Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Second paragraph

I've noticed that this talks about metaanalyses being difficult, then drops the subject. I saw a paper the other day that reanalysed Linde's 1997 paper, and showed that if you simultaneously used only the high-quality studies and corrected for publication bias, the results reduced to zero, and there was also a letter discussing (Shang?) that pointed out that a lot of these analyses were extreme, and only justified by the scientific implausibilty. I think we could make a good, NPOV section on that - If I can find the damn things again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the Linde paper with me at this very moment, but I'm somewhat certain that when Linde included only the "high quality studies" (26 of them) and adjusted for publication bias, the odd-ratio was still 1.78, which is still significant. Some researchers have taken the 21 "high quality" homeopathic studies and the 9 "high quality" conventional medical studies and found that the homeopathic studies showed significance over placebo (P=0.0392)[ Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB (2006) What a difference a trial makes. FACT, Supplement 1, 28-29]. Yeah, this IS Ernst's publication. Considering that Ernst is a well-known skeptic of homeopathy, this data is both interesting and notable. DanaUllman^Talk 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not doing the research myself, but can somebody tell me with just what procedure Linde "adjusted for publication bias" and how large the adjustment was? Another thing that I noticed while pondering this question: Why are there two separate references given in Homeopathy#Research on medical effectiveness for the quote starting "The evidence of bias ..."? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic understanding

I have just removed a sentence from the lede which makes a point about the basic principles or understanding of science. I find this point to be tendentious and incorrect. It is supported by reference to Whorton. I tried to add some balance by adding a further point from Whorton to the effect that scientific understanding is or may be incomplete. This point was disputed. Since we can't have selective use of a source to support just one side, I am removing the other side for balance. The lede over-eggs this point anyway so pruning is generally a good way to go. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That was an undiscussed change away from the status quo, so I am not surprised it was reverted. The POV tag is still there, but it doesn't really make a big difference because the POV is fairly obvious anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why ARE we using Wharton for that? One would think that in all the fallout from the Benveniste affair in Nature that a good, strong source could be found. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I discuss changes and am here discussing them still. The problem is editors who revert without discussion and who just make tendentious edit summaries like "POV pushing". Such action seems contrary to good practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You have made some kind of strange edits, though. Removing the section cited by Wharton may have been justified in retrospect, but without explaining it in the edit summary, it looked random, and removed a fairly well-accepted view in the medical field. (I've found a better ref.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I only found one sentence in the Nature editorial (your "better ref") that is relevant here, but it's a good one: Nor is there much comfort for anybody in the explanation offered at the end of the article - that antibody molecules once embodied in water leave their internal marks, as ghosts of a kind, on its molecular structure - for there is no evidence of any other kind to suggest that such behavior may be within the bounds of possibility. As a service to the reader, and in light of the controversy surrounding the decision to include this statement in the article, I would like to quote this sentence directly in the footnote. Or is that considered bad style? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope not, because it seems very sensible to me, and I have done it extensively elsewhere. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also quoted a few times on the footnote, when the quote was supporting the statement, but it was too long to include it on the text, or it was not relevant to include the exact wording of the source --Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the last few sentences were relevant too: [The suggestion that extreme homeopathic dilutions have an effect] strike at the roots of two centuries of observation and rationalization of physical phenomena. Where, for example, would elementary principles such as the Law of Mass Action be if Benveniste is proved correct? The principle of restraint which applies is simply that, when an unexpected observation requires that a substantial part of our intellectual heritage be thrown away, it is prudent to ask more carefully than usual whether the observation may be incorrect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, that's nice, too, especially because it purports to answer the question that was repeatedly posed here, which basic laws are violated. Unfortunately, I don't immediately see where the Law of Mass Action is involved. As to the presentation here, if various parts and several sentences of the essay are relevant, then it might be better to leave the reference as is, considering it is online, and let the reader pick out the parts that interest her. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The law of mass action in a nutshell means "more stuff = more effect". If water memory were true, this law could not apply. Tim Vickers (talk)

Or, in the words of Law of mass action, "the rate of an elementary reaction (a reaction that proceeds through only one transition state, that is one mechanistic step) is proportional to the product of the concentrations of the participating molecules." That's all well and good, but it only applies to "elementary reactions", and it seems embarassingly naive to call any biological system "elementary". Besides, the standpoint of homeopathy is not that super small concentrations have in proportion super large effects, but that the active ingredient in homeopathic remedies is not molecules but something we do not yet know how to measure. That view can also be described as embarassingly naive, but the connection to the law of mass action seems to me to be extremely tenuous. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a good example of why is is not sensible to approach this from first principles. Science does not work like axiomatic mathematics. You start with observations and experiment and the principles just summarise the results. In biochemistry and medicine, it seems quite normal for miniscule quantities to have a powerful effect due to their catalytic, triggering or controlling effect - enzymes, hormones, etc. Crude criticisms which are based upon tendentious reasoning from debatable principles should be excluded from the article and this is currently my main purpose here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Chemical reactions and association-dissociation equilibria, which are the two fundamental types of processes occurring within organisms, can indeed be broken down into sets of simple rate equations (see enzyme kinetics for example). In particularly complex systems, such as a living cell, there will be large numbers of these individual reaction steps occurring simultaneously, but the components of these complex reactions are still simple reaction steps. The chemical reactions that occur in living matter are no different than those in non-living matter, people who think otherwise are adherents of the "embarassingly naive" [Sic] idea of vitalism (which is now part of history). Tim Vickers (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a chance that 'science' hasn't yet devised methods to find out the mechanism of action of Homeopathic remedies?Happening (talk) [comments by a banned user]

We have, but the mechanism of the placebo effect is still not understood in molecular detail. Neurobiology is not a particularly advanced field. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So, for the moment, shouldn't we consider it's effects good enough? More importantly, I don't consider Homeopathic remedies to be 'placebo'-Happening (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

"Good enough" for what? That you choose not to accept the scientific consensus (that homeopathic theory is vitally flawed, that homeopathic dilutions of a certain level and beyond have no reasonable probability of containing an active ingredient, and that reported treatment successes are consistent with a placebo effect) is your deal, but it really has no bearing on this article. — Scientizzle 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is confused on a couple of points (1) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (2) No one in mainstream medicine or science denies that homeopathy might operate by placebo effect. I think it is even stated in this article (or used to be, but it might have been swamped with nonsense). What is going on is that some want to claim homeopathy results are NOT a placebo effect.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, Fill,

There wouldn't have been so many Patients flocking Homeopathic Doctors if they were giving just Placebo. Our family is a 'testimonial' that it's worked for us. In fact, if I'd really been given placebo, I'd have died of Liver Cancer long ago according to other Doctors (probably Arion can testify to that)!-Happening (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Have you ever heard of spontaneous remission? --Art Carlson (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This will sound harsh but, unfortunately, a personal experience that a person had is not a WP:V veriable source, it's not reliable according to the standards on WP:RS reliable sources guideline. Also, personal statements about how a medicine cured a certain person are probably WP:OR original research, and non-published statements of what a doctor told you personally can't be included either for some of those reasons. We can't make changes to articles based on that sort of evidence because it breaks wikipedia principles and damages its goals on several ways, directly or by encouraging other more damaging behaviours. These principles have been on a ton of experience with presenting this sort of evidence. All of this is independent of the personal feelings or opinions that we have as editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe you that it was homeopathy that helped you, and that a placebo given by an MD would not have helped. But I think that what helped you was probably the aspect of homeopathy that we cannot (yet?) measure with scientific experiments. Perhaps if your homeopath had given you a placebo, without knowing it wasn't the real stuff, the results would have been the same. Good homeopaths do much more than just giving medicine to their patients. They are interested in every aspect of their patients' lives, to the point that you learn a lot about yourself by going to a homeopath. (At least that's what I am told, I have never consulted a homeopath.) While we cannot consciously control more than a few of our body functions, it is well known that attitudes can heal diseases, that some people can kill themselves by just making their heart stop beating and so on. You can observe in children how long it takes to learn controlling some body functions.

Think of it this way: There is no doubt that the sound of running water is very effective against some problems with passing water. But we can't prove it's more effective than the placebo effect, because in some sense it is the placebo effect. We can't prove that homeopathy is more effective than the placebo effect, but do we have to? If it works for you, isn't that enough? I think that's what we need to convey in the article: That homeopathy still hasn't been proved effective in scientific experiments; but that they are not fair to homeopathy because it's something else that they cannot measure. That's why the right balance is so important: We need to be honest about the scientific evaluation of homeopathy. But we have no right to try to destroy its effect, when for some people it's exactly what they need. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

::::*Hans, you took the words outa my mouth!

• Art, I do know about spontaneous remission, but not all the 'cures' of a Homeopathic Doctor can be attributed to it.
• I wonder how many of you here have really tried Homeopathy. I presume all of you are just theorizing (the skeptics I mean)—Happening (talk) [comments by a banned user]

I'm answering on your talk page. This page is not a forum for this sort of stuff not related to improving the article. Compulsory links to policies with suggestive names: WP:TALK and WP:FORUM --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

The use of templates in this article is making it extremely hard to edit, which means the writing suffers. Would editors please consider not adding more templates? It's just as easy (in fact, easier) to add a reference manually.

