeopathy is not entirely devoid of risk. Thus, the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies, beyond the beneficial effects of placebos, do not outweigh the potential for harm that this approach can cause."

It expresses an opinion, but does not seem to support the contention that homeopathy is in contradiction of scientific principles. Perhaps someone can check the full article and give here the exact phrase that says this? Also, notably, Ernst is not an RS author as he has expressed such OPINIONS many times before and garners no respect and much derision within alt. med circles not to mention that he also regualrly cites his own articles and those of his co-workers (self-citation rates of over 70% are common in his articles) while his work is rarely cited by anyone else in alt.med outside his circle. I would therefore suggest that this cite be rigorously scrutinised to check if it actually supporits the contention it has been placed to support today. Peter morrell 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, that abstract appears to be totally based on facts described on the study. It does not say the exact same sentence as the article, but for me it clearly supports its meaning. I don't know Ernst's work. Also, it seems to be the same study as ref #15 --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The word "implausible" is used once in the abstract and another three times in the text, but I can't find anything like "contradiction", "opposed to", "incompatible with", or anything like "fundamental principles". The closest he comes is to say "Leading German scientists of the time were charged with testing homeopathy at a basic science level in addition to through clinical research." and "If one adds to all this, the scientific implausibility of the basic concepts that underlie homeopathic thinking, the inescapable conclusion is not positive". This is not a good source to support the current wording of the article. Furthermore, as Peter intimates, even if Ernst clearly expressed the opinion that homeopathy is in contradiction to basic principles of science, that would be insufficient reason for us to report it as a fact. I have returned the fact tag. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, ok, let's try this. What would you say if this study was used to support that "homeopathy is in agreement with current scientific principles"? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the essay (It is not a study.) does not have anything to say one way or the other about whether homeopathy in contradiction to or agreement with basic scientific principles. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And if it said "homeopathy is in agreement with modern medicine principles"? (And I'm afraid I won't be able to reply to comments for a while, because I don't want to get accussed of entering content disputes while discussing probation incidents, so I'll take a break from editing homeopathic pages) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what you're getting at. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
To be precise, the current wording is wrong, that fact people do use water as a remedy isn't in contradiction of any physical principles at all, people can indeed do strange things and just because it is illogical doesn't make the action of using water in this way physically impossible. However, the claim that water has specific medical effects is a claim that contradicts many scientific principles. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The NCAHF source rules. I quote: "Homeopathy conflicts more with basic laws of physics, chemistry and pharmacology than with clinical medicine." and several other assertions. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We all need to be careful about avoiding OR. We have to use direct quotes from articles. We also need to be careful about avoid organizations, such as NCAHF, which do not represent a NPOV. If we want to use a statement from them, should we also use a statement from a homeopathic organization? I say "no" to both. DanaUllmanTalk 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
We do not need to use direct quotes. It is adequate to summarize or paraphrase our sources. In fact, using direct quotes is usually discouraged in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to break it to you, Dana, but NPOV has a known anti-homeopathy bias. Besides, there's no rule that sources can't have a POV, they only need to be reliable. The NCAHF meets the criteria there. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
OK. Now we're on the same page. At least the NCAHF source, unlike the Ernst source, is relevant to the statement under discussion. What exactly can we say based on this source? Can we say, "Homeopathy is sometimes regarded as pseudoscience, quackery, and in conflict with basic laws of science."? Absolutely. I don't think you'll have any trouble finding a consensus for such a statement. Can we say, "Most scientists think that homeopathy is in conflict with basic laws of science."? I don't think so. The NCAHF does not claim to be summarizing the opinions of others. If we had three or four independent sources for such a statement, then we could talk about it, but not so long as we have only one source. But the current version of the article goes even farther and says that homeopathy really is in contradiction to basic principles of science. Such a statement requires A-1 quality sources. The NCAHF just throws out the contention without even saying which laws of physics, which laws of chemistry, and which laws of pharmacology are violated. The NCAHF source is insufficient justification for the current version. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it must say which alleged laws are abrogated and we must have an A1 source. We should have good neutral sources to support such a substantive claim. Peter morrell 08:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up. I remember seeing at least one other source somewhere which expressed a scientist's opinion that this was the case. Alone, it means nothing, but if we can find enough, we could show that this is a common view. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How to choose from the 398 reviews and meta-analyses

User:Art Carlson has raised the important issue on which of the almost 400 reviews and meta-analyses should we use...I suggest that we use 3-5 that are the best that show positive effects from homeopathy and the same number that show negative results. That is what a good encyclopedia would do. DanaUllmanTalk 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

While there is a middle ground to be found here (I think it appropriate to acknowledge there are studies of possible merit that proponents point to in their arguments), I'm not convinced a 1:1 ratio of positive & negative studies is appropriate. Indeed, I'd say that reeks of the false PC crap the American media is so awful about (presenting fringe arguments counter to established scientific consensus--climate change, evolution, vaccine-autism, etc.--as if they're on equal footing).
What I'd suggest, actually, is that the proponents here find their 3 or 4 best cases in those reviews/meta-analyses and list them in a separate section below. We can then go through the actual sources and pull out relevant, context-appropriate claims. We can also find relevant, context-appropriate criticism of those claims that may need to be included as caveats. This could then be added to the research section in something of the form

Proponents point to reviews/meta-analyses that claim efficacy in treating condition1[link] and condition2,[link] and are not likely to be the result of placebo.[link] These studies have been criticized for ___.[link(s)]...

This could then effectively lead into the rest of the "Medical and scientific analysis" section. — Scientizzle 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Scientizzle, please response to the concern above about your quote about the 1997 Linde meta-analysis in which you conveniently left off the most important part of the sentence in which I mentioned above. My point here is that THIS meta-analysis was never "destroyed", and I hope that you will cross out your statement that it was. If and when you catch me saying something that is clearly wrong, I promise to do likewise. Let's be gentlemen and let's be as honest as we can. As for what to do from here, at the TOP of this section, I gave a proposal that meta-analyses that should be referenced and how they should be referenced. Let's start a new section with YOUR editing of my above proposal...is THAT reasonable? DanaUllmanTalk 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Dana, it is my opinion that Linde '97 has been destroyed (and I believe that it's clearly an opinion). I feel no need to retract an opinion, particularly one that I feel is supported by plenty of evidence (presented above). The point of my comment above was simply to recognize that we frame our interpretations of the same information differently. I don't consider your criticism of my partial quotation to be particularly substantial or important: Vandenbroucke waffles a lot in his commentary, but in the end states that "A randomised trial of “solvent only” versus “infinite dilutions” is a game of chance between two placebos" and uses the results of Linde '97 to argue effectively that, since homeopathy is unlikely working, the result may actually be indicative of a deficiency in randomised trials across the board. This is something Vandenbroucke has covered elsewhere in more detail.[11][12][13] As for your other points, I don't dismiss "letters to the editor" because they provide substantive criticisms. And I obviously disagree with your assertion that "homeopathic medicines have been proven efficacious for influenza-syndromes and for childhood diarrhea" and I'm not alone.
As for turning the tables--me editing your proposed text--I may play ball. However, I'm done editing for the day and probably the weekend, so it may be a while... — Scientizzle 01:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I see three possibilities here:

  1. We could try to find some review of the reviews that picks out the most important ones for us. I am sure there are a number of candidates for such a selection, but if they disagree among themselves, it is hard to define criteria by which we can choose among them. The fact that no one has presented such a list here also suggests that there is no obvious choice.
  2. We could try to select the most important ones ourselves on the basis of citation indices of the articles and of the journals where they are published, giving an edge to more recent and bigger studies. This would a lot of work, which would probably amount to original research. The selection porcess is also complex enough that it is not obvious how to do it and we probably won't be able to agree among ourselves how to do it.
  3. We could, following Dana's suggestion, simply select the 3 or 4 best reviews on each side and discuss these in detail. Some might object to giving "equal time" to the other side, but the opportunity to bring criticisms from reliable sources should take care of that. I think this proposal is feasible, is compatible with the rules of Wikipedia, and is not a bad way to evaluate a controversy. Ask each side for their "best shot", then look at these in detail. Rather than weighing the quantity of the studies, you are looking at the quality. If the quality of evidence against homeopathy is much better than the quality in favor (as I believe it to be), then that should become evident without anyone having to push a POV, do original research, or refuse the other side a forum.

--Art Carlson (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Efficacy of Homeopathic treatment

We've discussed this many times before. Most recent discussion along these lines in the archives was here, and you'll notice that people were already tired of discussing it then. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page protected

I've not been active in this topic, so this may seem like a dumb question but: Why is this talk page semi-protected? Only in rare circumstances should a talk page be protected at all. I'm inquiring before asking for unprotection because I'm assuming there was a good reason for the protection. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, I think it was protected against Dr.Jhingaadey.--PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggested that articles on Probation should be semi-protected. It is hard enough as it is to reach a consensus without having to fight trolls, sockpuppets of blocked users, and vandals. MaxPont (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Barrett reference ("Ultimate Fake")

According to Google Scholar this article is from 2001 and has something to do with the "National Council Against Health Fraud". It seems that Stephen Barrett's qualification is being a practising psychiatrist. Apart from the online version on quackwatch.org there is also a PDF version hosted on an academic personal homepage. Is this really a reliable source? I was under the impression that we had higher standards for the homeopathy article. For comparison: How about the articles available from [15]? Is it OK to cite them? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_29#Quackwatch <-- Here is an archived discussion about using Quackwatch as a source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Peter is not an MD, Stephen Barrett is. Peter has not received commendation from recognized authorities in the medical field. Stephen has. Peter is decidedly fringe. Stephen is not. Need we go on? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My comment looks stupid now, but it wasn't when I made it. Currently this article is used as a reference in two places: The first is about what "critics contend". The second is a paragraph containing a literal quotation from Park, apparently taken from the article. I agree that so long as we have no reason to suppose the Park quotation (which doesn't seem to be contentious) is incorrect, the article is a reliable source for both passages.
I made the above comment when the article looked like this. There were two instances of this reference, one as #112 (used for the two passages described above) and one as #16. I was objecting to the use of this article as reference #16 for the following statement:
For example, the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted that they contain no molecules of the substance being diluted is in contradiction to basic principles of natural science, chemistry, and modern medicine.
This sentence is contentious because it can be understood to claim it's inconceivable that in the future we will have an understanding of science consistent with efficacy of highly diluted doses. This is much stronger than saying "based on our current understanding of science it can't work" (which is obviously true). It is in no way surprising to me that such a sweeping, unscientific claim cannot be sourced to a peer-reviewed journal. Also most good scientists care too much for their reputation to make such claims. As far as I am concerned, the very presence of this sentence is part of a compromise. It makes our article look unprofessional, because it is a statement of opinion thinly veiled as science.
Part of the compromise is that the statement has been toned down from "fundamental principles" to "basic principles", which I consider much more inclusive. E.g. Newtons's laws and Maxwell's equations are basic principles but not fundamental principles. An example for a fundamental principle would be the principle that aspects of nature can be described in terms of mathematical models, or something like that. Someone would have to be at least as much a philosopher and a historian of science to meaningfully investigate the question whether an idea contradicts the fundamental principles of science.
But even with "fundamental principles" it's a relatively strong statement, and sourcing it to a psychiatrist, i.e. someone who presumably is not an expert on any of the special areas involved, is not adequate. The statement is now sourced to an NCAHF position paper. I can't say exactly why, but I feel it's slightly better that way, although that paper is clearly not even trying to use scientifically accurate language in this respect. Using it here seems to be a bit similar to citing the New York Times with a statement about cold fusion that we can't find in the scientific literature. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is in no way surprising to me that such a sweeping, unscientific claim cannot be sourced to a peer-reviewed journal. -- Hmm. This is akin to saying that intelligent design isn't criticized by any mainstream peer-reviewed papers. While in point of fact true, it misses the issue. Pseudoscience like homeopathy, intelligent design, UFOlogy, etc. doesn't get criticized in peer-reviewed journals because that's not what peer-reviewed journals are for. To illustrate the outright inadequacies of these pseudosciences, we need only reference sources that match the claims. In this case, since the homeopathic claim that diluting a remedy to the point where it is pure water is an effective means of increasing potency are not ever mentioned in peer-reviewed sources, the criticisms do not need to be made in peer reviewed sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider this source, by itself, strong enough to support the statement that homeopathy is "in contradiction to basic principles of natural science, chemistry, and modern medicine", as opposed to a statement that some/many/most scientists consider it to be so? Which basic principles would you say this source sees as violated? --Art Carlson (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
As an extremely partisan, non-peer reviewed website, Quackwatch (and its kin sites such as Homeowatch, etc.) should only be used to express the opinions of its authors and not be used to make broad statements about the general scientific community. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have full access to Park, Robert L. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press (2000). Since it is published by a highly respected university press, it may be more generally considered reliable and less contentious than QuackWatch. If people would like information from that source, please let me know and I will provide some quotations, as I did for the source below. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked the reviews of the book Voodoo Science at Amazon and it seems to be criticized for unbalanced agenda pushing. The best would be if we could find a highly respectable reference that reflect the view of mainstream science in a way that is not inflammatory. Perhaps Encyclopaedia Britannica or some paper based Science Encyclopaedia or reference work or textbook in medicine. MaxPont (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The article already cites polemical self-published material. I figured if material from that POV is included, as a notable portion of the published commentary on the topic, it would be better to source it to a university press published book. Just a thought. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to ScienceApologist (I didn't check my watchlist until now): You really got me into thinking there. The analogy is a good one and made me think whether I really like all the consequences of my way of reasoning, so I looked at the ID article. Its second paragraph is very clear and effective, so if there is no peer-reviewed criticism of ID it seems that it wasn't a problem other than (presumably) making it harder to get to a balanced article.

While I am absolutely sure that no gods exist outside the imaginations of people, I can see no way of "proving" their non-existence scientifically. And assuming their existence, for the sake of argument, I can see no way of "proving" that they are not messing with evolution. We can't prove such things, so we need to invoke Occam's razor to reach conclusions of this nature. Therefore the parallel statements would have no place in the ID article either, e.g.: "The ideas of intelligent design contradict basic principles of science." No, ID (and homeopathy) are in the residual waste of Occam's razor, no more, no less. This doesn't mean that they contradict something.

That said, I am relatively happy with the current version, anyway, and this thread was triggered only by what I consider risqué sourcing. But this has been fixed. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but we don’t need peer reviewed articles to support a claim that is obvious. Obvious claims are not discussed in science journals because the issue has already been settled. If we can find the claim in standard reference works, established textbooks for chemistry students or the like that is enough. MaxPont (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you explain which claim you think is obvious? There were many in my argument, on many levels, and with all those that I tried your statement seems to make no sense. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
What is obvious is that there is a consensus in mainstream science that homeopathy defies fundamental principles (above 12C dilutions) and has no demonstrable effect. For that it is enough to find references in for instance Encyclopedia Britannica (because standard reference works reflect mainstream consensus). MaxPont (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Encyclopedia Britannica would be a very good source. Can you provide us a quote from EB that homeopathy "defies fundamental principles" and/or "has no demonstrable effect"? --Art Carlson (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No-one is disputing that comment but there is a big gulf between saying that high potencies are dismissed by mainstream science (which does indeed seems obvious) and from saying that homeopathy contradicts the fundamental laws of science and medicine. What fundamental laws and how are they infringed? Sorry to keep repeating the same point, but it has still not been answered after a week or two of asking. The simple fact is that we have no such RS source which states how homeopathy abrogates any physical or chemical laws whatsoever, except the high potency issue. It really is a very strong statement unsupported by an RS cite. That sums up the issue, I think. Peter morrell 13:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did start with the wording that "homeopathy defies fundamental laws of WESTERN science", but that rejected by the pro science camp. MaxPont (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting bits

Some interesting bits. I'll leave it to the editors here to incorporate them, or not.

(Material moved. See below.)

Just an interesting source I came across. Vassyana (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Much thanks for providing these quotes. I believe that, as this book was published by a university press, it meets the top tier of reliable sources, and so should be sufficient for some of the currently contentious claims in the article (such as how homeopathy contradicts the current understanding of science). Does anyone disagree? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Voodoo Science, which I mention above and also have full access to, may also be useful for replacing some of the contentious cites. If people are interested, I can provide some quotations from that source as well. Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems perfectly reasonable as a potential source. — Scientizzle 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and it is about time that some respect was shown for a profession and a therapy that has been so beneficial to so many. Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad my find was useful. :) I have pretty good library access, so I will see what I do to dig up a few more sources. If I find some good additional sources, I will place some quotes from the sources in a subpage to avoid cluttering the talk page itself too much. Vassyana (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I've made a sub-page to place quotes from various sources: /Sources001. Vassyana (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the original set of quotes to the subpage. I have also added quotations from two additional sources that may be useful material for the article. If anyone is looking for anything else in particular, or if anyone is looking for specific topics within the quoted sources, let me know and I will see what I can dig up. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanx Vassyana. Please note, however, there is a big difference between taking quotes from historians like Wharton who at least try to maintain a certain degree of NPOV as compared with taking quotes from Park (Voodoo Science) who has a very strong anti-homeopathy POV and who doesn't make an effort for NPOV. As for the quotes that you provided in the subpage, one of the quotes is quite weak...and I recommend that you consider deleting it. I'm refering to reference to "many homeopaths" in France who don't prescribe the high potency homeopathic medicines. Because 30-40% of French doctors use homeopathic medicines, the term "many" French doctors is totally vague and meaningless. That said, it is refreshing when a person with some experience in mediation comes to this page and makes an effort to bring us together. DanaUllmanTalk 16:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Dana, you write about some authors who "maintain a certain degree of NPOV" or "who [don't] make an effort for NPOV". That's a red herring. We are expected to actually use such sources all the time, and we do. Such authors and sources are totally legitimate here. It is unreasonable to require writers of opinions in the real world to conform to the special editing requirements that only apply to editors here. We constantly use very POV sources because that's what we need to show the variety of POV and the controversies that do exist. We document POV. That's our job. Sources with no POV are usable, but often uninteresting. Can we execute, embalm, and bury this repeated red herring once and for all? It reveals an awful lack of understanding of how we create articles here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

They were simply quotes that I found interesting about the topic. I leave it to those more familiar with the topic and active in this article to reach a consensus about what to use or not. As I mention, if anyone needs something in particular or wants to know what one of the sources already provided says about something, I can dig through the sources available to me to see if I can help. Regarding NPOV, one cannot really say a source is NPOV or non-NPOV. It is not a measure of detachment or neutrality. Rather, NPOV is little more than ensuring that our presentation is approximately reflective of the body of reputable works as a whole. To oversimplify, imagine that 1/3 of the reputable sources state that homeopathy relies on placebo effect, 1/3 state that it show strong signs of effectiveness and 1/3 state there are mixed results & that efficacy is unlikely. In such an instance, the balance of the article should be evenly split between all three viewpoints. Excluding detractors and/or supporters is not NPOV. We should give appropriate weight to each view based on how much of the reliable literature it represents. Vassyana (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee...I understand and actually appreciate your comments above, though I have found that when pro-homeopathy people provide references to research with RS and/or when they provide secondary sources that are notable, certain other editors delete them by saying that they are POV and therefore biased. In other words, there's a double standard. For instance, I do not understand why several of the above meta-analyses for which I have described and referenced are not presently a part of this article. Fylsee, hopefully, you can help me change this. DanaUllmanTalk 04:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic Principles

<continued from archive 34>

We still have conflict about the contentious statement which asserts some tendentious stuff about scientific principles. Someone tried to support this by citing the NCAHF who just seem to make similar hand-waving assertions. I do not accept them as an authority on this matter. The chap who added this source expected that the source would be challenged but added it anyway. As I understand it, they are a body similar to Wikipedia - self-appointed amateurs who self-publish. Also, since they have a relevant POV on such matters, they are obviously not impartial. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Having a POV does nothing to disqualify something from being a reliable source.
  2. The NCAHF has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
  3. If you'd bother to read three sections up, you'd see an even better source which you could have put in instead (you could read the archives but not this page?). Would have been better to just put that one in. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The source that has now been added - Whorton's Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America - looks to be a good one on the general subject. I'm not so sure it would be so good on the matter of scientific principles but I havent' read it. Anyway, the citation is inadequate - it provides no URL, page reference nor quotation. This is insufficient for a specific matter of detail like this. It's like citing The Bible in its entirety and saying - "well, it's in there somewhere". :) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable paper based sources are perfectly OK in Wikipedia. We don't need to add direct quotes but can reword and make honest summaries. I would recommend a standard work or encycopedia in medicine or chemistry, maybe [16]. Try your university bookstoore or library. MaxPont (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to keep complaining, or are you going to do the smallest amount of work yourself and add that? Check the section I referenced before. Your quest begins there... --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 02:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be referring to some previous discussion but I'm not sure what you mean. Please be more specific. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I hoped that I could end this discussion by looking up the exact place in Whorton where the current version of the statement ("[…] the common use of remedies that are so highly diluted […] is in contradiction to mainstream science's basic understanding of how nature works.") comes from and adding the pager number. I am happy with the formulation and would like to keep it as it is. But I only found the following, which is the first paragraph of the chapter on homeopathy (which is called "Dilutions of Grandeur", by the way).

[…] nineteenth-century physicians thought of another irregular system as still more unlikely. Indeed, homeopathy’s practices were so remarkably at odds with all accepted notions of how nature worked, of how nature conceivably could work, that they were only to be regarded as utterly impossible. It was "a stupendous monument of human folly"; it represented "the crowning exploit of pseudo-scientific audacity"; it constituted a fabric of "astounding absurdities" and "nonsensical trash." […] All in all, "the fact that men of sense and character should become its dupes, is one of the most striking exhibitions of intellectual stupidity and moral obliquity which the history of fanaticism itself can furnish." Homeopathy was also the most popular of all alternative systems of practice from the 1850s to the beginning of the twentieth century. —James C. Whorton, Nature Cures, p. 49

The sentence looks perfect on first sight, but there is a catch: When read in context it becomes clear that Whorton is summarising the position of contemporary scientists, not necessarily presenting his own. For more perspective, here is a later passage from the same chapter:

Much as bioenergeticists of the late twentieth century have reacted against the physical reductionism of modern medicine, many late eighteenth-century scientists, particularly in Germany, demanded that renewed attention be given to the non-material and non-quantifiable components of nature and that vitality be recognized as a mystery that transcends the physical sciences. Hahnemann’s concentration on the body’s vital force and the drug’s dynamic power were reflections of the revived study of non-material agents in nature. —James C. Whorton, Nature Cures, p. 67

Note the use of the word "scientists". As I said, I am very happy with the current version of the sentence. I think this passage gives a good explanation why I was uncomfortable with earlier, stronger statements. But unfortunately it looks as if we don't have a good source for the current version. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's still pretty clear that mainstream scientists believe this from the source, isn't it? Just because Whorton doesn't agree with them doesn't mean it isn't their position, and that he can't be used as a reliable source for describing it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
What is pretty clear is that "nineteenth-century physicians" as a group thought homeopathy was "at odds with all accepted notions ... of how nature conceivably could work". If we stretch it a bit, we could use this source to support a similar statement about contemporary scientists as a group, although if we can't find a better source, I would rather have two or three of this sort to brace each other. The source still doesn't specify exactly where the problem was thought to be, and it is still way too weak for us to make the statement that homeopathy really is at odds. Why can't we just say some/many/most scientists think that the use of ultra-molecular solutions is at odds with how nature works? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The article already says "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible" and this seems ample. A general trouble with the article is that it keeps repeating the same points about dilution and its implausibility. This constant harping on the same criticism is bad style and it is not NPOV - it makes the article look like an attack piece. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
… which undermines the credibility of all negative statements it makes about homeopathy. I am glad I am not the only one to see this, after all. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely this language style that makes this article woefully objectionable. Why? It reads as an attack piece and "de-bunking" article in a "skeptics" publication. NPOV is the standard we must use. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is refreshing having a new voice here, Colonel Warden, who seems to have a NPOV and who might mediate between the two sides. I'm open to hearing whatever specific recommendations he has for having his article be more neutral and more encyclopedic. One of the agreed upon references to our present article is this [Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American journal of pharmaceutical education 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507.] One of its conclusions was: "Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective,39,42-44 and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.28-30,80-82" Similarly, my recommendations at the top of this Talk page include making specific references to those high quality meta-analyses and reviews that have positive results and those that have had negative results. Such is so appropriate for an encyclopedia. DanaUllmanTalk 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it appears as though you missed the ENTIRE point of the paper, which is to advise pharmacists that they should at least be knowledgeable about homeopathic remedies, because the may have patients who take them. It's sound advice. It is not some sort of clarion call that homeopathic drugs work. Btw, nice job bringing this up on two different pages (the Arsenicum article being the other), with two different claims being made about the same paper. Baegis (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also made reference to this article [Johnson T, Boon H (2007). "Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice?". American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 71 (1): 7. PMID 17429507] a number of times as a good example for all who desire to be editors on the Wikipedia homeopathy article. It is well written and presents both sides without bias and from a neutral point of view (NPOV). Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, sorry, you missed my point. My point was that this article on homeopathy (and the one on Arsenicum album too, gives reference to that article to pharmacists but the references are ONLY to skeptical points of view. This article provides info for both sides of the argument, and yet, there are no quotes or references to the positive things about homeopathy that this article clearly states. Is that more clear? DanaUllmanTalk 00:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More references for the history section

These artcicles are from the respectable peer reviewed journal Medical History. They could add RS for the history section. Available in fulltext at Pubmed.