Here's an example of a paragraph in edit mode from the sandbox:

The ideas behind homeopathy are regarded by mainstream scientists as "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge."<ref name="shang">{{cite journal |author=Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, ''et al'' |title=Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy |journal=Lancet |volume=366 |issue=9487 |pages=726–732 |year=2005 |pmid=16125589 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2}}</ref><ref name="Ernst2005"/><ref>{{cite journal |author=Johnson T, Boon H |title=Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice? |journal=American journal of pharmaceutical education |volume=71 |issue=1 |pages=7 |year=2007 |pmid=17429507 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507}}</ref> Claims for its efficacy beyond [[placebo]] are unsupported by the collective weight of [[scientific method|scientific]] and [[clinical medicine|clinical]] studies.<ref name="brienlewithbryant">{{cite journal |author=Brien S, Lewith G, Bryant T |title=Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C |journal=British journal of clinical pharmacology |volume=56 |issue=5 |pages=562–568 |year=2003 |pmid=14651731 }}</ref><ref name="asthma">{{cite journal |author=McCarney RW, Linde K, Lasserson TJ |title=Homeopathy for chronic asthma |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |issue=1 |pages=CD000353 |year=2004 |pmid=14973954 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000353.pub2 }}</ref><ref name="dementia">{{cite journal |author=McCarney R, Warner J, Fisher P, Van Haselen R |title=Homeopathy for dementia |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |issue=1 |pages=CD003803 |year=2003 |pmid=12535487 }}<br/>{{cite web|url=http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=197&sectionId=27 |title=Homeopathy results |accessdate=2007-07-25 |publisher=[[National Health Service]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html |title=Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A–97) |accessdate=2007-07-25 |publisher=[[American Medical Association]]}}<br/>{{cite journal |author=Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, Willich S |title=The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture |journal=International journal of epidemiology |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=526–531 |year=2001 |pmid=11416076 }}<br/>{{cite journal |title=Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials |author=Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E |journal=Mayo Clin Proc. |date=2007 |volume=82 |issue=1 |pages=69–75 |pmid= 17285788}}</ref> The lack of convincing scientific evidence,<ref name="Adler">Jerry Adler. [http://www.newsweek.com/id/105581 "No Way to Treat the Dying"] - ''[[Newsweek]]'', Feb 4, 2008</ref> and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as [[pseudoscience]],<ref>National Science Board (April 2002) ''Science and Engineering Indicators,'' Chapter 7, "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding" - [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm "Science Fiction and Pseudoscience"] (Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences)</ref><ref>Wahlberg, A. (2007) [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.024 "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom,"] ''Social Science & Medicine'' '''65'''(11) pp. 2307-2316: PMID 18080586</ref><ref>Atwood, K.C. (2003) [http://archotol.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/129/12/1356 "Neurocranial Restructuring' and Homeopathy, Neither Complementary nor Alternative,"] ''Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery'' '''129'''(12) pp. 1356-1357: PMID 14676179</ref><ref>Ndububa, V.I. (2007) [http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_18080586-medical-quackery-nigeria-silence.htm "Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?"] ''Nigerian Journal of Medicine'' '''16'''(4) pp. 312-317: PMID 18080586</ref> or, in the words of a recent medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."<ref name=Ernst>{{cite journal |author=Ernst E, Pittler MH |title=Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials |journal=Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) |volume=133 |issue=11 |pages=1187–90 |year=1998 |pmid=9820349}}</ref>

SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Try going to your "preferences" link, clicking on "Gadgets" and then ticking "WikiEd", this will format references to differentiate them from the text. Makes dealing with any text dense with references (whether in templates or not) much easier. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim. I tried doing that a couple of weeks ago but it slowed my computer down quite a bit, and it also caused something else that was strange, though I forget what it was, so I had to uninstall it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you running firefox? Most of the gadgets and java tools are optimised for that browser (its much better as well <start advert>..open source..blah..more secure...better compatibility...blah..</stop advert>) Nevermind, it doesn't even run in IE. You might also check you've got the current version of java on your machine, or try installing it in your monobook manually (see User:Cacycle/wikEd installation. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox for Mac. I'll check the java and look into manual installation. Thanks for the advice. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

There is no section for Criticism in this article which most Wikipedia pages have. Para 2 seems to be pretty critical, so shouldn't we title Para 2 'Criticism' (or else we may end up putting the same matter there as well)? 3 Paragraphs for the Lead may be a bit long anyway. I also found that Anthony Campbell's criticism of George Vithoulkas' statement about Syphilis has been repeated, at least once.-Happening (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Wikipedia pages do not usually have "criticism" sections and having such sections is not a good idea for many reasons. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree - there are "criticism" sections in a lot of articles and all the articles on 'Alternative Medicine' do have "criticism" sections. Why isn't it a good idea? It will make the article more NPOV-Happening (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

The theory is that the entire article should be balanced. It shouldn't be a positive article with a single section reserved for negative statements. Everything should be fair.

Apart from the special problems with this article's "population", which mean that any big changes need to be discussed first to prevent a huge fight, your edits also made the lede of this article very small. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be small - a succinct summary. See the Britannica summary above. Following its model, the lede should be one paragraph in which there should just be one sentence of criticism. What we have now is the usual result of editing by committee - a overblown compendium of diverse views. I am not convinced that Wikipedia has any good way of resolving such a case of too many cooks. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support Colonel. There is a sentence of criticism in the Lead which reads, "The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol". In a committee, there at least is a 'resolution', but here?Happening (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

Also, the length suggested for an article of ">30,000 characters" is "three or four paragraphs". I'm not arguing that the current lead is perfect or anything, but it's at least within-guideline regarding size and content. There's certainly no need to break it up as Happening (talk · contribs) did, but wordsmithing to enhance brevity while maintaining accuracy is a worthy goal. — Scientizzle 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have my issues with the lede, but the size is approximately right. With SlimVirgin's new paragraph the balance is also much better than it has been for weeks (at least). And reducing the size by reformulating in a more elegant way is generally a good thing. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand it right it used to be the WP consensus that NPOV is achieved by a criticism section (around 2007 and earlier). This has changed and now the demands are higher, that the entire article should be balanced. However, many articles still have the old structure and in my opinion it is still tolerated if it is impossible to reach a consensus on the new structure. I think we should develop a criticism section for this article as a way of reducing all the conflicts. MaxPont (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Max! Why don't you create a 'Criticism' section?-Happening (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

In a sense we already have two criticism sections: Homeopathy#Medical and scientific analysis and Homeopathy#Research on effects in other biological systems. Just adding another one is not going to solve the problem if, as seems likely, hell breaks loose as soon as you make other parts uncritical. One thing we do need, though, is a good section about the history of the relation between homeopathy and mainstream medicine. So that's criticism both ways. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• You didn't get the point Hans, I wanted Max to create a section on Criticism, just to realise that the whole article is critical-Happening (talk) [comments by a banned user]

Sorry for that, now your comment makes more sense. Normally I am quite good at detecting irony, but Wikipedia culture is a bit special. Ironic remarks are so often taken at face value here, that it's better not to make them. As a result they are very rare, and therefore I had to readjust my irony detectors. You might be interested in WP:SARCASM. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Young people are smarter than 'old men' (just pulling your legs—all 3)—Happening (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Don't you see that Happening is another sockpuppet of the infamous Dr.Jhingaadey? 201.223.174.213 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder why you say that? I hope you can give us your name! —Happening (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Well, IP address 61.2.70.139 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} has been editing in your name, and Dr.Jhingaadey has used 61.2.70.140 ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} here [1]. Unless he's trying to make you look like a moron. 201.223.174.213 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That IP matches well with numerous other IPs he has used. Check out Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. According to accepted practice here, all edits and comments by 61.2.70.139 and Happening can be reverted/deleted. Further discussion with this blocked user should not occur. -- Fyslee / talk 05:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop making false allegations. This is preposterous! My I.P. isn't even listed there! — Happening (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

User talk:61.2.65.95‎ has also been used by you. -- Fyslee / talk 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop it! I'm sure we can discuss things on my Talk Page. — Happening (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Talk:Homeopathy/Lead - a sandbox / work space

I've copied the Lead section to Talk:Homeopathy/Lead just to kick some ideas around.... - I don't know if this has been tried before, but feel it might be worth a go! It's a kind of specific sandbox really, and I hope it helps! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now completed what a hope is a simplification, and clarification of the lead in neutral terms - and I think it's better than the current draft! - I presume the eyes and ears around here are fairly well trained, so I won't be bold until we've got some feedback here.... take a look, and thoughts most welcome... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks much better. I changed one detail where it wasn't entirely correct. Perhaps we can shorten the last paragraph as well, but even as it is it's a great improvement. Getting rid of the etymology in the lede, as you have done, works for me if we discuss it in the History section. Anyway, if we implement this new lede I expect we will check that we are not losing any information and extend the body where necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the last paragraph reads more like body text than lead. I would clash all of it except the one sentence "Current usage around the world ...". --Art Carlson (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

glad you found some merit in it! - I think it's a good idea to take this really slowly, and encourage a wide range of views before any edits to the actual article (I gather this subject is somewhat heated, and although I consider myself quite neutral - that's not really for me to judge I guess!) - I think the length of lead is probably ok - but I kinda agree that the final para reads a bit like body text.. I'll take another look to see if I can either synthesise, or write some new stuff which makes it work better as its own 'mini article'- cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the prevalence section and duly cut it down - the section on prevalence in the lead should not rival the section on prevalence in the body. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the information about the use of it in the UK. This has been repeatedly removed by anti-homeopathy editors, both from the lead and from the body of the text. But it's clearly relevant that the British government is willing to pay for it to the extent of financing five hospitals that offer it (and so far as I know offer only that). Anyone who knows anything about the way the National Health Service in the UK is funded will understand the significance of that. I therefore feel it's important to retain it in the lead to balance the allegations of quackery. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be said: NPOV isn't about balance, it's about due weight. That being said, the question becomes whether or not it's undue weight to include this mention here. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence is a one-paragraph section. The lead is supposed to summarise the article. Giving more space to the one-paragraph prevalence than any other section seems bizarre. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The prevalence paragraph is important to show that homeopathy is not just some pseudoscientific thing that hardly anyone has heard of — it may or may not be the former, but it's not the latter; on the contrary, it's a very popular alternative therapy that many people swear by, rightly or wrongly. Paragraph below so we can see what we're talking about. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions,[25][26] although homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations,[27] anti-malarial drugs[28] and antibiotics.[29] In many countries, the laws that govern the regulation and testing of conventional drugs do not apply to homeopathic remedies.[30] Current usage around the world varies from two percent of people in the United Kingdom and the United States using homeopathy in any one year[31][32] to 15 percent in India, where it is considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[33] In the UK, the National Health Service runs five homeopathic hospitals,[34] and in the 1990s, between 5.9 and 7.5 percent of English family doctors are reported to have prescribed homoeopathic remedies, a figure rising to 49 percent in Scotland.[35]