Homeopathy in America. The Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy Med Hist. 1974 January; 18(1): 99–100. PMC 1081530

Book Review: Patients in the history of homoeopathy Lyn Brierley-Jones Med Hist. 2004 October 1; 48(4): 524–526. PMC 546381

Homöopathie: Patienten, Heilkundige, Institutionen: von den Anfängen bis heute Lutz D H Sauerteig Med Hist. 1998 July; 42(3): 407–408. PMC 1044058

Weltgeschichte der Homöopathie. Länder—Schulen—Heilkundige Nicolaas Rupke Med Hist. 1997 October; 41(4): 504–505. PMC 1043948

The patient not the cure. The challenge of homoeopathy Med Hist. 1977 July; 21(3): 341. PMC 1082051

The age of science. The scientific world-view in the nineteenth century Christine Stevenson Med Hist. 1988 July; 32(3): 350–351. PMC 1139905

Becoming a physician: medical education in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States, 1750–1945 Matthew Ramsey Med Hist. 1998 April; 42(2): 249–250. PMC 1044009

MaxPont (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dilution Table

I added what I think is a table in the discussion about dilutions. It visually summarizes the textual content within that section. In general, I think the homeopathic notation system is quite confusing and I think a chart more quickly demonstrates what the notation means in terms of volume ratios.

I don't know if including the reference to the EPA's allowed concentration of arsenic in drinking water is going to be considered NPOV, however, it is simply a statement of fact that the EPA allows drinking water to contain 10 parts per billion of arsenic in drinking water. In the context of homeopathy, which is all about using dilutions to safely administer substances that are deadly at higher concentrations, I think it is a worthwhile comparison to make. Konky2000 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Undiscussed edits

I reverted a few undiscussed edits made in the night simply because they had not been proposed & discussed here first. The tradition we have grown used to with this article is to suggest and gain a consensus here first, before making any big or controversial changes to the article itself. Maybe we can now discuss the changes suggested. Peter morrell 06:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And another undiscussed edit (well a unilateral deletion actually): Proponents of homeopathy, including Rustum Roy, maintain that water has a memory effect beyond the presence of individual molecules of the dissolved substance,[1] but this is unsupported by experimental evidence. Can we use this or is it no use? It is factually accurate but maybe needs a better source. It could have been left in and tagged, of course. Peter morrell 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I edit water memory, and the whole Rustrum Roy angle, and using such a borderline source when so many better sources exist, notably a large number of Nature (journal) articles, both contemporary to Benveniste and retrospective, plus claiming all proponents of homeopathy support the view... it just seemed to have too much bad writing to keep in. As I said in the edit summary, I have no objection to mentioning the concept, I just think this is completely the wrong way to do so. I'd actually rather have more content on it, say, a short paragraph, which gives enough space to set out and explain things coherently and with a little context, and doesn't come out of nowhere, since it's self-contained. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is plain enough: you made an undiscussed edit without seeking any consensus first. The longstanding approach used here is to seek consensus first, which tends to avoid edit wars and personal attacks. That's all really. Peter morrell 11:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. Roy's work is notable. Also, it is not accurate to say that his work is "unsupported by experimental evidence." The following is taken from an abstract of his July 2007 publication, and this article dealt with experimental data, not simply theoretical issues. [Manju Lata Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R. Bell and Richard Hoover, The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy, Homeopathy Volume 96, Issue 3, July 2007, Pages 175-182. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.03.009] "Preliminary data obtained using Raman and Ultra-Violet–Visible (UV–VIS) spectroscopy illustrate the ability to distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another and to differentiate, within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies. Materials science concepts and experimental tools offer a new approach to contemporary science, for making significant advances in the basic science studies of homeopathic medicines." Even Roy's theoretical work is notable. This article from the New Scientist notes that Roy is not alone with finding some quantum effects of water that may explain homeopathy [Robert Mathews, The Quantum Elixir, New Scientist 8 April 2006.]. DanaUllmanTalk 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Rao et al. paper in Homeopathy was fairly comprehensively shredded by a letter in the January 2008 issue of the same journal[17] Brunton (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The belief in "water memory" is an important part of the pantheon of homeopathy's adherance, but we can certainly do a lot better than this semi-coherant ramble. In particular, he claims that since graphic and diamond have the same chemical make-up, that this is "proof" of homepathy is toe-curlingly stupid. If nothing else it is PoV to associate the subject with such a bad advocate. Jefffire (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. Admittedly, I'm not feeling that well today, or I'd have tried to fix it instead of just removing it, but it will take a lot of work to get it to acceptable quality. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of MfD

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:Homeopathy/Selection_of_studies. This was spammed everywhere by a banned user, evidently, and was formerly included at the top of the References section of this talk pages for reasons unknown - but time will tell, and sufferers like the divine Miranda... Sorry, I played Lucky in an amateur production of Waiting for Godot once. Anyway, it serves no purpose, and exists on quite a number of User talk pages anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not explained very clearly what is going on or why. Perhaps you can do that? What on earth is this all about and why delete a simple inoffensive list of articles? What purpose does that possibly serve the encyclopedia? Peter morrell 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy. The Arbcom have specifically stated that they want to expand the scope of this case to Homeopathy pages and the article probation in general. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but even having read the pages in Wikipedia about these dispute management systems I still don't really understand what it means to have had an Aribtration opened. What are interested parties supposed to do? What are we trying to achieve? What are the Arbitrator's meant to be deciding? Sorry to be a pain, but while I have an interest in the subject of the arbitration I have almost no understanding of the arbitration process itself. OffTheFence (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, when you put it like that, it's awfully hard to explain =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
When I was looking into DanaUllman for the probation thing, I saw this list was prominently linked at the bottom of this page, in the references section. A list of purely positive studies from fairly obscure journals could not be used (per WP:REDFLAG) as a reference here, and it being spammed about by a now-banned user probably makes it all the worse. I don't mean to be intemperate about this (although after dealing with Ullman for a while I may be occasionally), but, in any case, now that the perma-link is gone, it's kinda hard to see any reason to keep it, and the biased nature of the list means that it's rather questionable, in the presence of better sources like metaanalyses that have rigourous inclusion criteria. I suppose it doesn't matter much, but I'd be really worried if there was any evidence that a biased list such as this was being used to win an argument, and it's hard to see other uses. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There's probably a lot more that could be said on the presence of positive primary studies. Linde published a lot of papers on general problems with homeopathic studies as a whole, and this article in Time does a decent job of showing why there is a debate. But a list like that is no use in writing a neutral, mainstream article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

References to more meta-analyses

On April 1st, I posted the below recommended additions to this article, and we had some good discussion here. The material was archived before things were finalized. Scientizzle promised to recommend some compromise ideas. I'm open...

This article is missing reference to many meta-analyses in highly respected medical journals. In this light, I am recommending the following addition to this article. You will note that I have integrated some critique of some of these meta-analyses. It is strange that this article ignores the impressive and high quality work of Reilly, the Cochrane review of clinical trials on Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu, and the 3 studies on childhood diarrhea by Jacobs and team. The first sentence below is taken directly from the article here, though I have added my recommendations for what should be said next. DanaUllmanTalk 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] However, various meta-analysis have found a greater effect from a homeopathic medicine than a placebo [Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al (1997). "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials". Lancet 350 (9081): 834–43. PMID 9310601. Linde and colleagues analysed 89 trials and found a mean odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 2.05–2.93), in favor of homeopathy. When considering just those trials of “high quality” and after correcting for publication bias, the findings actually remained statistically significant (means odds ratio of 1.86). The main conclusion was that the results “were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.” The authors later analyzed these trials and concluded that higher quality trials were less likely to be positive than those of lower quality, though they acknowledged that this is true of conventional medical research too, saying in the first sentence of the article, “There is increasing evidence that more rigorous trials tend to yield less optimistic results than trials with less precautions against bias.” Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 631–6.] and several meta-analyses evaluating the homeopathic treatment of specific diseases has also found positive results. [Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.] [Vickers A, Smith C (2006). Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CD001957.] [Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633.] [Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.] A review of 67 in vitro studies was conducted, three-fourths of which have been replicated with positive results by independent investigators. [Claudia M. Witt, Michael Bluth, Henning Albrecht The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—A systematic review of the literature. Complementary Therapies in Medicine. Volume 15, Issue 2, June 2007, Pages 128-138. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2007.01.011] The researchers of this review concluded, “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.” However, they also acknowledge, “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.” DanaUllmanTalk 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this suggested wording would help bring this article into a better quality NPOV presentation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
We really can't mention Linde 1997 and Linde 1999 without including the statement from the 1999 paper that the 1997 paper "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments". Perhaps the authors' comment in a letter published in The Lancet that the 1997 study "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven"[18] is also relevant here. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The comment about "conventional medical research" is a nice tu quoque, perhaps, but not really relevant here as the article is about homoeopathy, not conventional medicine. Brunton (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts here. I did give reference to Linde's 1999 article above, though I'm open to adding your above quote (please note, however, that some editors here have claimed that Linde "retracted" his meta-analysis, which is not true; in fact, he never said that the significance was lost, just reduced. My additional point was that Linde noted in the 1st sentence of his article (!) that evaluations of high quality research consistently find less significant effects. As such, the info about ALL clinical research is important here. DanaUllmanTalk 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
They certainly seemed to think that the already tentative conclusions of the 1997 paper were weakened. Brunton (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk about SELECTIVE QUOTING! The very sentence before the one quoted by Brunton in the authors' comment in a letter published in The Lancet is this:

"The Lancet should be embarrassed by the Editorial that accompanied the study. The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data." [19] Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and the letter starts off with Linde saying that he agrees Homeopathy is highly implausible. Do either of these random quotes matter? Brunton was talking about studies by Linde, not the Lancet editorial. Are Linde's opinions on a Lancet editorial that isn't under discussion at this time really so very highly relevant that you can make a bad-faith, all-quotes accusation of selective quoting? Brunton's quote was relevant to the discussion at hand. Yours [and my sample quote] were not. Learn the damn difference. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore your uncivil language and repeat that my point is valid. This is a case of selective quoting. The letter clearly stated: "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data." [20] Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about the Linde et al. papers here, not Shang or the associated editorial. Brunton (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But the wrong impression that was created by your quote was that the letter in The Lancet was critical of homeopathy. What the letter also stated was:

"Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement." [21] Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not what we're talking about here. The letter stated that the very paper that we are discussing here, and which it is proposed to include in the article as supportive of homoeopathy, "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". I hope we're not going to get into another pointless argument about the definition of "retract", by the way. Brunton (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In an effort to be encyclopedic, perhaps we can include Brunton's addition and Arion's addition. Brunton felt that his addition from Linde's letter to the Lancet was notable, and if we can agree that it is, then, we must also agree that the sentence just before it is also notable. The other choice is to not add either of these additions because if you notice that I have already made reference to Linde acknowledging a reduced significance from the higher quality trials. Consensus is difficult, but I hope that we're getting closer. DanaUllmanTalk 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I was pointing out that the letter was not presenting an anti-homeopathy position as Brunton's selected quote might have led one to believe. The letter was complaining that the study should not be used to say homeopathy is "proven" (by the way, I have not seen such a claim). However, he was also stating: "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data." In other words, he was saying that homeopathy has also not been disproven.

His position is close to mine. My position regarding research on homeopathy is:

(1) Homeopathy has not been disproven by research

(2) Homeopathy has not been proven by research

(3) Homeopathic research has produced mixed results

The Wikipedia article should reflect the "mixed results" status of the research, instead of leading the reader to think that homeopathy has been disproven by "science". Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with including the comments that Arion suggests anywhere in the article is that they are criticisms not of the Shang paper but of the accompanying editorial, which isn't mentioned in the article as far as I can see. While the letter itself certainly doesn't appear to be particularly supportive of homoeopathy, given that is says, "we agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", we are not discussing the Shang paper here, or the plausibility of homoeopathy, but the 1997 Linde paper and the weight that it should be given. Brunton (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In due respect, Brunton, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot want to quote from Linde's letter to fit your needs/desires and then say that other quotes from the same letter don't have a place. In another discussion here, some editors asserted that Linde had "retracted" his previous meta-analysis, which is not only not true, but clearly, he has asserted that data show that results from homeopathic medicines are better than that of a placebo. Arion and I are trying to work for a compromise that acknowledges mixed results, and yet, at present, only the negative studies are highlighted. This has to change, that is, if we wish to strive for accuracy, NPOV encyclopedic knowledge. DanaUllmanTalk 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You've already spent 3 pages complaining about me using ONE WORD, and ignoring all documented criticism of you in favour of that. Do you now plan on using that to dismiss all criticism by everyone else as well? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the value of editors criticizing of editors, instead of discussing how to improve the actual article for which the discussion page is intended. I have clearly shown that the letter was making a clear statement that homeopathy has not been disproven, yet that very fact continues to be ignored. The actual quotes were provided.

My comment had been regarding the point that the letter to The Lancet that was quoted was presented as if it was negative about homeopathy, but it actually was complaining about the tendency for either side of the homeopathic research question to consider their side to have proven their position.

The letter's MAIN point was that homeopathic research had NOT DISPROVEN homeopathy - but you would never have known that from that isolated quote that Brunton presented. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not generally required that you quote parts of a letter irrelevant to the specific subject being discussed simply because someone else likes the views expressed in them. That is a basic necessity for productive discussion, otherwise we may as well just quote every study in full every time we mention one. Provided that the point made is not refuted by discussion in the rest of the article, allowing some latitude for quotes is necessary. And finally, you liking the point does not make it the main point of the letter, which covers quite a number of subjects. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your not liking the point does not automatically mean that it is not the main point of the letter. If someone has a mind-set that homeopathy is "obviously impossible" and all scientific research will bear out that belief - then facts might easily be overlooked. Remember, scientific inquiry cannot simply be structured to confirm one's own beliefs. That is not how discovery and advancemnent of knowledge has progressed on this world. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The atmosphere here has become extremely unpleasant and hostile of late; poisonous might be a better word. Can somebody please summarise the key issue and then suggest a way forward so folks can work more harmoniously towards improving the article? Or has that objective now become eclipsed as a side-issue to all the endless squabbling? Peter morrell 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you with my thoughts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Arion 3x3 is clearly wrong that the letter claims that homeopathy is NOT DISPROVEN, because it is a scientific impossibility to DISPROVE that something has an effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For clarity, read what was actually written: "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that 'homoeopathy has no benefit' and that 'the time has passed for further investment in research' is not backed at all by the data."
  • I read that as clearly stating that homeopathy cannot be described as having "no benefit" because that conclusion "is not backed at all by the data.". That means that it has not been proven to be of no benefit.
  • Our article needs to more clearly describe the current state of research into homeopathy, instead of leading the reader to falsely believe that homeopathy has been proven to be of no benefit. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, you're quotemining one letter and building castles in the air on the foundation of what some words might be twisted to say. Science doesn't deal in proof. Linde is an old-fashioned scientist. That's probably all he means. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no "twisting" and the quotations were direct quotations. No one can seriously tell me that they do not understand the meaning of those words. Now lets get on with improving this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. If we're going to include the criticism of the Lancet editorial, we need to reference the editorial's comments in the article, otherwise we run the risk of giving the entirely misleading impression that those words are criticisms of the Shang paper. Brunton (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Much more to the point, it has been widely agreed some days back what this article principally requires: some RS cites to show that there do exist in this world positive studies of homeopathy. The article is presenly brimful with negative studies and fair enough they need to be there, but positive ones do exist and what Arion and Dana have primarily been trying to point to, as far as I can see, is that to balance things up a little, we need to decide on and include some of those refs. Instead of endlessly bitching about which studies and who said what, or making personal attacks on other editors, or creating a very hostile atmosphere here, we would be better employed by working together to find and use the studies we need. Is that a fair summary of the current impasse? Peter morrell 11:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not possible. Positive studies of homeopathy do not survive the simple winnowing process of holding them to normal standards of quality. To admit positive studies for homeopathy you have to lower the bar so far that the studies become intrinsically worthless. That is homeopathy's problem not the problem of this article. Indeed the fact that this is the situation is of encyclopaedic note in itself and is adequately reflected in the meta-analyses where the consensus is that homeopathic pills have no intrinsic medical worth. Studies can be of high-quality or positive for homeopathy. Not both. What you perceive to be a lack of balance results from the fact that homeopathy is wrong and being wrong is not a balanced position. Why can you not accept that this is a done deal? Homeopathy cannot produce effects that survive examination under properly controlled conditions and the literature fairly reflects this. It's a done deal. Time to move on. The fact that homeopathy doesn't work doesn't make it any less valid to for inclusion in an encyclopaedia as a cultural phenomenon, but we need to move on from the idea that the pills have any medical effect. OffTheFence (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You have just read a succinct summary of the problem with the homeopathy article(s). The problem is not Dana Ullman. The problem is just this kind of biased statement by one of the editors who are determined not to allow any research that is positive to homeopathy. The readers of Wikipedia are not interested in the personal opinions (or in this case mind-sets) of editors. The readers want a factually accurate and NPOV article on homeopathy. As Peter Morrell put it, here is "what this article principally requires: some RS cites to show that there do exist in this world positive studies of homeopathy." Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence erroneously asserted that "good studies" do not show efficacy of homeopathic medicines. In order for him to make this statement, he needs to verify why the Oscillococcinum trials in the TREATMENT of influenza should not be referenced (is the Cochrane Report not RS?). I am not aware of any critique of the four clinical trials, and each of them found statistically significant results as compared with placebo. The Cochrane Report referred to the results as "promising." Why should we not reference the 3 studies by Jacobs, et al, in the treatment of childhood diarrhea? Why should the four trials on various allergic disorders conducted by Reilly, two in the BMJ and 1 in the Lancet, be ignored? "Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis" was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, one of the leading journals on this medical specialty. Why shouldn't the results of this study be referenced. It is not in our interests to hear your personal views of these studies. Please give reference to RS journals. As yet, no one has provided a substantial reason why the above statement should not be a part of this article, but I'm open to dialogue and other people's input on how to include this body of evidence from leading medical journals. DanaUllmanTalk 04:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Dana, "promising" is not the same as "proves something effective beyond a doubt and you should use homeopathy right now! Yes, now! What are you WAITING for?!" I know that the two are easily confused. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm simply recommending that we give reference to the Cochrane Report's results on the TREATMENT of influenza and influenza-syndrome with Oscillococcinum. For the record, I want to express concern that this article makes various references to "negative" results of various Cochrane Reports, and yet, it is evidence of bias and of POV-pushing to ignore this positive report from this RS. One of these days, I would really like to see a skeptic of homeopathy admit that some good results has shown that a homeopathic medicine has shown to have an effect that is above and beyond that of a placebo effect. It would show "good faith" in doing so. Anyone want to be bold? DanaUllmanTalk 05:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoe...I'm confused by your above statement. I described the Cochrane Report on Oscillococcinum using their words "promising." I did not write nor did they write that this research "proves blah blah blah." I'm not exactly clear where you got that quote or why you brought it up. Can you clarify, or better, simply agree that it is time to give reference to this Cochrane Report that cites four studies that show that patients given this medicine experienced relief from the flu faster than those patients given a placebo. DanaUllmanTalk 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this article really NPOV?

On the Naturopathy Talk Page, I saw that someone complained that the Lead here reads, "Claims...............quackery at worst" and found it to be true. Isn't it offensive to call Qualified Homeopathic Doctors Quacks? I've been healed of Gall-stones, my father of kidney stones and my mother of piles, besides our Homeopathic Doctor seems to have a good practice. Can't we have something titled, 'Criticism' lower down in the article and put this matter there? I mean, the Lead should be NPOV isn't it?Happening (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article does not have a NPOV. There is much editing effort underway to address this but progress is slow. In the meantime, it is not clear to me why the article does not have a tag to indicate that the article is disputed and so I shall add one. Readers should understand that the current version is contested. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
@Happening: This article is not calling homeopathy quackery. It is reporting that some people have called it that, and provides 4 reliable sources to substantiate that fact. In contrast, the experiences of your parents are not verifiable. I hope you understand the difference.--Art Carlson (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
@Colonel Warden: If you add an NPOV tag, it would help focus the discussion if you would point out a few of the biggest POV problems you see and suggest some alternatives. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hans Adler makes a good point above that the corresponding articles in respected encyclopedias like Britannica have a more respectful tone towards the topic. Such articles form a useful benchmark and it would be helpful to study their structure and tone as a model. When we have an article that can stand comparison with such independent work, we may remove the tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you provide a few quotes from Britannica and juxtapose them with the version here? That would help us understand what you mean and also provide a start for an improved formulation. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You can see the summary of their article online:
homeopathy - System of therapeutics founded in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann on the principle that “like cures like.”
That is, substances that in healthy persons would produce the symptoms from which the patient suffers are used to treat the patient. Hahnemann further stated that the potency of a curative agent increases as the substance is diluted. When it was introduced, homeopathy was a mild, welcome alternative to heavy-handed therapies such as bleeding, but it has since been criticized for focusing on symptoms rather than causes. With the rise of alternative medicine, it has seen a resurgence.
Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I try to describe my version without breaking the copyright. In the first paragraph they distance themselves from Hahnemann's quinine experience using the words "he claimed", not "he contended". Our article seems to be uncritical in this respect, although it doesn't seem to be reproducible. They have a sentence "[…] most homeopathists believed in the action of minute doses of medicine", so they are clearly not claiming that belief in homeopathy necessarily entails belief in the part that is most well-known and easiest to debunk, as we seem to be doing.

Are you saying that "claim" is more neutral than "contend"? I think the denotation is the same and is neutral, but some people seem to see a negative connotation in one word or the other. We could follow EB here and change
Homeopathic practitioners contend that an ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness.
to
Homeopathic practitioners treat an ill person with a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness.
It also makes the language less convoluted. As to your second point, do we have any evidence that a significant number of homeopaths (any at all?) do not believe in the action of minute doses?
--Art Carlson (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not a native speaker, so I may be wrong about "claim" and "contend". My dictionary suggests other nuances that would make this a bad example anyway, so I withdraw that. But in any case your version is better.
As to the minute doses I believe there are two problems. One is the exact definition of the words "homeopath" (e.g. my physician is mainly an "allopath", but also a homeopath) and "minute". The other is that there are probably forces at work here similar to those that would make it hard to prove that the vast majority of European Christians have no problem with evolution. They just don't write about it, at least not in their role as Christians. So far as I am concerned we can claim that nowadays all homeopaths believe in minute doses beyond the Avogadro limit; if it's not true sooner or later a homeopath will come along and give us the necessary references. But currently slightly less than half of all paragraphs mention the high dilutions; in many cases that's necessary, but the sections Homeopathy#Preparation of remedies and Homeopathy#High dilutions are a good example of undue weight. I believe this problem can be solved my shoving much of that cruft into a separate article. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate and indeed essential to mention the high dilutions in both Homeopathy#Dilution and succussion and Homeopathy#High dilutions, but looking through those sections I find these examples. In Dilution and succussion:
  • a bottle of poison in Lake Geneva,
  • a pinch of salt in both the North and South Atlantic Oceans,
  • a drop in all the water on earth ,
  • one molecule in 1% of the volume of an Olympic-size swimming pool (the entire pool is never used),
  • 1 ml in a cube of water 106 light years on a side.
In High dilutions:
  • one molecule in a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth, and
  • one molecule in two billion pills (a thousand tons of lactose).
This does seem to be overdoing it a bit, if only on stylistic grounds. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I don't know how this happened, and there may be innocent explanations, but it reminds me of the description of a particular troll who keeps adding innocent stuff to an article until it's completely broken. But last time I mentioned the problem the enthusiasm for solving it was underwhelming. Perhaps nobody bothered to read the sections to see what I said was true. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The second (and last) paragraph in my CD version of the article says: "To many […], homeopathy was a mild, welcome alternative to bleeding, […] and other heavy-handed therapies of the day. In the 20th century, however, homeopathy has been viewed with little favour and has been criticized for focusing on the symptoms rather than on the underlying causes of disease. Homeopathy still has some adherents, and there are a number of national and international societies, including […]."

This is firm (homeopathy is an anachronism, and the only thing necessary to say about the present is that it's criticised but still practised) but not insulting (homeopathy was a mild alternative; this is slightly undermined by "to many patients and some physicians", but in an unobtrusive way).

We devote an entire section to the horrors of 18th century medicine, so the "mild alternative" part is already covered. Is there language in our article that you think is "insulting"? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The word "quackery" is of course insulting, even when it is only quoted. That wouldn't be a problem if it was counterbalanced with something positive. But it appears in the lede, of all places, and functions as a kind of summary of an entire criticism section. The article does not distance itself from the word (with its obvious fraud connotations): It explains why it is used, i.e. it justifies the use.
Apart from this blatant example the balance is the main problem, to the point that it becomes insulting. E.g. in the lede we have one paragraph in which the article carefully distances itself from all homeopathic practices. The following paragraph which explains why it can't work is slightly longer. I believe the last paragraph is supposed to be about prevalence and legality of homeopathy. But it looks more like a coatrack for further negative statements. Surely there is something wrong here if the lede of homeopathy is more negative than the lede of Spanish Inquisition, Christian Science, fascism, or even pedophilia. Try some other controversial topics, and you will see that these examples were not cherry-picked. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Encarta article can be found here. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While we can certainly learn by analyzing it, I don't think the Britannica lead is anything we want to copy. It is true that homeopathy has sometimes "been criticized for focusing on symptoms rather than causes", it has most often been criticized for using ultramolecular doses, which is not mentioned at all in the Britannica lead. (Maybe it is a mistake.) Note also that while EB says homeopathy is criticized for "focusing on symptoms rather than causes", Encarta says in its lead that "[h]omeopathy focuses on healing the underlying cause of disease, not simply eliminating the symptoms caused by the disease." Take your pick. I'll stick with our lead and try to make it even better. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that this is an example of Britannica using one of the privileges of an expert-written encyclopedia: They can say things that are correct but look wrong to laypeople. Homeopathy claims to be treating the causes, but that's questionable and has been questioned. E.g. Hahnemann seriously argued against expelling tapeworms and pinworms with purgatives, claiming that this didn't go at the root of the problem. If you can read German, read "Samuel Hahnemann: Pseudomessias medicus" on Google Books, an annotated Organon, for a beautiful response to that. For brevity they had to decide between various criticisms, and I agree with their choice. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found that Anthony Campbell's criticism of George Vithoulkas' statement about Syphilis has been repeated.