• The 2nd section, titled, "Another Suggestion", seems to be more balanced. We can also title the last Para, "Criticism" - we do need a section titled "Criticism" isn't it?
• Like Scientizzle and many others said, I think we need to make the matter more concise—Happening (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Not to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Arthur, can you please explain — Happening (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

(Possible edit conflict, above) The assertion of individuated diagnosis and treatment does not seem to be a core belief, and probably shouldn't be in the lead. If that were the case over-the-counter "homeopathic remedies" would be an oxymoron. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• A Doctor (Homeopathic) may be able to answer that better. From what I know, they do take a detailed case-history, which leads to an 'individuated diagnosis and treatment' — Happening (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

 Remark: User:Happening has been indef blocked as a sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey, case is reviewd at ANI here --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ignoring Happening, per below - I still think that way too much weight and specifics are being gone into about prevalence, and it's adding an odd Anglocentric bias as well. Can't we keep more general? I think WP:LEAD almost requires us to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a global summary. We might also say something about Germany where it originated and remains popular. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I think that's perhaps not exactly the kind of solution Shoemaker's Holiday had in mind. By the way, we were talking about the proposed new and shorter lede, see link at the beginning of this section. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The logical error is assuming because UK govt funds it, it believes it or supports it. Govts fund for political reasons. They think its useful for them at the polls. eg Govts fund religious education in Australia too, not because they like it but because the religionists would massacre them at the polls if funding was withdrawn. An encylcopedia shouldn't be limited in this way, especially by poor logic when arguing the case. Mccready (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

How do we know he was a sockpuppet? has it been proven beyond reasonable doubt? if he had been strongly anti-homeopathy one imagines he would still be here, for example. It would be helpful to see the proof. thanks Peter morrell 15:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He was just a banned user with a new user name who forgot to log in and thus revealed who he really was. His editing also failed the duck test. The evidence is pretty strong and he has been blocked (again!). Take a look at the links already provided. Whether he was pro- or anti-homeopathy has nothing to do with it. Anti-homeopathy editors have also been blocked for such offenses. -- Fyslee / talk 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few places to look:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Happening#Blocked_for_sockpuppetry
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Review_of_evidence_at_Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FDr.Jhingaadey
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Dr.Jhingaadey

As to my reasons for refactoring his comments above, you can read here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

India

Someone has added that homoepathy in India is confined to poor community and for minor diseases. This is an OR uncited claim. As I happen to know several Indian homeopaths, I also know that this statement is false. Homeopathy in India is used in all sections of society and for all disease types, including serious ones. There is even a government homeopath in India. So this statement needs either removing or sourcing very carefully. Peter morrell 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was an editor who is obviously from India, and who has done less than 20 edits in the last 2 years. My guess is that homeopathy has a bit of an image like that because it's cheaper. It seems natural in countries where this point isn't in the shadow of a pseudoscience debate. I wonder if there are any reliable sources for this line of thought. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is and isn't implausible

Friends, there is a RS[2] referenced in this article in the 2nd paragraph, "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. And yet, at another place in this article, it says, "Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed." If we are going to make an effort to have this article maintain a NPOV, I believe that we also need to provide this quote, and we should reference it to the same source. This is an obvious one. DanaUllman^Talk 04:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "extremely dilute" and a 30C Homeopathic dilution, specifically, one actually has an active ingredient. Doing something with zero active ingredient still goes against everything we know about science. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the second sentence is unsourced and should be deleted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear that the paper we are citing is actually relatively sympathetic towards the "water memory" hypothesis. But then, given how much has been published about the subject it seems a bit strange to source a claim in the lede to the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. So we should get rid of the quoted "is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" bit and stop citing the paper. I am not sure if that's what you mean, but if you do I agree. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it — homeopathy is scientfiically implausible. Pharmaceutical Education isn't a great source, but it's not likely a paper in a serious medical journal is going to say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The implausibility bit has two other references (currently 14 and 15). We are talking about numer 16, which is the reference for "is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge". --Hans Adler (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems in line with the thrust of other references, though, if slightly stronger stated. E.g. "The preparation of remedies involves serial dilution, commonly to the extent that no molecules of the original substance remain, and vigorous shaking between dilutions (potentisation). During this process information is thought to be transferred from the diluted substance to the solvent,6 which in the light of current knowledge seems implausible" (Shang). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical Education is a good source - no one can seriously argue it is not a reliable source -you cannot decide that a source is not good only because it states something positive for homeopathy.--Area69 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a good source in this case. There are so many sources on this particular topic, some of them excellent, that there is no valid reason to choose an article in an educational journal, especially if one of the authors seems to be a recent graduate. It's like using the Leeds Roundhay Weekly as a source on the Queen's income. It was cherry picking, to source a negative statement about homeopathy to it, and that shouldn't be done. And it shouldn't be used to cherry pick a positive statement either. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, one could argue that we could use this as the third reference for the first half of the sentence, i.e. the implausibility part. But I don't think it makes sense to use a paper for this purpose in which theauthors also mention lots of possible explanation for a water memory effect in a sympathetic way. Especially not when we already have two others. Or do they have similar problems? (I haven't looked.) --Hans Adler (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, are you still talking about the Shang metaanalysis that I was quoting, or did you misread that as being from the Pharmaceutical education source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still talking about the Pharmaceutical Education source with which Dana started this thread. Are you sure you are in the right thread? It looks to me as if you have changed the topic completely without making it clear that this was your intention. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. There was another change of topic which happened with OrangeMarlin's cryptical "second sentence" remark above, or when I tried to make sense of that. Perhaps I got that wrong? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a little confusing, aye. There's half-a-dozen separate topics under this same header. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found this quote in a higher-quality journal:

"Homeopathy has, in its 200 year history, remained a subject that is controversial, to say the least. It is based on the assumption that “like can be treated with like” and that serial dilutions render a remedy not weaker but stronger. Both of these assumptions are contrary to what we today know about the laws of nature. There are, of course, many therapies of which we currently do not understand how they work. But homeopathy is different: we do understand that it cannot work, unless we re-write whole chapters in basic textbooks of science."

-Exploring Homeopathy, Edzard Ernst, Preventive Medicine Volume 45, Issue 4, October 2007, Pages 280-281 doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.008

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC )

.........well. If you are going to use that you should also state that homeopathy is controversial in the article. Then you should remove the category pseudoscience since this is again the wikirules. Besides that It is a peer review paper?--Area69 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered seeing a reference a couple months back to plausibility in the print version of US News & World Report, a tertiary source beyond reproach (in the appropriate contexts). Sure enough, the online version is available, here (see paragraph 6). This is probably about as canonical an example as we can get of a good tertiary source as it is summarizes alternative medicine secondary sources (albeit unnamed); it only would be nicer if the mention was a more focused on homeopathy instead of all alternative medicine. I would suggest not taking the language verbatim as when out of the context of the comparisons of different practices it takes on unneutral connotations ("woo-woo"), but the underlying message is fine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be reluctant about quoting the media in such matters. Jefffire (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's useful for making general observations, if backed with other references. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a compromise proposal. I suggest the following: Homeopathy is scientifically implausible[14][15] and based on "the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge,"[16] and yet, similar sources assert, “Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed.”[16b] Please note I added a couple of words to the quote at the first part of the sentence because the authors did not say that homeopathy was diametrically oppose to... but saying that its theories are. Does this work? DanaUllman^Talk 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, in which paper does that new quote appear? Saying "16b" is really unhelpful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I see. Per WP:UNDUE, that's a tiny minority view in science, and as it purports to assess science, we should leave it out. There are better sources with better quotes, for instance, the Preventive Medicine one, which is by Edzard Ernst, a respected authority. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the quote above from Preventive Medicine ("But homeopathy is different: we do understand that it cannot work, unless we re-write whole chapters in basic textbooks of science.") supports the contested claim in the article about defying fundamental principles. MaxPont (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have already made reference to the Pharmacy Education article, and there is consensus that it is RS and notable, but to date, we have not incorporated its more balanced presentation. Are we or are we not interested in providing NPOV information?

There is absolutely no need for Ernst's strident statement. DanaUllman^Talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There is no need to quote Ernst's statement, but it can be used as one supporting RS for the "fundamental principles" sentence. MaxPont (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst's statement should not be used because it is obviously wrong. He says baldly that "it cannot work". It clearly can work via such mechanisms as the placebo effect. His language is sloppy and so it is not a good source. It is a matter of basic science which has been demonstrated by experiment that apparently inert medicines with no active ingredient nevertheless have a distinct healing effect. People who say that this action contradicts scientific principles are talking nonsense. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you already have this discussion at Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_34#Ernst_ref_.2316_added_today? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly - I don't recall Ernst coming up before. The basic issue which needs to be grasped here is that, so far as I know, science doesn't have an especially good theory as to why the placebo effect works. According to our article on the subject, A considerable body of work has attempted to elucidate the 'mechanism' of the placebo effect - but without much success.. So, if science relies upon this mysterious effect in determining the results of clinical trials, we are in no position to cast aspersions upon homeopathy which works in a somewhat similar way. Both homeopathy and allopathy have gaps or mysteries in their workings and science has yet to get to the bottom of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Peter Morell talks about him on the thread I linked, and Ernst was also discussed on the RS noticeboard on December 2007 --Enric Naval (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Complementary or alternative medicine: the need for plausibility.

Whatever Happened to Plausibility as the Basis for Clinical Research and Practice After EBM and CAM Rushed in?.

A critical overview of homeopathy. - general review, quite positive but notes implausibility and fact that it contradicts "contemporary rational basis of medicine".

Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment - notes that "there is no plausible mode of action for these highly diluted remedies" Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx Tim. The article, "A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," is particularly NPOV and was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Because it seems that we have a strong enough anti-homeopathy statement near the top of the article that suggests that homeopathy is implausible and runs counter modern pharmaceutical knowledge, I suggest that we add in a quote from this article's abstract: "Some data—both from randomized, controlled trials and laboratory research—show effects from homeopathic remedies that contradict the contemporary rational basis of medicine. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea." I can provide the references to each of the meta-analyses for these four conditions from major conventional medical journals. DanaUllman^Talk 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, we've solved the "implausibility" problem. We can just say "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible" with this as a reference (or added to some of the other references for this statement). As the the rest of this review, that sentence about meta-analyses doesn't reflect the current state of knowledge, since the 2005 Shang review represents the state-of-the-art in the analyses of homeopathy. Including dated material is not a good idea, so I wouldn't agree with the suggestion to quote that sentence. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because Shang wrote his analysis of homeopathic studies does not automatically invalidate them or make them any less significant. I do not agree with giving Shang such an inordinate amount of power to invalidate significant research findings. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There might be a better wording to the effect that some positive studies of homeopathic efficacy do exist, but that they are old rather than recent; they are regarded by many as methodologically flawed; they involve small statistically insginificant groups; and there remains the bald fact that trials of homeopathy have been in general a big disappointment. This combines with the lack of a scientific mechanism to create the situation where this article does indeed read like a 'hatchet job' and 'an attack piece' BECAUSE that is a correct evaluation of the status of homeopathy in the world as seen by the average person. The many people who have good experiences with homeopathic treatment and thus a strong personal conviction that it works (including Dana) clearly do not outnumber the majority of people who remain sceptical about it. I think this is a more balanced assessment. However, I do think the article should mention the positive studies en passant at some point with a clutch of refs added of the best. That would be a fairer situation than leaving the article entirely as 'an attack piece,' which it currently undoubtedly is. If so, we need to agree on a slight rewording and which refs to use. thanks Peter morrell 05:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree that the average opinion of homeopathy is that it is bunk. My impression is that it is still seen as fairly respectable in countries such as the UK. Hostility seems to come from the hard-science types who are a minority. It is like religion - mocked by rationalists but still commanding widespread support. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to ”Colonel Warden” above: I think you make an unfair misinterpretation of the statement from Ernst that homeopathy “cannot work” when you make references to placebo. Homeopaths themselves claim that it works regardless of the placebo effect and the focus of this entire debate is whether homeopathy actually works in the way the homeopaths claim. No one has disputed that placebo exists and can have an impact on studies of homeopathy. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• My general position to be sceptical of all sorts of medicine. Presenting some sorts of medicine uncritically while presenting others in an overly critical way does not seem NPOV. They all have their problems - both practical and theoretical - and we should be wary of vested interests on all sides. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment to DanaUllman above: If Dana gives a correct description of the article “A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," (Annals of Internal Medicine) I think it should be included without disclaimers. I base that on the title of the article and the reputation of the academic journal. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• General Comment: I don’t at all buy the arguments that articles should be rejected just because they are old (in particular if “old” means 2003). The average quality for acceptance in academic journals was not significantly lower in the 1980s than today. Well designed peer reviewed studies are not invalidated by time, only slowly superseded by the growing body of other studies. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Two points. Ernst is in no sense a respected figure. He is reviled by most folks in CAM as a persistently scathing commentator about CAM, a so-called professor of a subject he seeks to invalidate with everything he publishes. In this way, he has made himself into a joke in the academic world. Regarding older studies, nor do I think they are necessarily worse than recent ones, but some of the older studies were not constructed using genuine homeopathic principles or they had small numbers, or they were seen to be flawed in some way or other. That is what many people think. It is not especially my view but it is the predominant view among researchers. Hopefully better studies will come along. Peter morrell 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst is unpopular among certain people because he is researching the effectiveness of CAM using rigorous methods and the results are unpalatable to them. Elsewhere he seems to be respected. Even within CAM, he appears to be enough of "a respected figure" to be on the editorial board of Homeopathy[3], for example. Brunton (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: Dana's descriptions of studies have been discovered to be highly misleading in the past, both as to hyping/disparaging notability based on whether he likes the conclusions, and very selective quoting. Hence Ullman's review of A Critical Overview of Homeopathy should probably be ignored until other, more trustworthy editors have looked at it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dana and arion. The 2005 meta analyses should be included but they cannot invalidate significant research findings. Besides that the 2005 meta analyses have been critisized in mainstream notable journals and press and this critisism should appear in the lead in proportion to its appearence in reliable sources. ( All these exist in references already cited in the article.I will provide them upon request. )--Area69 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are these "significant research findings" you're referring to? If you're suggesting, as it sounds like you are, that single studies are more significant than metaanalyses, and that criticism in alt-med journals and letters from homeopaths should be counted higher simply because it's more numerous, even though there's no studies to back them up, then you fail at understanding reliability in terms of science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If I might quote something I said above: "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." We can discuss positive studies, explain why they aren't generally accepted in science, and so on. This doesn't mean yo get to reject a meta-analysis in The Lancet because you dislike it, nor that you get to claim that multiple very poor-quality individual studies should be given equal weight with respected, high-quality metaanalyses. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more than tad ironic (major chutzpah, in fact) that Shoemaker questions the accuracy of my descriptions of studies when he erroneously refers to the 2005 Lancet review of research as a "meta-analysis." Even the authors of that paper do not refer to it as such. Despite the RS nature of the Lancet, they lost a lot of credibility in publishing that paper, as was evidenced by the many harsh criticisms that this "review" got. That review began with 110 homeopathic and a "matching" 110 conventional medical studies, and then found 21 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only 9 similarly high quality medical studies, and yet, they never revealed what these studies showed. Instead, they chose to assess only the largest studies in this group, 8 homeopathic and 6 conventional. One homeopathic study was a "weight-loss" study! They ignored two large studies testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu. They ignored the meta-analysis of 3 childhood diarrhea studies as well as one of these studies that was published in PEDIATRICS (was it not RS enough for them?). They ignored ALL four of the Reilly allergy studies. Their review didn't even analyse external validity because 6 of the 8 homeopathic studies didn't have it. It is interesting to note that the authors of the Lancet report didn't even reveal which studies that they included in their review until critics demanded that they do such. What type of high quality medical journal would provide (hide) such a "black box" of data? DanaUllman^Talk 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Question to Shoemaker's Holiday (or others). Is DanaUllman getting the facts right here? Above you claimed that DanaUllman should be dismissed because he misrepresent the content and conclusions of academic studies. MaxPont (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since DanaUllman concedes he was wrong in his accusation against me below, I don't think there's any point further discussing something that attacks The Lancet as conspiring against them, and other ridiculous claims. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon more precise review of this article, Shang (2005) referred to his work as a comparative study of homeopathic and conventional medical research. Only once in this article did he refer to the word "meta-analysis" in reference to his comparison, though due to the broad definition of the word ("A procedure for statistically combining the results of many different studies"), I will concede that one could refer to this review by Shang as a meta-analysis, though my above criticisms of this review of research still remains. The following quote from this article will be of interest to all: "Simulation studies have shown that detection of bias is difficult when meta-analyses are based on a small number of trials. For example, for the eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract that were included in our sample, the pooled effect indicated a substantial beneficial effect (odds ratio 0·36 [95% CI 0·26–0·50] and there was neither convincing evidence of funnel-plot asymmetry nor evidence that the effect differed between the trial classified as of higher reported quality and the remaining trials. Such sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works. However, the biases that are prevalent in these publications, as shown by our study, might promote the conclusion that the results cannot be trusted." It is interesting that Shang refers to the results of 8 homeopathic studies on acute infections of the upper respiratory tract as "robust," and yet, he claims that 8 studies is too few to obtain unbiased results, while at the same time, they final analysis compared 8 homeopathic trials and 6 conventional ones. You cannot have it both ways. DanaUllman^Talk 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since we are citing Whorton in support of the idea that homeopathy is contraty to mainstream medical principles, it seems reasonable to cite his balanced view that the matter is not fully explained and so that it would be prudent to allow that these principles are incomplete. I have added a sentence to this effect with a substantial supporting quote in the citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Statements like 'Homeopathy is scientifically implausible.' is hopelessly POV and can not be verified. These gems need to be replaced with verifiable statements like 'Acording to so-and-so, homeopathy is scientifically implausible'. Why is everyone here arguing about whether or not homeopathy works? This is not something that a good article should determine. Report facts from verifiable sources and let the reader decide. Presumably homeopathy is scientifically plausible, if only to homeopaths. The need that some editors have to judge homeopathy has made for a nearly worthless article.

64.235.217.157 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, homeopathy is scientifically implausible. That's been demonstrated to be true and to be generally accepted. That some homeopaths may be scientists doesn't move the contradiction outside their heads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Please notice that the implausibility statement has been beaten to death on this thread, until it was finally sourced by two sources considered WP:V verifiable and WP:RS reliable by wikipedia standards. Please notice that when we talk of "verifiability" on wikipedia, we are talking of WP:V and we are only talking of it. (you will see this sort of acronyms being used all the time here)
  • The change on wording that you propose is called "attribution", and, according to WP:V, that sort of attribution is only necessary if there is disagreement between the sources (not the case here). To make attributions on "material challenged or likely to be challenged" it's enough to use an inline reference, like the article is already doing. Please feel free to provide sources stating that homeopathy is considered plausible and propose them on this talk page, but be aware but they may be rejected by other editor, and that you might need to raise WP:CONSENSUS consensus among editors about the inclusion, and that the changes proposed by you might never enter the article or can tweaked by other editors beyond recognition before or after inclusion on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead prevalence

This section goes into FAR too much detail about Britain, adding an odd Anglocentric bias. It currently reads:

Current usage around the world varies from two percent of people in the United Kingdom and the United States using homeopathy in any one year[31][32] to 15 percent in India, where it is considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[33] In the UK, the National Health Service runs five homeopathic hospitals,[34] and in the 1990s, between 5.9 and 7.5 percent of English family doctors are reported to have prescribed homeopathic remedies, a figure rising to 49 percent in Scotland.[35] In 2005, around 100,000 physicians used homeopathy worldwide, making it one of the most popular and widely used complementary therapies.[36]

I suggest we cut it to:

Current usage around the world varies from two percent of people in the United Kingdom and the United States using homeopathy in any one year[31][32] to 15 percent in India, where it is considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[33] In 2005, around 100,000 physicians used homeopathy worldwide, making it one of the most popular and widely used complementary therapies.[36]

Which includes enough information to get across the idea that it is popular, without giving undue weight to Britain.