  • Art, the reliable sources you mention are just allegations, which y'all have repeated in this article (and I believe that is "insulting" for a Homeopathic Doctor). I also saw in the Archives that there are 398 studies that show Homeopathy works. Between claim and contend, there will probably have to be a discussion, because claim means to 'demand as right' and contend means 'subject matter of dispute'-Happening (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
Even if there were no basis for the allegations of quackery, the fact that a notable group makes such allegations is sufficient reason to report it (not repeat it). As for the 398 studies, you better go back to the archives and re-read what is said about them. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Happening, I think you should be a bit more realistic with what you expect here. Homeopathy is covered by WP:FRINGE, and I see no chance that that's going to be changed. There are also many studies that show homeopathy does not work, and there are serious problems with such studies: If you make 100 studies to test whether wearing a hat has an effect on eyesight, then most of them will say no, but it's quite likely that 1 will say there is a small positive effect, and 1 will say there is a small negative effect. Unfortunately this and other problems make the question rather complicated, and we have had extended discussions here that we had better not repeat so soon. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Belief in Homeopathy

I have not been around for a while, but I'd like some quotations considered for inclusion in the section on "General Philosophy" [22], either directly or as sources to which reference can be made.

Peter Morrell previously strongly objected to any similarity with religion being highlighted [23] and said "Yes, Kent was a highly religious man, so what? You can keep pushing this wild POV but there really is no more religion and belief in homeopathy than there is in science today. Is there a section on religion in the science article or the medicine article? According to you, there should be. That's precisely how daft your idea is. If you continue in this vein then you might even be banned. This article is under probation and prejudicial & vastly uninformed time-wasters like you are on a short leash or did you forget this? If a pro-homeo person were doing what you are doing here they would have been banned 24 hours ago."

but the following quotations make that similarity clear and accepted and they happen to have been written by Peter Morrell himself. "Modern homeopathy dwells in a nebulous and metaphysical realm into which few allopaths would fear to tread."[24] "homoeopathy is very much a `belief-system' containing many philosophical elements and ideas.""there are clear and undeniable parallels between homoeopathy and religion.""Both are systems of belief.""The power structures of a religion usually revolve around a central figure - eg the founder ""In the case of the founder of hom, Hahnemann, he is widely revered as the creator of hom, and frequently as the ultimate authority for settling disputes."[25]. I will say that I asked Peter for an internet source for his article on "Homeopathy and Religion" but he did not oblige, but I found them myself in the end. I had thought it might be a jumping off point to finding other material to be offered for inclusion here, but since it turns out to include exactly the kind of material I had in mind for inclusion as part of this topic I see no need to look further at this point.

I also think that the ideas of JG Frazer should then be included."Charms based on the Law of Similarity may be called Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic"[26] The magical thinking of homeopathic medicine involves this form of thinking. [27]

Might I ask that we reconsider the options in the article for describing the nature of the homeopathic belief system. Merely saying it is a form of vitalism is too narrow.OffTheFence (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Homeopathy is NOT a religion, never has been and never will be so your point is entirely off-topic. It therefore merits no further comment. Peter morrell 11:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that you are not going to apologise for your previous invective against me. Sticks and stones etc, I have no wish to respond in kind and so have concentrated on the issues. Please see below. OffTheFence (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


That said, at least H. Walach, writing for the British Homeopathic Journal [Now Homeopathy ] 2000 Jul;89(3):127-40. specifically said (!) that it was magic. An earlier version (mentioned in the BHJ paper) appears in full at [28].

Peter Fisher discusses it reasonably favourably as an explanation of Homeopathy in {{doi:10.1016/j.homp.2004.07.005}}. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That some homeopaths subscribe to a spiritual paradigm does not make homeopathy a religion either.

A religion is defined thus: a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. [29]

Homeopathy does not fit this definition. Vaguely it partially fits point 3. Science, however, conforms to points 2 and 4; therefore science is more of a religion than homeopathy! How utterly amazing. Peter morrell 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it conforms to all four, but Peter, this is getting simply bizarre. You are complaining that homeopathy cannot be likened to a religion, yet there are many ways in which this case can be reasonably made, but the first place I looked was at things you yourself have written. If you wish to cite appropriate WP:RS sources that counter this perfectly sensible suggestion then they could be considered to add as a counterweight. Maybe you find it embarrassing to have it described as religion, I cannot help that and I have sources to back me up. You might want to find something that describes homeopathy as functioning well within a rational scientific paradigm, which makes it amenable to the normal processes of experimental investigation. Many homeopathic sources say something rather different from that, but if you want to cite relevant rationalist homeopathic literature then please feel free to do so.OffTheFence (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
At some risk to the limits of Fair Use here are some more quotations from one of the sources I have already cited.[30]

"the deeper aspects of homoeopathy are, like religion, contrary to the materialistic principles that 'Scientists' would have us believe regulate material existence."

"The doctrine of the vital force fits so closely the facts of homoeopathy that it is remarkable that science has never shown much interest in the subject. One reason may be that all Vitalist theories about life come very close indeed to the spiritual, and science is never prepared to get tangled up with subjective truths. This is where religion comes in."

"In conclusion, what we can say about homoeopathy and religion is that there are some definite connections between them. They agree very broadly about the nature of man and of life, they support each other logically and they complement one another."

"In my view homoeopathy is a spiritual technique, a spiritual discipline, that heals sickness by addressing that in each of us - vital force and spirit - from which the body, was created and by which it is maintained. In this sense therefore homoeopathy is far more than a system of medicine. When practised properly it holds out to humanity a means of self-understanding, self discovery and self-help as important and as valid as any religion on earth."

"There are many who feel that their personal religious faith and beliefs - if any - are quite separate from their practice of homoeopathy and that they occupy quite separate parts of their life. Fine. That is so for them. But quite a majority of homoeopaths have endeavoured to formulate more advanced philosophies for homoeopathy, based upon a conceptual framework, derived - at least in part - from a religion. "

"In general terms one might be tempted to conclude that homoeopathy as a philosophy fits in most easily with various polytheistic religions like Hinduism and Paganism - including Druidism - and with the Oriental religious philosophies like Zen, Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism."

"What is a religion?

While leaving aside the question of what a religion is, and its function, we can say what it contains. All religions contain a number of discernible elements. Some of these are fairly obvious. Others less obvious. They include:

spiritual element, philosophical element, emotional element, belief and trust element, personal salvation element, world or humanity salvation element, mythologiocal, fantastic or poetic element, orthodox, traditional element, power structures and hierarchies, Homoeopathy also contains most of these elements. It certainly includes elements 2-5, some would also include 1 and 6. Homoeopathy has certainly had its share of 7, 8 and 9. It will be necessary therefore, to consider each of these in further detail in their own right in order to show their relation to homoeopathy."

I think that's enough to make my point. It should not have been necessary to belabour this point quite so leadenly, but Peter Morrell seems to have a major problem with having this issue raised and considered for inclusion. If anyone wants to read the rest they can follow the link I gave.

I really think that we need to move on from a basis that the philosophical basis of homeopathy needs to include a reference to its religious aspects as well as the magical ideas and vitalism. I don't think that it can be rationally said that these are not relevant or important.

And, by the way Peter Morrell, if someone was writing a general piece about the philosophy of science it would be perfectly reasonable to allude to its religious context especially in past centuries. It was a particularly feeble strawman you raised, but to explore science's historical and philosophical links with religion here really would be off-topic, but unless you have only a very narrow reading of the history of science they should be obvious. OffTheFence (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


DRAFT SECTION FOLLOWS


==General philosophy== Homeopathy's metaphysical character sets it apart from conventional medicine, [31]indeed the language of magic [32] has been invoked to describe its actions both by homeopaths [33] and those skeptical of it [34] but it also has much in common with major religious belief systems [35].

It is a vitalist philosophy in that it regards diseases and sickness to be caused by disturbances in a hypothetical vital force or life force in humans and that these disturbances manifest themselves as unique symptoms. Homeopathy contends that the vital force has the ability to react and adapt to internal and external causes, which homeopaths refer to as the "law of susceptibility". The law of susceptibility states that a negative state of mind can attract hypothetical disease entities called "miasms" to invade the body and produce symptoms of diseases.[2] However, Hahnemann rejected the notion of a disease as a separate thing or invading entity[3] and insisted that it was always part of the "living whole".[4]

I think this is appropriately modest, NPOV and easily referenced to verifiable sources. I am not very interested in hearing from Peter whether he still thinks homeopathy is a religion or whether he has changed his mind and wishes to distance himself from his previously published position on the subject. The point is that a clear NPOV statement can and should be made in the article that highlights these aspects of homeopathic philosophy for the general reader of Wikipedia. I am however interested to see whether anyone else has more or better ideas or other source materials that they would like to have cited. Might I suggest that if they do then they should copy my draft section and copy it into their own response with appropriate edits and we can see whether we can shape this up. This is not rocket science and boils down to a single sentence so I don't see much need for this to be a lengthy or contentious process.