Are we agreed?

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Better. The India paragraph that Tim removed can be added back with a fact tag if preferred until a good source can be found for it...if one ever can be found, that is. Peter morrell 06:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That 'offending' Scotland and UK para can of course be moved to the prevalence article maybe ? Peter morrell 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No objections. I just think it too much detail for the lead. which should take a world-wide view, and the body is a summary section of the main article which already mentions the UK. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I support reduction of these lede paragraphs as they are overblown and tendentious. I would go further than Shoemaker because the first sentence is an improper synthesis. It presents the numbers of 2% to 15% as a range, implying that these are the bounds of the range and that 2% is low. Neither implication is supported by the sources. One of the sources, Use of complementary or alternative medicine in a general population in Great Britain., says things like Previous population-based studies in Europe, Australia and the United States show that the use of therapies and treatments referred to collectively as complementary or alternative medicines (CAMs) is widespread. and its statistics suggest that usage in the UK is high rather than low. So, the points which we might properly make in this section are:

1. That homeopathy is widespread and common.
2. That it is a comparatively popular form of alternative medicine.
3. That the regulatory and support regime for it varies from country to country and continues to develop.

For the latter point, see The Economist, in which I just read an interesting account of Britain's new regulator for alternative medicine. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

2% is low. Perhaps it would be better to keep it, but say that 2% is widespread and common for alternative medicine. --Huffers (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the text: "where it is considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[33] In the UK, the National Health Service runs five homeopathic hospitals,[34] and in the 1990s, between 5.9 and 7.5 percent of English family doctors are reported to have prescribed homeopathic remedies, a figure rising to 49 percent in Scotland.[35]" This information could be included in the prevalence section, but the information about Scottish doctors needs to be amended - the source cited says that "forty-nine percent of practices", not individual family doctors, prescribed homoeopathic remedies, and that this "indicat[es] that at least 12% of Scottish GPs prescribe homoeopathy." Brunton (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While the passage is still in the lead section, does anyone object to my amending that to "a figure rising to at least 12 percent in Scotland", as per the reference? Brunton (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead... Peter morrell 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The book Snake Oil and the debate about Fundamental principles

In the book snake Oil [4] there is a foreword written by Richard Dawkins. In the foreword Dawkins says that homeopathy defies fundamental scientific principles. I don’t have access to book so if anyone has the book it would be very helpful if you could take a look in the foreword and quote the few lines from Dawkins where he mentions homeopathy. (I know that the book is POV-pushing. However the quote is from the foreword and I think that the claims by Dawkins could be accepted as a reasonably RS.) MaxPont (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be found here. Brunton (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It might make sense to include such a statement if it is attributed to Dawkins and we don't give the impression that we embrace it. But the sweeping statement that "homeopathy defies fundamental scientific principles" is over the top. Similarly to the incorrect claim in the current arbitration that "homeopathy can be uncontroversially described as pseudoscience according to academic consensus" this is not based on fact, and the strong belief in such claims is probably a result of confirmation bias. There are fringe and pseudoscience topics that are so bizarre and unimportant that nobody bothers to debunk them, but homeopathy too notable to be considered one of them.

"Homeopathy" does not "defy fundamental scientific principles". For instance it is plausible that due in part to homeopathy's scientifically unplausible claims and structural similarities to religion and magic, homeopathic placebos are much more effective than conventional placebos. As far as I know there were some old (probably biased, because this kind of thing is awfully hard to get right) studies proving exactly that, and while some recent studies suggest that the placebo effect in general is much less than scientists believed until recently, I can see no reason 1) why these new studies should apply to homeopathy as well (where it's nearly impossible to test if we assume that most homeopathic remedies are placebos for all intents and purposes), or 2) why they should apply to the placebo effect of physicians in the 1950s as well as the modern physicians who were tested. Modern physicians generally have less time for their patients and presumably less interpersonal skills than their predecessors, who often had only the placebo effect to rely on and healed a lot of people anyway. And, of course, their patients really trusted them because they had phantastic new tools, like antibiotics!

I got an edit conflict with a link to the foreword. After a quick glance at it I would say that Dawkins completely ignores the points I mentioned. One could say that he shares with the author of the book a strong belief that the only thing that counts in medicine is the purely mechanic aspects of healing. In this mindset spontaneous remission is a big nuisance that must be prevented rather than encouraged. Our article about Richard Dawkins says: "According to Dawkins, faith—belief that is not based on evidence—is one of the world's great evils." I agree with that statement, but where applicable I apply it to scientists as well as to theologians. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for the assertion that there are people who consider that spontaneous remission is something that should be prevented, rather than something that needs to be taken into account when assessing whether a therapy works?

As for the suggestion that the magical and religious overtones of homoeopathy might mean that homoeopathy produces a greater placebo effect than conventional treatment, I can think of at least one proponent of homoeopathy who asserts that orthodox treatments have a greater placebo effect than homoeopathy: "But the main thrust of Goldacre's argument is the role of the "placebo effect". Yes, this works. And, yes, it is without doubt present in every homeopathic intervention; but it is far more powerfully present in orthodox medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar campaigns."[5] Brunton (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean my statement about spontaneous remissions literally. Here is a more moderate way of expressing the same idea: "Until recently, the placebo effect has been regarded as a nuisance effect in medical research. Indeed, its study in the context of double placebo-controlled trials has given the mistaken impression that it is a fixed quantity in the clinical situation. However, in the surgery, the placebo effect becomes the healing effect of the doctor, which will vary according to his skills and which may extend beyond simple good common sense and oldfashioned bedside manners." That's from a 1999 discussion paper (so not really scientific) in the British Journal of General Practice. [6] Modern medicine doesn't want to withhold the placebo effect from patients any more than patriarchal societies want to withhold self-determination from women or modern societies want to withhold a sheltered childhood from their children. It's collateral damage.

Of course most homeopaths won't agree with what I said, although I guess most wouldn't go as far as the one you quoted. I wouldn't go to a homeopath who thinks he is administering placebos. But if I ever get seriously ill I will at least consider going to a homeopath who believes in what he is doing. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We're drifting a bit off-topic here, but "modern medicine" doesn't withhold the placebo effect from patients. The only way for it to do this would be to convince the patients that "modern medicine" doesn't work, and I don't think it even tries to do this. The question of "collateral damage" doesn't arise. The source you've cited merely describes it as something that needs to be taken into account in medical research, not something that needs to be eradicated from medical practice. Brunton (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, we are drifting off-topic, so perhaps we should stop (in which case you are wolcome to the last word) or continue elsewhere. But I think the fact that we are in a discussion on the merits now, where both sides can see that the other's position is at least plausible (or are you just being polite?), shows that MaxPont's blanket statement about "homeopathy", which is easily read as referring to the therapy form, rather than to homeopathist's beliefs is problematic. However, the entire question seems moot anyway; at least I couldn't find any succinct statement about homeopathy in the foreword. Just a lengthy discussion explaining double blind placebo studies to the layman and a claim that homeopaths are not trying to prove the water memory effect because they don't believe in it. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brunton, the quote is: "After all, if the double-blind trials of patient treatments came out reliably and repeatably positive, he would win a Nobel Prize not only in Medicine but in Physics as well. He would have discovered a brand-new principle of physics, perhaps a new fundamental force in the universe." I don't know if it was that good. MaxPont (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually quite a lot of sources for that:

• [John Maddox] (1988). "When to believe the unbelievable". Nature 333 (6176): 787. doi:10.1038/333787a0 - points out several ways in which claims that dilutions beyond the Avorgado limit violate fundamental principles of Chemistry.

We've been through this one before, too. (Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 35#Basic understanding) The only "fundamental scientific principle" that he mentions is the law of mass action, and that was in a rhetorical question. Not all the editors found that statement to be such a good source, either. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• The Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91055-X Says Homeopathy is "absurd" and "wishful thinking", and specifically says that its claims about dilutions above the Avogadro number are one of the major reasons for belief in it being delusional.
• And, of course, that old standby position paper by the Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67149-8, which says Homeopathy is thoroughly debunked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This editorial says homeopathy has been shown not to work ("150 years of unfavourable findings"), which is not the same as saying it "defies fundamental scientific principles". There are lots of things that don't defy fundamental scientific principles, but still don't work. But anyway, what's your point? We don't have that language in the article anymore. Are you suggesting we should put it back? Or are you just talking? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you are still trying to cram even more wholly negative stuff into this article, then? These points have already been covered very adequately in the article as it stands. Why go even further? Don't you think this article is sufficiently negative about homeopathy already? That book by John Diamond, Snake Oil, is only reputable to the most way out anti alt med types, skeptics and folks like that. You should read his insane ramblings from the 90s in The Daily Mail; even weirder and more histrionic. It is hardly a reputable source. IMO. God knows what Nigella Lawson saw in him. Peter morrell 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was more about sourcing material already there. That "diametrically opposed to modern phramecutical practice" was always pretty weakly sourced, and we could do a lot better with something else. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, they were talking of the Richard Dawkin's foreword and not of the book itself --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually agreee with Peter Morell that there is too much negative stuff in the article and would gladly see some of it be reomoved. The way to satisfy both sides would be to insert something about "defy fundamental principles" from a reputable RS and then leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusions. MaxPont (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

*I have been following the discussions on this Page for sometime now. I wonder why this article on Homeopathy is so critical while all the other articles on Alternative Medicines are not.

• The 'introduction', more importantly, seems to be a bit too long--Homoeopath (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Frankly, there's a lot of bad, not-NPOV articles on other alternative medicines, and it's going to take a long time for Wikipedia to fix this. That doesn't mean we should rush to break this article. And, MaxPont, I'm afraid I didn't see Peter morrell saying negative things should be removed, only that no new negative material should be added. I might be able to agree with the latter (presuming we don't add new sections or something similar), but not the former. At this point, what we need to do is get things better sourced, and begin moving towards FA. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't agree that Dawkins is a reliable source. His early works were good but he seems to be over the hill now. For example, I found his book The God Delusion to be very thin stuff and gave it away. And we really don't need more overt POV-pushing here. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

11 May reverts

I have reverted a pile of undiscussed edits until they are discussed here first as per established policy on this article. thanks Peter morrell 09:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For people to see what reverts were done and discuss if necessary: combined diff of reverts --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All you and your shoemaking friend have to do is propose the changes and say why they are needed...or is consensus a dirty word with you two? Edit wars have repeatedly resulted from exactly that type of behaviour: undiscussed unnegotiated edits with non-explanatory edit summaries. Peter morrell 17:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about, Peter :P I regularly do this sort of stuff to encourage discussion of edits on talk pages, often with edits done by anonymous editors on IPs. I had nothing to do at all with the edits themselves or with its discussion --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing that what provoked Peter is that you linked to the "combined diff of reverts", when it would have been more natural to link to the [diff of Shoemaker's undiscussed changes] – the exact opposite. Linking (only) to the reverts makes it look as if the reverts were the problem, when the real problem was Shoemaker's use of the BRD method for a controversial change to an article where this is likely to cause disruption. I am also guessing that you didn't pay attention to this very fine point and that you consequently don't understand why Peter is "counterattacking" you. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered on Peter's talk page. P.D. Well, doh, he just deleted my post without replying [7] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. The section on Shang's metaanalysis had expanded into a coatrack, using obscure and biased sources in such a way to make it appear that the response to Shang was wholly negative. I removed it as such.

Also, since we can't use the same paper in the lead that was being used there, I replaced the quote from it with a quick summary of Maddox's editorial from Nature (a much higher-impact journal). This all basically boils down to WP:UNDUE - the reaction to the shang pasper was being made to look wholly critical, but the only sources were the head of the societ of homeopaths and a piece in a very obscure journal. That's just not on.

Anyway, I'd have thought you'd have liked the changes to the lead. They specifically set out the scope as the higher dilutions, instead of treating all homeopathy as such. Frankly, I'd find studies of, say, a 6X dilution having a pharmacological effect as believable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You and your sidekick have still not explained this change you made to the article yesterday: Claims that these could still have a pharmacological effect greater than placebo violate, among other things, the Law of Mass Action, a fundamental principle of chemistry. what other things are you on about o, tag team of two? Peter morrell 05:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of the Nature editorial being referenced. It says there are many things that high dilution causes problems with, then gives the Law of Mass Action as a detailed example. Speculating what other things that the Nature editorialists might have written would be OR, but they were very clear that the example given was one of many possible ones. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Place the answer here then, or revert the unwarranted edit. Peter morrell 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if the RS says the example is one of many possible, waht's wrong with saying that it's one example of many possible? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I take it then that you do not know and the edit will be reverted as it is clearly unwarranted. Peter morrell 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want a concrete example, how about Atomic theory? Methodological naturalism, perhaps? But this is completely and totally OR. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you, Peter. If the source says "among other things", why can't we? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple really: because we don't know what these alleged 'other things' actually are. They are just empty allegations or imputed 'things;' that is not sufficient. Until we do know, that should be fact tagged. Peter morrell 15:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. One editorial opinion is not enough for us to write that the claims of homeopathy really do violate any fundamental principles of chemistry, or even that the scientific establishment thinks they do. I think that even the claim of Maddox that homeopathy would violate the principle of mass action is internally too inconsistent to be included in the article. If we want to quote Maddox' opinion, that's another thing. And as a point of order, the wording here has been hashed out before and something like a consensus has been reached. Proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page first. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

section was cut at this point to create "violation of fundamental laws" section

Shang

The section on Shang's metaanalysis had expanded into a coatrack, using obscure and biased sources in such a way to make it appear that the response to Shang was wholly negative. I removed it as such.

Also, since we can't use the paper in the lead that was being used there, I replaced the comment from it with a quick summary of Maddox's editorial from Nature (a much higher-impact journal) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well OK but you should discuss things first before making savage edits without prior notice. This has been the establishe dprocedure for a long time now. It is designed to win consensus and so head off edit wars. Pity you can't be so positive about changes to include positive studies...every change made to this article adds yet more criticism. Why can't you add some positive stuff just for a change? Then your claim of NPOV might be a bit more believable. Peter morrell 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Derogatory and snide comments about other editors

Peter, your comments above are getting a bit over the top. Try to limit your comments to the issues and subjects rather than including snide and derogatory comments about other editors. It would sure help the editing environment. Your comments are uncollaborative and are violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You should be above this kind of behavior. Please do what you can to make editing here more enjoyable. -- Fyslee / talk 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See also

I have added a few 'see alsos' to the article the last one being a bit suspect, but I didn't know how to format it...it is a bunch of studies that Tim dumped on my talkpage because they were gonna be deleted: User_talk:Peter_morrell/Selection_of_studies If anyone can reformat that to make it look better then please do so. It is in such a list that folks should look to find some positive studies of homeopathy which ought to be incorporated into the article at some point. Many such studies are listed and discussed in Bill Gray's fine little book Homeopathy: Science or Myth thanks Peter morrell 08:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could better explain why homeopaths think they have a scientific case. At the very least, this is interesting sociology, and helps present the homeopathic views. But I'm not sure this list is the right place to work from - It's a list created by a now-banned [and I believe non-notable?] editor, and I'd rather look at statements by homeopathic organisations and take our cue from what they say and cite. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter who put the studies together: they exist. Nor does it matter where they came from. The point is that positive studies exist and have been consistently excluded from this article by you and by others. If you are going to make any credible claim to NPOV, then some of such studies should go into the article. That is a very simple matter. But yes, you can also use those sources you mention as well; no problem with that. Whether they are RS or not is another question! But the overriding point is that the article currently probably needs a few positive studies adding in somewhere. Where they come from is not the main issue; putting them in, is. IMO Peter morrell 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:The word Quackery means "pretence to medical or other skill" and it is offensive to call a Qualified N.D., D.O. or M.D.(Hom.) a Quack, which is what there is now in the 'introduction'.

I read on somebody's Talk Page that the sceptics here have never tried Homoeopathy and that they are just theorising it doesn't work.

Peter, I read somewhere here that 398 studies which prove Homoeopathy works have been mentioned on this Talk:Homoeopathy Page (but I couldn't find those studies), so shouldn't you and the others consider those studies and change the introduction? — Homoeopath (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Please stay on topic. I can see no connection between the word "quackery" and the present discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about the 398 studies. Why 398? I have a quote somewhere which I will dig out about such studies and why 300 or even 3000 will never be enough; the anti- folks (who BTW control this article) will just pull them to pieces anyway as they have 'sheer disbelief' and 'ridicule' as their chief weapons, not to mention 'intimidation' and the semi-mythical 'power of numbers' on their side. But on a more positive note, it is a lively talk page. Peter morrell 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the word 'quack' or 'quackery' is used in a properly-cited, reliable source, and if we are responsibly and neutrally presenting a mainstream view on the topic, then there shouldn't be any problem with using the word. Homeopathic therapy and its practitioners are widely criticized by mainstream science and medicine, frequently with exactly that sort of pejorative language.

Whether or not any particular editor is skeptical of homeopathy, or whether or not any particular editor has tried homeopathic remedies, is entirely moot. We're not supposed to be presenting anecdotal reports or personal testimonials on Wikipedia—policy here demands that we supply proper, reliable, external sources. I, personally, have never been involved in a hysterectomy, trepanation, or the impeachment of a President, but that does not bar me from editing those articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you truly believe that the logic in your first two sentences is correct, then I recommend replacing "homeopathic therapy" with "homosexuality", and "'quack' or 'quackery'" with suitable pejorative words, and to try amending homosexuality accordingly.

And the word is not just offensive, it's also technically incorrect; we have no obligation to report accusations when we it's evident that they are over the top. A considerable percentage of qualified European medical doctors learned homeopathy as part of their training, and are applying it occasionally. Are they all quacks? Is the UK National Health system paying for quackery? Is the German public health system paying quacks? Perhaps if very notable sources in at least one country (presumably a country like the US, where this medical tradition was virtually non-existent for half a century) consistently said homeopathy was quackery, then we should report it. But look at our sources for this claim: A paper by a biomedical researcher, a letter to the editor in very specialised journal (written by a geneticist), and a paper in a Nigerian journal which deals exclusively with the situation in Nigeria. If these are the best sources, then this word has no business in the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you see, Homosexuality#Etymology_and_usage has a list of peyoratives and it doesn't feel the need to use any reference to source it, and Homosexuality#Prejudice_against_homosexuals makes a list of all the bad things that homosexuals are called, and some are sourced and others are not. If we were to use the standard from that article, then we should add way more adjectives than just "Quackery" and we wouldn't be so picky with sources. To clarify, it's obvious that homeopathy is being called quackery by many people, so stop asking for unnecessary sources, and take example from Homosexuality, where the guys from WP:LGBT don't feel the need to contest every single negative thing said against homosexuality and don't feel the need to raise the bar on sources. Indeed, it uses a ohio crime service site and a anti-gay and anti-lesbian site to source negative claims against lesbians, while here we are avoiding sourcing quackery claims from scicop.org and similar sources, which is exactly the place where we would more evidence for the usage of "quackery" on relation to homeopathy.