OffTheFence (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "appropriately modest". I would call it "unnecessarily inflammatory". --Hans Adler (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, come now. You can argue it's wrong, or not notable enough to be in the article be in the article, but it's not inflammatory to suggest a statement of views that are decidely out there and somewhat widely held. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that essentially I agree with the opinion and suspect that it is notable. But that's no way to express this. This is supposed to be an article about homeopathy, not propaganda for or against it. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that your resentment of parallels being drawn between homeopathy and religion says rather more about your attitude to religion than it does about the parallels. Why should you find it offensive and equate it to anti-homeopathy propaganda that these parallels are drawn. Homeopaths themselves have been very happy to accept these parallels. Please try to move on from this position. The parallels have been highlighted in a valid way. Do you have something useful to contribute?OffTheFence (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some suggestions would help, then? Just saying it's inflammatory doesn't really help improve it, or make it obvious how to fix the problem. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this won't be easy to fix. Since I am not more of a native speaker at 3 am then at other times it's probably not a good idea for me to try doing it now, but perhaps I have some time to think about it tomorrow. The point is really that this kind of thing must be expressed much more diplomatically. Perhaps you understand the problem if I write something parallel about religion:
"Metaphysical principles such as transubstantiation set Catholicism apart from other Christian confessions. Catholics contend that prayers directed to the Virgin Mary are passed on to God by her, a belief that has been compared to "magical thinking" by some Protestant theologians. Because of the important role of saints, Catholicism also has much in common with polytheism."
Formulations like this are SPOV, but not NPOV. We can say such things, but we must be more diplomatic. The second paragraph seems to be much better, by the way. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. [36] I think an exploration of the page to which I have linked and the further pages to which it leads rather support my approach and suggest that a Catholic Wikipedian would not react in a hostile manner to your suggestion, except to say that it is far too brief and warrants expansion over several pages as has been done for the pages about Catholic doctrine. I don't think a Catholic would feel threatened by such material, indeed such matters lie at the core of theological debate. What is it about homeopaths and homeopathy that makes them so touchy on this subject? Ah well, to discuss this further really would take us off-topic, but can we accept the principle that the reasonableness and relevance of what I am suggesting has been settled? OffTheFence (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please try to pay closer attention. The second paragraph is the one that is currently in the main article I have changed only its first word. But the second paragraph only deals with vitalism, which is only part of the philosophical picture. OffTheFence (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought that there was a de-facto agreement on treating religion articles different than other articles since they are based on faith and not on science, and there was not point in putting into doubt the scientific basis of them. Since homeopathy claims to be based on hard science and be scientifically measurable, it should not receive that treatment. Btw, here we are not trying to be diplomatic, and religion articles are not written that way for the sake of diplomacy, or else we would have removed all Muhammad drawings. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As Peter Morrell pointed out, connecting homeopathy with religion or magic is wrong. In fact I would go further and say that it is absurd, and an insult to all the health professionals utilizing homeopathy successfully. As Hans Adler put so well, "This is supposed to be an article about homeopathy, not propaganda for or against it." Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Arion, have you actually read the links I provided? Please answer that specific question with a short and simple answer. OffTheFence (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Arion, you have been back since I posted the question above, please answer it, if you would be so kind. OffTheFence (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
So why does Walach propose and Fisher support a magical interpretation? It does seem a notable point of view. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not notable, and it's an absurd fantasy. Ask any homeopath. Ask any of the millions of homeopathic consumers. Ask any homeopathic researcher. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Except, of course, Walach and Peter Fisher? =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have spoken to fewer homeopaths than me and read less of their literature. This religious or quasi-religious viewpoint is standard. True, it may not feature much in the mindset of the average consumer who buys a homeopathic remedy based in part on the usual mistaken similarity with herbalism, but nor do I expect that consumer to understand the pharmacology of COX inhibitors when they buy ibuprofen. That does not have any bearing on the fact that the philosophical basis of homeopathy is metaphysical, magical or religious in its character, which I have established by reference to good source materials. As I have suggested to Hans you cannot reasonably challenge the notability or relevance of these ideas. What you can do is help to flesh out their presentation with further citations if you wish to. OffTheFence (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Put Homeopathy + Philosophy into Google and this is the first link you find [37]. Here the authors wish to distance themselves from the idea of religion in homeopathy, presumably out of a defensive reflex similar to that which has been evident on this page, but in so doing they explicitly remind us of how frequently that link is made, "A study of any field of alternative medicine such as homeopathy is likely to take the student into a whole host of derivative concepts ranging from ancient religious rituals to quantum physics." and the desire to bring in the "spiritual" is very strong in many sources, "In spiritual healing as well as in genuine, classical homeopathy, it is not so much that man will rise to the level of spiritual realm, as much as Spirit, the transcendent [sic] Supramental Realm, will reveal itself amidst our experience as healing."[38]. Or "it is not possible to explain any healing effect of homeopathic therapy without entering the spiritual or supernatural realm." [39]. Now that link does have something interesting to say specifically about homeopathy and Christianity as an individual religion, Homeopathy has no scientific basis and is totally dependent on a spiritual understanding of man and diseases. Healing effect of homeopathy is unthinkable without the use of spiritual or psychic power. Homeopathy is a way to spiritual power and healing that passes by Jesus Christ and this has no support in the Bible. Samuel Hahnemann's attitude towards Jesus is clearly stated in one of his biographies: "He resisted the dreamer Jesus from Nazareth, who did not lead the selected ones to the right way of wisdom" (1). He also said about Jesus that "he carried the darkness of this world and gave offence to the friends of ethereal wisdom"". Having established the general similarities homeopathy has with religion if one of its advocates would like to incorporate that apparent distancing of it from Christianity specifically then that would be reasonable. This also sits rather well with what Peter Morrell says in the essay that I have linked to, "In general terms one might be tempted to conclude that homoeopathy as a philosophy fits in most easily with various polytheistic religions like Hinduism and Paganism - including Druidism - and with the Oriental religious philosophies like Zen, Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism."[40]

p.s. To those who seem to have a problem with the whole area of metaphysics and homeopathy being highlighted publicly in this article, might I point out that the contrasts and overlaps between science and metaphysical ideas are described in Wikipedia, see here [41] and here [42]. The references are necessarily more oblique than is appropriate for the case of homeopathy, but that this because scientific textbooks do not routinely give over their opening chapters to spiritual speculation whereas homeopathic textbooks most definitely do. OffTheFence (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


As was suggested previously, I think there is no reason not to collect a large volume of this material and make a separate daughter article on Homeopathy and religion. There are people who think it is the work of the devil, there are people who think it is consonant with Christianity and all manner of other beliefs. It does not belong in this main article and there is not room.--Filll (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I may have missed that suggestion, but if you look at the draft, all I am adding is a single sentence, the rest of the draft is already in the Article. The paragraph that is currently in the Article just needs minor rebalancing and providing with context and that is the small aim I am trying to achieve. As I pointed out previously and, in contradiction to what has been claimed previously, the main general articles on science even make some space for these aspects and it is much more central to homeopathy than it is to those articles. OffTheFence (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we solve this on our own?

Some of the latest contributions of OffTheFence (talk · contribs) are outright bizarre. While I am still not at the point where I would say this user's behaviour must be intentionally unconstructive, I think it is safe to say that it is similar to that of a sophisticated troll and might best be treated as such. Rather than run to ANI and ask for another topic ban, I suggest that we try to solve this challenge on our own, as a community building exercise.

I propose that we all just follow the DNFTT strategy and stop reacting to this user. Of course this only works if we all agree that that's the right way to proceed. If any of the regular contributors to this article doesn't agree, just leave a short note here and I will withdraw this proposal. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hans Adler, in what way have my contributions been bizarre? Some have been semi-ironic, or partly humorous, but none have been erroneous and all have been underpinned by a serious desire to address the substantive issues. I have cited the public and widely held beliefs of homeopaths about homeopathy. (Their widely held nature makes them WP:NOTABLE, by the wayOffTheFence (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)) What is your problem with that? I would prefer that you deal with the issues rather engage in snide ad hominem. However, I take no offence and would happily consider any contribution you might wish to make. Might I also point out that half the time there is whingeing on these pages about people making un-discussed edits then the other half people like you complain about opening up topics so that they may be discussed. If you can refute the validity of the ideas that I have presented then please do so. If you abdicate from the discussion then that is your choice.OffTheFence (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Might I also point out that just because you may want to airbrush over a topic that for some reason you are not comfortable with does not make that topic ineligible for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. OffTheFence (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. Hans, I ask you the same question as I asked Arion, have you read any of the links I provided? If you have not then please refrain from comment until you have done so. If you have then please explain the basis on which you claim my suggestions are bizarre. OffTheFence (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems obvious that Enric Naval does not agree. I withdraw my proposal.

Thank you. Let's move on.OffTheFence (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to explain how exactly OffTheFence's responses to my objections were bizarre. People can read the above discussion and draw their own conclusions [43] [44]. I have read some of the links provided by OffTheFence, and they did not corroborate his views in any way. I am not going to waste my time on the others.

Fact is that this kind of tendentiousness has no place in an encyclopaedia. I checked the homeopathy articles in Britannica (2001 CD edition) and in Encarta. They are shorter than this one, so the fact that they don't mention this topic doesn't say much. But even though they cover the criticism of homeopathy, in comparison to this article they sound like advertising for homeopathy. I am convinced that that's because they were written by experts who know what NPOV means, not by a committe of people pushing opposite POVs. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A "proper" encyclopaedia should not tolerate the inclusion of homeopathy from an "in universe" perspective [45]. However, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that it must include editors who are "in universe" but will not accept that fact. From an NPOV perspective, giving due regard to WP:WEIGHT, homeopathy is a comfortable fiction, a busted flush, but here we are discussing it as if it is a viable medical therapy. It's a funny old world. All I can do is act within the rules and try to make Wikipedia's account of homeopathy reflect reality where possible. OffTheFence (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I dunno about OffTheFence's comments, I've looked at them and I can't see the tendentiousness or troll behaviour on them. At most, too long arguments and too much quoting on one of the comments.
About other encyclopedias' NPOV, I doubt that they follow exactly the same NPOV policy as outlined on WP:NPOV, and we don't know how their WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE equivalents are worded and applied, and their entries are probably written by only one person and not by a group of persons with different opinions, so I wouldn't attempt to compare their style. Also, wikipedia is supposed to be better that those, dammit :D --Enric Naval (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these diffs aren't very clear. In any case he did not react to my point but instead speculated about my attitude towards religions – but so vaguely that I haven't got the faintest idea whether he is for or against religions and whether he suspects me of being for or against them. It's nearly impossible to defend against such a fuzzy attack, so I stepped aside and tried something else.
You earlier mentioned a special exception for religion articles. I don't think there is anything special about the topic. Such exceptions exist for a reason, and this reason typically applies to religion articles, and it typically doesn't apply to Pokemon articles. I am absolutely convinced that if this reason applies to Jehovah's Witnesses, then it applies to homeopathy as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, discussion about OffTheFence comments are going a bit off-topic from improving the article, so I'll refrain from discussing them. I can continue talking about them on your talk page if you want.
The reason is that religion is faith-based and not science-based. Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be based on faith. Scientology is also based on faith and treated accordingly, but its self-help system Dianetics is claimed to be based on science and gets this sort of sections: Dianetics#Scientific_evaluation_and_criticisms.
Now, if you are saying that homeopathy is based on faith, then we should start stripping all claims and studies saying that homeopathy is scientifically proved :P --Enric Naval (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It involves metaphysical and magical thinking, fundamental violations of logic, and ignorance of basic scientific knowledge. -- Fyslee / talk 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
All of this was part of medicine at the time when Hannemann laid out the foundations of homeopathy, with blood extractions, the virus theory not still developed, much of the scientific knowledge that today is taken for granted still not discovered, non-profesionalization of the medic profession, etc. A valid criticism would be, for example, to say that the science has changed a lot since that time, and that some homeopathy practicers are still using the original outdated concept which includes all those concepts (properly sourced, of course :P) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. Some people are stagnant or seek stagnant sources, and thus never learn. -- Fyslee / talk 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

redirecting discussion to draft section

So, we have a draft section that is sourced by the statements of two notable homeopaths, namely:

  • Dr Peter Fisher (homeopath), Clinical Director, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital [46]
  • Harald Walach, (University of Freiburg, Dept. of Environmental Medicine) from a paper on Homeopathy journal when it had a different name

And also from texts by:

And it also cites texts from Samuel Hahnemann.

I have yet to see any comment saying that the draft is incorrect, unacurate, misrepresentative of its sources, or any specific example of where the wording would be WP:NPOV. Notability of sources is established. The relevance of a statement made by notable homeopaths about the basis of homeopathy should be clear too.

The following is of arguments that are not sufficient to block an addition that breaks no policies. This is starting to look like just wallstoning of inclusion of *any* criticism:

  • Saying that it's "inflammatory"
  • trying to draw parallelisms to religious articles where the topic is based on faith and not science, instead of drawing parallelisms to similar sections on articles that are science based like Science#Philosophy_of_science
  • civil accusations of sophisticated trolling not backed by diffs
  • claims that an article "about" a topic can't include propaganda against the topic, but we are talking of commentaries by relevant sources on the field about the basis of the topic itself.

So, provide some valid reason citing specific text that is not acceptable so it can be changed before inclusion, backed with exact policy and part of the policy that the text is breaking, or stop complaining about it and let other editors improve the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony is that I don't even think it is criticism. Many homeopaths are proud of the spiritual metaphysical aspect of what they do. That is why I have found the reactions to this topic so strange. OffTheFence (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
"many heomopaths" are not all and its perfetly possible that some or even most reputable homeopaths would not like to have theri scientific resarch be dismissed as not only being incorrect but magical as well. Smith Jones (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. What you say is interesting and probably beyond the scope of a brief encyclopaedia entry. I cannot tell you why some homeopaths seek validation via experimental methods while others deny the applicability of these methods. However, what is germane here is that the majority view supported by their main textbooks is that homeopathy is founded in a spiritual, non-materialist view of the world and this underlies their frequent excuses about the difficulty they have of garnering experimental support for the efficacy of their remedies. But, to discuss this further, we end up engaging in a meta-discussion somewhat remote from the proposed modification of the article. OffTheFence (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That is true. What might be relevant would be something from some rationalist wing of homeopathy to balance the spiritualist wing, though, frankly, you are going to struggle to find anything. Because they are fundamentally dependant on content-fre solvent or sugar having biological effects, they have to move outside mainstream science at a fairly early stage. More precisely, what they say might appear rational, bu on closer inspection it is not and it will be difficult to source a fully rational source from the literature, but please feel free to make the effort. OffTheFence (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Many homeopaths are proud of the spiritual metaphysical aspect of what they do." is simply untrue. You can not provide a source for it - because there is none. As a physician who has interacted with homeopaths for decades, I have yet to find one that thinks or speaks the way that you want to falsely characterize them. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a physician? OffTheFence (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised if you are physician that you could come to that conclusion. I came to it very quickly when I met homeopaths in my professional capacity, though I might not have if I only took a very superficial approach to the issue. Call it OR if you want, but this is a talk page and obvious deductions from the available evidence form part of what we may sensibly discuss on this page. I would not attempt to insert into the main Article a statement that the majority of homeopaths are proud of its spiritual aspects without a reliable source even though it is a valid deduction and also, probably, true. Please try to distinguish in your mind discussion about an encyclopaedic entry and the content of the entry itself. I thought I had supplied enough sources to illustrate my point. Perhaps you need more, but then we risk Hans calling my behaviour bizarre again if I produce a load of citations and quote from them. Go and read any standard homeopathic text. If you can find a viewpoint that contradicts the position I am describing then get back to me, but until then I'm afraid your assertion is unsubstantiated and unverifiable. It is also untrue. Do you really need to be led by the hand to sources of homeopaths declaring their activities to be on the spiritual level and inaccessible to science? Once again I must infer that your knowledge of the homeopathic literature is so shallow as to disqualify you form comment here. OffTheFence (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My extensive library of homeopathic literature backs up my statement. The insistance on inserting nonsense about magic and religion being relevant to homeopathy is not correct - and a not so veiled attempt to discredit homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which statement? Most homeopathic books I have read deal fairly heavily with spirit, vital force, non-material effects etc. It may be that either your or my reading of the literature has been the more representative. I'd like you to cite a single standard homeopathic textbook that does not deal with the spiritual aspects. As I am writing this, I have in front of me George Vithoulkas' book "The Science of Homeopathy" and even by page 8 we are already encountering material such as "The flesh and the spirit are two phases of your actuality in space and time". As I say, this is a book that actually uses "Science" in its title! In any case, how is this relevant to the proposed draft section? OffTheFence (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Arion, you have still made no attempt to refute or challenge the citations I provided, which does not leave you at liberty to describe my proposed alterations as nonsense. You may wish to engage in a meta-discussion, I do not. I am trying to create an encyclopaedia entry here. Please try to concentrate on the task at hand. OffTheFence (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement that there is an aspect to the individual that is a biological organism (flesh) and an aspect that is consciousness (called "spirit" by some) is a statement that a good percentage of non-homeopathic medical practitioners would probably also agree with. Your belief that this supports discrediting homeopathy by associating it with magic or religion is not a logical conclusion, in my estimation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

An association with religion discredits homeopathy?!! Wow. That's quite an assertion. I cannot see why you would make that inference. I am not proposing that such an inference should be part of the article. Why are you? Why does associating homeopathy with religion discredit it? Again we risk travelling down the road of meta-discussion, but this seems to matter to you so please explain why it does. I am sure that many religiously-inclined believers in homeopathy would be interested to hear what you have to say. I am a scientist and I have no problem with considering the associations between science and religion or medicine and religion. What is your problem here? OffTheFence (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So let's evaluate the sources (sigh)

(1) Homeopathy's metaphysical character sets it apart from conventional medicine, [49]

The opinion of one non-notable homeopath, in a relatively recent (2002) online(?) journal(?) that doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed.

(2) indeed the language of magic [50]

A section from Sir James George Frazer (1922), "The Golden Bough – A Study in Magic and Religion". Seriously outdated; uses the word "homoeopathic magic" for a kind of magic, that is only vaguely related to homeopathy and includes the use of voodoo puppets. (Example from the following section: "If homoeopathic or imitative magic, working by means of images, has commonly been practised for the spiteful purpose of putting obnoxious people out of the world, it has also, though far more rarely, been employed with the benevolent intention of helping others into it.")

(3) has been invoked to describe its actions both by homeopaths [51]

A paper from 1999 by one homeopath who later published something called "weak quantum theory" which he hopes can explain efficacy of homeopathy.

(4) and those skeptical of it [52]

A 2001 article from the Skeptical Inquirer, written by an anthropologist.

(5) but it also has much in common with major religious belief systems [53].

This article is from 1982. Author and journal are the same as for the first reference.
  • (1) and (5): The references are obviously way too weak and have been chosen in spite of the obvious danger of provoking the author (who, after all, is a regular editor here, and has been for 2 years).
  • (2) "The language of magic" does not need a reference; perhaps a wiki link to make clear what is meant. Using an old book about "homeopathic" voodoo is inflammatory.
  • (3) It's completely unclear whether this author's opinion is even notable in homeopathy circles (as opposed to skeptics' circles where innovative ridiculous ideas by homeopaths are always welcome). The abstract contains the sentence: "I will turn to explain how the scientifically obscene word 'magic' can be understood in an inoffensive way." This explains the problem: "magic" is an obscene word, and the entire paragraph seems to have been put together in order to insult. The only relevant things for homeopathy and magic that I found using Google were on anti-pseudoscience sites or due to Walach.
  • (4) I see no problems with that.
for Harasch's notability, he's Co-Chairmen of the Organising Committee for the 3rd International Congress on Complementary Medicine Research on Sidney on 2008, and is also on the scientific committee and the Scientific Advisory Committee [54]. I don't know about the congress notability, so I leave it for others to asses the notability of this. I also don't know the exact notability of him being director of the European Samueli Institute Office [55]
(I can't review the other stuff today and probably will take a pair of days before I can look at all of them) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OffTheFence, I have once jumped through your hoops now. The result was exactly what could be expected. I will not do this again. Nor, I expect, will anybody else. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Some substantive input, at last. Bear in mind, Hans that we are dealing with material that is not the same as published experimental work so the assessment of WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE are rather different. The equation with religion was well-argued to a point where it becomes self-evident in the piece and has been widely republished around the internet, so it is definitely notable. JG Frazer is notable and the applicability of the word homeopathic was deliberately chosen at the time and referenced subsequently. Walach's invocation of the word "magic" is most definitely notable, has been widely promulgated and forms the basis of something fancifully called the non-local interpretation of homeopathy which has led to Lionel Milgrom's extensive forays into the area, which have, in turn, been widely cited. I'm afraid you can't claim that to be non-notable when the UK's best known homeopath discusses it in an editorial in the UK's leading homeopathic journal. So, your complaints that the material does not qualify are refuted. Why would you want this material to be excluded? OffTheFence (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. Hans this would be less tiresome if you bothered to look at the material more closely. I cited the first part of Peter Morrell's essay from a source that was not hidden behind a paywall, but if you want its original citation from the British Medical Journal, then I am happy to oblige, [56]. Hans, please stop assuming that I am stupid and do not have a firm grasp of the homeopathic literature. Indeed, of the editors here, barring Dana, I probably have a better knowledge of the primary literature than most, have access to an archive of several hundred research papers and have spent several years examining it. Thank you. OffTheFence (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not taking you for stupid, far from it. I am taking you for unconstructive, and that in a very sophisticated way that is hard to deal with. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just being over-sensitive, and I have no idea whether to take that as a compliment, but choose to do so. Do you now accept that the BMJ reference makes Morrell's comments notable and RS? Do you withdraw your challenge to the other citations? OffTheFence (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem as I see it with this section is not that it isn't a view a few people have of homeopathy, but that it doesn't appear very notable view, so might not merit much or any discussion in the main article on this subject. Which source do you think establishes that this is a reasonably prominent position, OTF? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, that's a fair point. It is the self-evident nature of the argument presented in Morrell's published article and the wide use of the non-locality idea and "magic" in more recent years that substantiate my overall position. You'll kind of have to take my word for the fact that this is widespread (or Google's word if you search on these terms), but I can see a case for making the sentence I have proposed subordinate to the opening sentence rather than being the lead paragraph of that section. We have, as usual the problem of expert opinion counting for little at Wikipedia. I am an "expert" in the homeopathic literature, but that needs to be grounded to verifiable citations here. I think I have done that. OffTheFence (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Proclaiming yourself an "expert" says more about you than you probably realize. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the ironic import of the inverted commas was lost on you. Never mind. OffTheFence (talk) 06:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this suggestion might be a little over-long and detailed, but some mention of it would, in my opinion, be justified. We could also mention Milgrom's bizarre supposedly-quantum-mechanical expansions of it - I THINK he references Walach in them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
He certainly does. Most if not all of his "PPR entanglement" series of papers reference Magic of Signs, and he also frequently references Walach's paper, co-authored with Atmanspacher and Romer, on "weak quantum theory". Brunton (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
However similar they may seem to non-physicists, quantum theory and magic are two different things, so we can't possibly use a reference to vague ideas about quantum effects to support the idea that people think homeopathy works by magic. Indeed, that argument seems so bizarre that I'm sure I can't have understood you properly. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Two questions for OffTheFence

The discussion about the religion proposal seems to be much less constructive than the other discussions we have had here recently. Perhaps I was a bit too quick in attributing this to the main difference that I saw, namely the involvement, if not dominance, of a particular new editor with a large output of text and a certain propensity to answer their interlocutor's weakest argument rather than their real concern. That's how I saw it. If I made an error of judgement, then I would like to adjust my attitude to make it easier to move forward to consensus. But I need help to do this. OffTheFence, please help me by answering the following two questions:

  • Have you read this source before proposing it as a reference, and were you aware of the way in which it uses the expression "homoeopathic magic"?
  • Would you mind amending your proposal (by this I mean the first bold paragraph above and the place where you propose to put it) to take into account those of my concerns that I have expressed above and that you don't want to discuss?

Feel free to answer the spirit of my questions rather than the letter if that's more effective. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

re Frazer- I hear what you are saying. Yes, I had read it. Obviously it will take longer to explain than it does to pose the question, but here goes. The use of the word "homeopathic" is not coincidental because the principle underlying Frazer's idea and homeopathy as a therapy have so much in common. Yes, it does require an extension of Frazer's usage, hence the second citation. Without that citation, or an equivalent one, Frazer's homeopathic magic would be too remote from the topic. But the link has been made and the equivalence noted. By the time we also have Walach's ideas, reported by Fisher and taken off into yet a different direction by Milgrom what we can see is various parts of one puzzle, or different views of the same thing seen through different lenses. OffTheFence (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to amend my proposal, that's why it is a proposal, but can you be more explicit about which concerns you mean. There has been a lot of hot air generated by this issue and it would be helpful if you could show me what you want me to focus on. Thank you for the more conciliatory tone. OffTheFence (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to second-guess your concerns while I have some time. Forgive me, but I'm going to copy and paste your comments and interleave my own in bold.
(1) Homeopathy's metaphysical character sets it apart from conventional medicine, [57]
The opinion of one non-notable homeopath, in a relatively recent (2002) online(?) journal(?) that doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed.
I have now given you the BMJ citation, though the one I initially employed is accessible as full-text it is the BMJ origin that makes it notable etc.
(2) indeed the language of magic [58]
A section from Sir James George Frazer (1922), "The Golden Bough – A Study in Magic and Religion". Seriously outdated; uses the word "homoeopathic magic" for a kind of magic, that is only vaguely related to homeopathy and includes the use of voodoo puppets. (Example from the following section: "If homoeopathic or imitative magic, working by means of images, has commonly been practised for the spiteful purpose of putting obnoxious people out of the world, it has also, though far more rarely, been employed with the benevolent intention of helping others into it.")
Answered above. The whole idea of magic can be addressed at greater length if you wish to include all the nuances and cite more sources including Milgrom.
(3) has been invoked to describe its actions both by homeopaths [59]
A paper from 1999 by one homeopath who later published something called "weak quantum theory" which he hopes can explain efficacy of homeopathy.
See above
(4) and those skeptical of it [60]
A 2001 article from the Skeptical Inquirer, written by an anthropologist.
See above. I think that being an anthropologist would make him eminently well-qualified to comment on a belief system.
(5) but it also has much in common with major religious belief systems [61].
This article is from 1982. Author and journal are the same as for the first reference.
And the Organon was published 200 years ago. If 1982 is too long ago, you'll have to manage without Hahnemann. OffTheFence (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Have you not read it. It is well-argued. Peter has not returned recently to explain why he objects to inclusion of this material but it is internally consistent and well thought-through. It has also been re-posted in many places. Can you produce a source that argues coherently against the viewpoint outlined there. If you can then we can discuss whether the one cancels the other and neither get a mention in the Article, or whether both are good and both get mentioned balancing each other.
Could I suggest that replies get added below this edit rather than engage in any more interleaving? The layout is getting very messy. Sorry about that.OffTheFence (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer citation to my essay from 1981-2 not to be used because it was just a hack piece and it is an extreme minority view in homeopathy. It stemmed from a conversation with an editor. No way does it represent anything like a standard view in homeopathy, as has been claimed. If necessary that essay will be removed from the site. Peter morrell 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have posted simultaneously, so I had not read your edit when I posted the material above. It would also have been more constructive to approach the matter in this calm manner rather than the invective you posted previously. Be that as it may, I'd still be happier to hear an argument or see a referenced citation that argues against the material in that essay. The essay is well-argued. Where is the counter-argument? It must be accepted that an author's words cannot be unsaid and removing the essay from a website now does not affect the content. It does seem odd that you would wish to remove that essay from consideration today, when from the evidence of the page to which I linked, it has been accessible there uncontroversially since 2000. I believe I am also right in saying that it originally appeared in the Homeopath, which brings its citation up the scale of WP:RS and notability in this context. If you would prefer I'll change the citation to point directly at The Homeopath.OffTheFence (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK well use it but it is not a view I hold any more and nor do I think it is more than 1% of homeopaths who have any religious affiliation or care tuppence about so-called 'spiritual beliefs in medicine.' Remember also what Kent said that homeopathy has nothing to do wtih beliefs, prayer, incantations, magic etc because the wrong remedy never works but the right one opens the box. There is a quote to that effect if you want me to find it. The gist of it is that he wishes just as hard (for a good outcome for the patient) with the wrong remedy as with the right one but only the right one does the trick. So I think you are barking up the wrong tree with this whole magic idea/thread. Also, of course, homeopathy is not allied to any belief system, nor was it conceived as such; it arose entirely from Hahnemann's empirical work with single drugs. It unravelled of its own as a piece of practical research. My 2 cents FWIW Peter morrell 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the quote (revised): I have often heard physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with my wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy. James Tyler Kent, Lesser Writings, New Remedies, Aphorisms & Precepts, 1910, chapter 43, Series in Degrees Peter morrell 06:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Another section break

OffTheFence, thanks for your detailed answers.