Not only homeopathy is listed at quackwatch.org (how non-quackery medicinal practices get listed there?), but homeowatch.org even has a 1854 report about dissolving the connection of Homoeopathists(sic) with the Massachusetts Medical Society[8], which shows how the use of quackery to describe homeopathy is not a recent usage and was used on the US. There have also been debates on the accucacy of the termpaper on the debate streaming video versionpage at National Center for Homeopathypubmed link(this might actually be a reliable source to source the quackery thing), Randi being interviwed by BBC's Horizon on quackery[9](another reliable source?). This is not a problem of not reliable sources, it's a problem of editors rejecting any negative claim unless it has impecable sources by the most stringent standards. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What? You are not comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing babies and serial killers. Compare:

Pejorative terms in English include queer, faggot, fairy, poof, and homo. Beginning in the 1990s, some of these have been "reclaimed" as positive words by gay men and lesbians, as in the usage of queer studies, queer theory, and even the popular American television program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. However, as with ethnic slurs and racial slurs, the misuse of these terms can still be highly offensive; the range of acceptable use depends on the context and speaker.

The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[15] and its use of remedies without active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience;[16] quackery;[17][18][19] or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

Some differences:

• Pejorative terms for homosexuality are discussed in a section on the (very real) problem what word to use to refer to homosexuals. – The word quackery is used and provided with a justification in the lede of homeopathy.
• The homosexuality article discusses this in the context of prejudices against homosexuals. – The homeopathy article tries to establish the pejorative term as professional opinion of the scientific community.

So let's reverse this:

The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting salubrity of this lifestyle and its association with non-purposive sexual acts[15] have caused homosexuality to be regarded as perversion;[16] sin;[17][18][19] or, in the words of a former Catholic Pope, "bewilderment at best and mortal sin at worst".

Pejorative terms in English include quack, diluter, placebo doctor, organist, and homeo. Beginning in the 1990s, some of these have been "reclaimed" as positive words by homeopaths, as in the usage of dilution studies, placebo theory, and even the popular American television program Placebo Pills for the Allopath. However, as with ethnic slurs and racial slurs, the misuse of these terms can still be hightly offensive; the range of acceptable use depends on the context and speaker.

See the difference now? --Hans Adler (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right that it wouldn't make same sense if they were worded the same way. However, the reason that they are worded so differently is because the pejoratives on homosexuality are actual pejoratives from ideological groups that are against homosexuality, while the statements of quackery come from doctors and medical journals, and are statements of facts based on evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it either, Hans, I think you need to take a few deep breaths. Does the article call homeopaths quacks? It most certainly doesn't, it only reports that some very notable people do. (If you get down to it, when Homosexuality talks about "misuse of these terms", it is taking a moral stand. "use of these terms" would be more neutral.) Would the article be more neutral or more informative (or even less offensive, if that is a criterion here) if it cited the four sources without giving the justification? I don't see how. It is hard to pin down the "scientific community", and the statement in question fortunately (i.e., on the basis of a hard-fought consensus) does not try do do so, but it is in fact the "professional opinion" of an important fraction of the scientific community that homeopathy is quackery. I think part of the inflammability comes from the connotation that quacks are deliberate frauds. The definition, however, includes the possibility of ignorance. I think most critics would agree that most homeopaths sincerely believe they are healing their patients. We could try to work that in somewhere, but right off I don't see where it would fit. Are you proposing to cut this sentence entirely? If not, perhaps you can propose an alternate formulation that gets the information across without being unnecessarily offensive. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(How about adding "However, the use of the term "quack" in reference to a homeopath can be highly offensive." ;-> ) --Art Carlson (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be POV editorializing, which isn't proper or necessary. The wikilink to quackery is enough. Offensiveness is a non-issue, as offensive content is totally allowed here. We are uncensored and say what the sources say. If someone is so sensitive that they are easily offended, they should go elsewhere. -- Fyslee / talk 06:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. WP:Non-offensiveness is, for good reason, not a policy of Wikipedia. The closest it comes is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for articles and WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks for discussions among editors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Art Carlson (talk • contribs) 07:42, 16 May 2008

Notice that the sources are using the term "quackery" without any matizations about its definition, and all three sources appear to be referring to the "fraudulent" part of the definition of quackery. We are simply being NPOV when reporting that the sources define homeopathy as quackery without making any further indications:

1. ""miracle cure"-peddling quack pretending spectacular properties for worthless tonics"[10]
2. "the unethical nature of highly implausible health practices (...) According to the National Council Against Health Fraud, in 1983 a naturopath in Alberta (...)"[11]
3. "Homeopathy, in particular, is a medical quackery per excellence and should be banned (...) various professional bodies should not hesitate to sanction their erring members who deviate from acceptable practic (...)"[12]

I can't see part of the sources, I assume the rest is on the same tone --Enric Naval (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly with these replies, and I think they are symptomatic of extreme prejudice (aka "POV"). But for the next couple of days I don't have time to reply in detail. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the Webster Comprehensive dictionary (hard copy version) there are two definitions of Quack. 1...A pretender to medical knowledge or skill; or 2...A charlatan. As an adjective it can mean; 1...pertaining to quacks; or 2... ignorantly or falsely pretending to cure. Quackery is defined as; Ignorant or fraudulent practice. A trained and qualified medical practitioner who practices homeopathy can not be said to be a pretender to medical knowledge but in their practice of homeopathy they are not practicing medicine and they are in fact either pretending that homeopathy is medicine or, (out of an involuntary ignorance) believe that it is. It is debatable whether someone who believes in homeopathy is falsely pretending but certainly they are acting ignorantly. In the UK and in Australia, anyone can set themselves up as a homeopath; no training required. There are private registration boards but there is no compulsory legal requirement for registration. BUPA, a British private health insurance company says on its web site...There is no set organisation for registration of homeopaths, so this limits the control of homeopathy and your legal rights if you do have any adverse effects; they also say.... The best evidence fails to prove that homeopathy cures illnesses. Research shows that no homeopathic remedy has a clinical effect greater than that of a placebo for any medical condition.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

::::*Enric, Kenneth, I repeat, the word Quackery means "pretence to medical or other skill" and it is offensive to call a Qualified N.D., D.O. or M.D.(Hom.) a Quack, which is what there is now in the 'introduction'. The allegations made by people who haven't conducted trials according to Homoeopathic principles (i.e. using the individualisation process) should not be acceptable. I am an employee of the World's largest chain of Homoeopathic Clinics' and I can provide testimonials of thousands of people who've been cured (I believe web-sites aren't allowed a mention here, but if it was, I could have given you the web-site url, to see for yourselves). There are also lots of 'studies' which prove that Homoeopathy works (398 have been mentioned here already - vide archive 35)! --Homoeopath (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Correct place is Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_34#How_to_choose_from_the_398_reviews_and_meta-analyses (so people won't try to change above comment to correct it) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cut sentence

Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that most of these studies suffer from serious shortcomings in their methods.

This is all well and good, but I don't think it goes anywhere useful. Think it used to be followed by a description of Shang, if we're leaving that out, may as well leave this out of the lead as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

: Why don't you people remove Para 2, 3 & 4 from the introduction (it can certainly be put somewhere lower down)? Para 2 is only 'Criticism' anyway (which is against Wikipedia principles - it is not NPOV) and it shouldn't be part of the introduction! —Homoeopath (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Um, no, actually,t hat suggestion is the one contrary to Wikipedia policies. The lead is supposed to be self-contained and present all views, removing the scientific view would violate WP:FRINGE (and WP:LEAD). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::*So, according to that rule, the sceptics 'Fringe Theories' should not be acceptable and the whole of Para 2 should be removed! —Homoeopath (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

...Um... No... I'm afraid homeopathy is the fringe theory. That's why mainstream medicine is not another term for homeopathy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

*TenOfAllTrades, Shoemaker......How can Homeopathy be the 'Fringe view' on the Homeopathy article? If that was the case, the article on 'Islam' should also be considered 'Fringe view' and the Criticism of Islam should be on the article on Islam rather than on the 'Criticism of Islam' Page. At WP:FRINGE, there is a section, titled, "Sufficiently notable for devoted articles", which mentions, 'Creation science', 'Apollo moon landing hoax', 'Time Cube' and 'Paul is dead' which are false allegations/rumours, so the allegations made by references 16 to 19 are not acceptable and so the whole of Para 2 must be removed from the 'Lead'. In fact, Para 1 is more than enough for an introduction.—Homoeopath (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Hey Jhingaadey, nice to have you back. So you have read about those 398 "studies", and you also want to remove paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 from the introduction. You are not very smart, are you? 190.20.201.100 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::::I wonder if this is a compliment or sarcasm?Homoeopath (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

I have put a label on his page about suspecting him a sockpuppet, and several diffs to check it [13] --Enric Naval (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::A 'sock puppet' is an alternative account used deceptively. I have never used any 'account' here before nor am I the said person you are accusing me of being. I did copy something from other pages, but this is ridiculous! Why don't you people answer my Question instead? Moreover, if "Arsenic Toxicity from Homeopathic Treatment" is possible, vide reference 22, how can Homeopathy be called 'placebo therapy' in the previous sentence?--Homoeopath (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Oookay... look, lad, at this point, it really looks as if you're trolling. If you aren't trolling, you really need to calm down a bit, because you're not really making anything like a rational argument. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he's been indef-blocked as a trolling sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and how wonderful that is! you got what you wanted. Pathetic. Who in hell cares who or what he was? except you folks. You banned Dana and now I'm gone too. Hope you are satisfied. goodbye, good riddance, let the dogs take the whole goddam article. Does it really matter? Peter morrell 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

? Do you mean that as a defence of Homoeopath aka Dr.Jhingaadey? Do you really think that he was helping improve this article in any way? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Art, open your eyes man to what is going on here for chrissakes. Look how degraded things have become. Did you not even check Dana's arbcom? The dogs got what they wanted. goodbye Peter morrell 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this reference to Dana's arbcom. As I understand it, this is still pending. I would be surprised if it went against Dana since the action is so clearly malicious. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm....it's not going so well for him. [14] A couple more votes and he's banned for a year. -- Fyslee / talk 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll see. I'm more interested in the proposed Sourcing Adjudication Board of credentialled experts which sounds like a revolutionary idea. Wonder how they will get that to work when the credentialled experts on Homeopathy are people like Dana. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is always difficult to find an expert in something that doesn't exist.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Theologians?! -- Fyslee / talk 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter morell driven away from the article