Let's forget about fragment (4) for the moment. The reference is fine. If anyone is qualified to compare homeopathy with magic then it's anthropologists, and moreover it's clearly marked as opionion of skeptics. This does not mean that it must be mentioned in this section, or anywhere in the article, but it's certainly a possibility to which I am open.

As far as (5) is concerned, based on my own very limited observation I would agree, just as I would agree for classical pychoanalysis, for example. But that's "original research", and in this case I wouldn't even trust that I know enough about homeopathy even in one country, let alone worldwide. In some countries homeopathy is almost illegal, in others it is part of the mainstream (see International prevalence and regulation of homeopathy), therefore some cultural aspects of homeopathy are bound to vary dramatically from one country to another. So the questions are: Can we find a reliable source, do we want to add this to the article, and where. I don't think we are going to find any sources against (5), not because there are no people who deny it, but more because the entire question is something for dinner parties rather than publications, and the best strategy for someone who didn't agree with Peter's article was to not draw attention to it with a rebuttal.

Peter doesn't seem to object to (1), and I don't have a very strong opinion about this. However, there is a historical reason for this metaphysical character, and in my opinion the right way to discuss this point is probably in connection with the somewhat anachronistic nature of homeopathy, which, I suspect, is mainly due to the dominant role of its founder, and which has caused homeopathy to carry metaphysical elements of medicine into the 21st century that were mainstream in the 18th. (This dominance of the founder, by the way, is one thing that homeopathy has in common with religion, and perhaps this observation can help us to replace (5) with something that everybody can agree with.)

My problem with (3) is that I am not sure that Walach is sufficiently representative for homeopathy that we can say "homeopaths" or even just "some homeopaths" here. Perhaps something like "some researchers who want to find a mechanism that could explain homeopathy". (I am not happy with this particular formulation.) In any case I strongly doubt that magic is part of the "general philosophy" of homeopathy, and I would need strong sources to convince me otherwise.

Now (2) is where I really got a bad opinion about you, and I had hoped that you could clear this point out a bit better. The funny thing is that basically you probably want to make a point with which I agree: That the idea of replacing one disease by another, similar one, is an intuitively appealing one of the kind described in Frazer's book. But I think it's obvious that this reference must be extremely offensive to homeopaths, and if it is to be cited it all we would have to do this with extreme care to put it into the right setting.

There is also a synthesis problem. Frazer talks about "homoeopathic magic", but he doesn't apply it to homeopathy. (I haven't read everything, correct me if I'm wrong.) The connection seems to be the "like cures like" principle. If the paper by Walach actually has any real meaning (it sounds too much like postmodern cultural studies for my taste), then it's something else, as far as I can tell. Combining the two looks like improper synthesis to me (and the further connection with religion even more so).

I have found an interesting source that also makes this connection [62]. But note that it is not relevant to homeopathy, that it characterises Frazer's book as "one of the most famous but also most reviled books in anthropology", and that it says "It is doubtful, however, that many people who use homeopathy are familiar with this explanation. Most of them are likely to use homeopathy because they have heard or experienced that it works, though they do not understand its worlcing." Here "this explanation" is the idea of one disease replacing another, which is necessary to connect homeopathy with "homoeopathic magic" in Frazer's sense.

If we had a section with criticism of homeopathy we could probably discuss these things in detail there and perhaps even connect some of them, based on skeptic sources. But I am afraid of proposing such a thing.

Perhaps it's worth saying this very clearly. I am not a pro-homeopathy editor. My aim is an article that is really NPOV, which means that for both pro- and anti-homeopathy people there will be some aspects they don't like. If it is to be stable, then we must avoid everything that is outright offensive to one side or the other, such as "homeopathy is known to be effective" or "homeopathy is quackery". I think we can only reach this point if each side has respect for the other's position and shows this respect by exercising a certain amount of self-censorship. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also have as an aim that this article becomes truly NPOV. I agree with Hans that respect for each other's position requires eliminating the outright offensive and derisive language that still continues to poison this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it not enough to have pro homeopathy POV-pushers that disrupt the article. I find the attempts to push a homeo-religion/magic link inflammatory and bordering on OR. Peace please. MaxPont (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is OK and it is useful to have such inputs. We learned much from it. We can't outlaw certain views and can at best learn from whatever drifts up to the surface. There are strong opposing views on this subject but the article kind of benefits from this and will always be a mosaic, an amalgam of opposing views. It is never static, but forms a volatile and also dynamic compromise. Such is the nature of the situation. Surely that is far better than a boring article in monotone dictated from on high by some 'expert?' Peter morrell 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Peter, do you know Giano's guide to writing a featured article? --Hans Adler (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't and nor do I presently have time to read it. Sorry. Peter morrell 09:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

redirecting discussion again, this time with concrete proposals

Written as a laundry list.

summary: making a better version of draft paragraph about magical thinking on homeopathy located at Talk:Homeopathy#Nature_of_Belief_in_Homeopathy:

  1. taking [63] into account to attribute stuff and undo synthesis.
  2. Separating "magical" from "using quantum theory without proof" [64], possibly using sources explained at [65]
  3. include counter argument by James Tyler Kent from [66],
  4. take into account " Also, of course, homeopathy is not allied to any belief system, nor was it conceived as such; it arose entirely from Hahnemann's empirical work with single drugs. It unravelled of its own as a piece of practical research. " [67]. * Reject claims of being too old per [68]
  5. ignore claim from Peter Morrell to remove his source, see above diff (but try to point directly to The Homeopath instead). Peter morrell's article was published on a notable reliable journal, so it should be cited per WP:NPOV. If he thinks that his article is no longer valid, he should publish an article saying so on his website, or make an adenda to the old article, explaining why it's not valid or applicable for backing the statement on this paragraph. I suggest to Peter that if he still thinks that we shouldn't use his article, then he can bring the matter to WP:RSN reliable sources noticeboard, and explain there the problem and his reasons, in order to get uninvolved independient second opinions from experienced editors that are versed on the theme of sources.
  6. check if Frazer was actually talking about homeopathy when he said "homeopathic magic" or talking about something else, per [69].
  7. Attribute the Frazer book with year so it's clear that it's an old text talking about the state of art that time, per above diff
  8. make explicit that Frazer compares homeopathy with voodoo puppets "the principle that like produces like" with the use of voodoo puppets on the context of "Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic", and make double sure it's clear on the draft that he's talking about homeopathy at that year and not at the current state. Possibly note that blood extractions were normal at that time, comparing with poor state of medicine at that time.
  9. attribute the anthropologist source, to make clear it's a comment about how people thinks, and not about the science itself
  10. ask Shoemaker to find the source for reanalysis of Linde on second paragraph, per [70]
  11. Harasch notability does not appear to be contested, nobody answered to my post [71], acknowledging he is notable enough to cite his opinion
  12. Morrell statements' notability looks like established, with this going unanswered
  13. establishing notability of cited anthropologist as anthropologist especialized on some area relevant to him making comments about homeopathy
  14. establishing notability of rest of sources, one by one with specific details so they can be discussed rationally, and can't be claimed later to be non-notable (collect arguments on [72] and put on a better order), and readdress Hans Adler's list
  15. ignore claims about non-notability that don't address a specific source and specific problems [73] (sorry, Tim)

--Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's way too fast for me. I don't think it's very constructive to pursue this further, based so directly on what we already have. And at least one of your points is frivolous. If you really don't know which one, ask, but I think it should be obvious. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if you refer to the point about ignoring Peter's request, but I improved that point anyways because I noticed that I had neglected to explain my reasons to do so .
There is no hurry on going throught this list fastly, and it can be expanded and improved with other editor's comments. You can also ignore it if you prefer, since the list was mainly intended to help OffTheFence with the draft redaction, and other editors to help him. It looks a bit overhelming at first, but if you go point by point, some of the points are trivial stuff about re-wording one sentence to accomplish a certain effect. I think that improving the draft with this list would give a rock-solid draft as a result, with quality up to a Good Article standards --Enric Naval (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the voodoo puppets thing, but perhaps you just didn't read the reference. Frazer's definition is not directly applicable to homeopathy, and he doesn't even say anything about it. He talks about the "Law of Similarity", but he defines it as "that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause", which is not the homeopathic "similia similibus". They are obviously related, and his choice of terminology strongly suggests that he saw a connection, but if he doesn't even mention it we don't know if he saw it as more than a metaphor. Based on the general tone of the book, I would say citing it is not much better than citing a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer from 1922. (It is better only because the book is more notable.)
Frazer doesn't say anything about homeopathy that we can cite while distancing ourselves from it. If it's wrong to use the word "allopathic" in medicine (and it is wrong, per WP:FRINGE), then it is just as wrong to discuss Frazer's use of the word "homoeopathic" in homeopathy, and for the same reasons. Please make sure that you are not insulting homeopaths with your proposals. I am fairly sure that Peter, for example, would prefer to have an article which explains the evils of "allopathy" and why homeopathy is far superior. Do you see him pushing that? The pro-homeopathy editors are showing the restraint that is necessary to get something done here. I am looking forward to the time when all anti-homeopathy editors start behaving in the same way. The time when our main concern is how to get this article featured, because we are all proud of it. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
On relevance to homeopathy. I find that saying that a chapter named "Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic" [74] by an anthropologist can't be used as a commentary on the basis belief on homeopathy is not accurate at all, specially when it mentions how it's based on the "law of similarity". On the James_George_Frazer article it's said that he posits how human belief goes from magic to religion to science, so his writings are definitely relevant to explaining how homeopathy science could be based originaly on magic or/and religion. On my list I already make a point to make clear that he is an anthropologist talking about people, and not about science.
I can't assess how citing his book is citing the National Enquirer, but the James_George_Frazer article claims that he was "a Scottish social anthropologist influential in the early stages of the modern studies of mythology and comparative religion.", talks about his book and it's influence on modern mythographers, René Girard, a whole generation of artists and poets, and T. S. Eliot. Do you have reasons to believe that this is not true? This makes him notable for inclusion per WP:NPOV, independently on your personal beliefs of how it's insulting to homeopathy, which are not relevant for this. What sort of article Peter would prefer is neither relevant for the inclusion of a clearly notable source on an article. Also, how does WP:FRINGE apply to a clearly notable book on mithology?
I think that you will need to substantiate better your claims of non-notability and non-appropiatedness. Also, of course you can distantiate yourself of what a source says.
On the voodoo puppet thing, I was paraphrasing (incorrectly) your comment that was referenced on OffTheence's comment here [75]. I corrected my wording so it's in accordance with what the source exactly says. Please notice that this a laundry list of tasks with hints on what needs to be done, not the final wording of the draft, so it will include inaccuracies. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. It's an awful lot to read, so apologies if this is repetitive. First, I'd say it's problematic to infer anything about the profession from the beliefs of individual homeopaths. There are medical doctors who believe they'll go to heaven when they die and that a virgin gave birth to a child 2,000 years ago, but we don't add that to the article on medicine to discredit it.

As for sources like The Golden Bough, it's outdated, he was no expert on homeopathy, and its use would constitute OR and POV pushing. If you want to write a section on the philosophy of homeopathy, I suggest you look for some work by academic philosophers, which is likely to be well-argued and fair. I'm not certain that it exists, but the concept of like curing like has been of interest in philosophy for thousands of years, so there should be something in the metaphysics literature. SlimVirgin talk|edits 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean, and I accept your argument. I'll let it to OffTheFence to find works by academic philosophers. I'm not knwoledgeable enough on the topic to find that type of sources and write a new draft from scratch based on those sources. I just wanted to "save" this draft, since I didn't want it to be lost just becuase it wasn't worded adequately, or wasn't attributing the sources correctly. By you comment, it seems the draft was from the start based on sources that are just plain not appropiate, so it's not salvageable, and I'll just drop it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ ‘Homeophobia’ must not be tolerated, The Guardian, December 19, 2007
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference homhist1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Winston, Julian. "Outline of the Organon". Retrieved 2007-08-04.
  4. ^ Hahnemann, Samuel. "Organon Of Medicine". Retrieved 2007-08-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_34&oldid=1088457556"