Peter morell obviously lost his temper the last week. However, one of the involved ArbCom parties from the pro science camp Shoemakers Holiday mentioned Peter morell from the pro homeo camp as a reasonable user [15]

Now Peter morell has lost his temper, given up and left the homeopathy article [16] [17]

Several other reasonable god faith editors from the pro science camp have also left the article in protest (I don’t have the time to find diffs for that). This is really bad. MaxPont (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, he said so above. It is to be hoped he comes back once he calms down, but I don't know what good can be done by rehashing it. Which editors left in protest, though, and, er, what were they protesting? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemakers Holiday was obviously wrong (forgetful and overly magnanimous?) when he "mentioned Peter morell from the pro homeo camp as a reasonable user [18]". (It was very kind of him.) Peter has at times been a reasonable user, but has commonly reverted to primitive and vociferous attacks on other users and exhibited an intolerant approach to others whom he considered not as informed as himself, thus exhibiting an uncollaborative ownership attitude. It is sad when users who actually do possess such knowledge about a subject (which Peter undoubtedly does) are so wed to their beliefs that they can't be objective in their editing. -- Fyslee / talk 15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame that Peter morell left. He had shown a great capacity for working with others to better the articles. But I can't agree with many of his statements about how the "dogs" got what they wanted in the current ArbCom case, especially in regards to Dana. If he honestly can not recognize the problems with Dana's editing patterns and how they hurt the article, then I may have to rethink my evaluation of Peter. I do hope he comes back but a return without recognizing the problems presented by being unquestionably loyal to homeopathy will just cause the same problems over and again. Baegis (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not coming back so forget it. It is not a decision I have taken lightly or in anger as others pretend. It is simply that I am too busy and the dogs--for that is exactly what they are--just won't shut up and you now have the article once again controlled by a tag team of two who call all the shots and are a total waste of time. None of the current editors know what they are talking about. They know nothing about homeopathy and yet all you see every day is them crowing from the rooftops and shouting down and intimidating everyone else. I'm sick of that and it is time to leave that very miseralble scene behind me about which I am ecstatically happy. It was the right thing to do to make more productive use of my time on wiki and pursue my other interests. I have no intention of ever coming back so get over it. Peter morrell 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What really annoys me is that Peter thinks that I am the sidekick :( --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that there are also pro science editors who expressed frustation and have abandonded the article. (My memory is not that good but I think that Filll was one of them). MaxPont (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While I regret Peter leaving, as he is undeniably an expert on the subject, and takes a generally constructive attitude which has on other pages allowed a reasonable consensus to be reached, I can't agree with his attitude that critics of homoeopathy "know nothing" about it. Many people who are highly critical of homoeopathy have made considerable study of it (it isn't necessary to be a believer to do this, and study of homoeopathy doesn't automatically make one believe). Brunton (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why don't we all ask for the page to be edit-protected for, say, two weeks, and have a little break from all the drama of the last couple months =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be contrary to WP:OWN. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"High-impact journals"?

The second paragraph refers to "high-impact journals." I am unfamiliar with the term; somebody please explain. Plazak (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to Impact factor. It's a measure of the quality - or at least the importance - of a journal. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

expanding a source to explain the models on scientific studies

I changed this text[19] to reproduce better what this source says on the abstract. Can someone read the body of the article and explain what are the solutions that the study proposes to solve this problem with models? I think that this could be expanded into a paragraph explaining the models used on scientific studies of homeopathy, which I think that would be a good adition to the research section. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I might be able to get hold of a copy (the library catalogue I've been looking at isn't entirely clear about holdings of this journal, but I think it has it at this date), but it might be a few days before I can get there. Brunton (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

violation of fundamental laws

per WP:TALK, let's not debate the merits of homeopathy, but work on improving the article...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section was split from "11 May reverts" section because it no longer discusses the reverts Might I suggest that the reason there are not more examples given as to what fundamental laws of chemistry and physics are violated by homeopathy is because the homeopaths can't give a reasonable and consistent explanation of how homeopathy is supposed to work. I lieu of any convincing experimental evidence, or even a sound theoretical explanation of how it circumvents the stated problems with mass action, I don't see what ground you have to stand on in your demands for more examples of how homeopathy can not work. Let's walk through this: 1. Overwhelming experimental evidence shows it does not work. 2. Its violation of the law of mass action nicely explains why it is observed not to work. 3. You want more reasons why it can not work without offering any sound rebuttal to the mass action argument? Give us a theory of how dilution to the point of elimination is supposed to impart any action and I'll try to point out what laws of physics you are violating. Just saying "water memory" doesn't cut it. I have been unable to find any reliable literature reference which suggests that water has a memory. So we run into a problem: There is no theory which adequately explains how "water memory" works and any theory which all homeopaths might agree on is pointless as it is not supported by experiment. Again, tell me how this stuff supposedly works, and I'll see if I can't point out how it violates the laws of nature. Also, it is a common misconception in these editorial pages that the opinion of the "scientific establishment" need be a consensus opinion and explicitly stated as such. This is not the case. There is no such thing as the "scientific establishment". Science is a methodology. If a properly designed experiment and honestly developed theory agree, we have the result of science. Anything which must necessarily violate the theory if it is going to work, but can be shown not to work through properly designed experiment, contradicts the scientific conclusion and is inherently refuted by science. There needn't be an edict sent out by all scientists to profess that Apollp doesn't make the sun rise; it is an observable fact and is implicit in our understanding of the solar system. Likewise, there needn't be an edict sent out by any "scientific establishment" to state that homeopathy violates fundamental principles of chemistry. It has been shown not to work and there is a simple, theoretically and experimentally sound reason why it can't work. Where's the confusion?Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The law of mass action is a statistical hypothesis which only applies strongly to elementary reactions. Since homeopathy obviously does not work by means of large concentrations, attempts to apply this "law" outside of its proper context is just begging the question. Other mechanisms of subtler nature may be at work. That these mechanisms exist is demonstrated by the placebo effect. Please explain how the placebo effect cannot be likewise dismissed by means of the same law and why serious scientists continue to assert its existence, even though they cannot explain its mechanism? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Find a source. Nature's editorial board, who one might suspect know more about it than you, says it does apply to homeopathy. You provide no counter-sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Well, let's see: 1. as far as I know, the law of mass action states that it applies to *all* reactions on *any* circumstance. So, saying that homeopathic chemical reactions don't follow that law is going against that law in particular. 2. I understand that about any substance can have a placebo effect, and that the placebo effect research is centered on what brain areas are activated by physichological suggestion, and not on any chemical reaction happening due to the substances taken, so it has nothing to do with the law of mass action. And, yes, the *exact* mechanism is still being researched, but I think it's already agreed that it's a psychological effect that causes physical responses on the human body by means of normal chemical reactions like the brain ordering the release of endorphines and other chemical substances (which then behave according to the law of mass action, of course). 3. Homeopathy claims that it has effects greater than placebo effect. That's why it's so important to use double-binded trials with control group, which eliminate the placebo effect as much as posible. In fact, I think that all modern medicines have to make the same type of trials to demonstrate that they have an effect greater than placebo (the fact that pharmaceutical companies manage to botch the studies in order to promote ineffective or dangerous medications is a different question). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC) The placebo effect is generally considered as a psychological phenomenon manifest as perception being dictated by anticipation. If you want to claim that homeopathic efficacy is nothing more than the placebo effect at work, I think we can all agree to stop discussing the matter because we are in full agreement as to the nature of homeopathy. Attributing a perception of positive outcome to a psychological phenomenon is a lot different than attributing it to an unidentified, unmeasurable, unobservable, unnecessary, and obviously inconsequential (if it does nothing to improve upon the expected placebo effect) physical interaction. Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC) And let's not forget what it is we are trying to validate here. Well before countless, replicable, and endlessly reaffirmed experiments led to the development of what is now accepted (not longed for, desired, or conveniently fabricated, mind you, but accepted) as the modern understanding of the physical world, a single man postulated that "like cures like" based on inspiration gleaned from translating a medical text written when barbers doubled as surgeons. The original ideas of homeopathy were formulated in a vacuum of ignorance with no real historical data to justify their creation. Experimentation and questioning have shown that Haenemann's(sp?) assumptions were wrong and, in fact, can't possibly be true. Kind of like the idea that Atlas supports the Earth on his shoulders. So we have an unobservable phenomenon, which violates a well established understanding of how the universe works, and which was originally formulated based on no pre-existing data (meaning Haenemann proposal is just as arbitrary as claiming that all disease is caused by unicorns eating hobbits). Why are we trying to validate this?Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Err...and such a "like cures like" understanding, led directly to the first Smallpox vaccine in 1796, which was certainly an effictive and repeatable vaccine and based on what I'm reading in the smallpox vaccine article, this use of coxpox as a vaccine against smallpox led to its apparent erradication, being in until 1974 in the UK (according to the article). --Firefly322 (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC) The smallpox vaccine wasn't based on anything as silly as a principle that "like cures like". It was based on an observation: that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox. - Nunh-huh 03:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Does this comment represent serious examination and evaluation of the historical literature on smallpox or could this be speculating based on logical positivistic values and beliefs, i.e., "textbook history" that has been called "a pack of lies" "with slight exageration" by highly reputable historians under the guidance of someone as well respected as Karl Popper (see page 338-339 of Fields of Force) ?--Firefly322 (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC) "This comment" represents the actual historical facts. Do you have a quotation from Popper proper on smallpox? Or only speculations about what his thoughts might have been (had he had any) based on your idiosyncratic application of your reading of his philosophy? - Nunh-huh 05:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Before we delve too deeply into Popper and history, let me clarify. My wording above was brief as an effort to save space but it apparently cost me on meaning. When I referred to Hahnemann's idea of "like cures like" I simply used that term to invoke all of homeopathy's original ideas. What with the unrelated poisons, the diluting, the shaking, the provings and such. The whole approach appears to have been fabricated on a whim and not as a logical extension of existing theory or available data. Again, it is all a quite arbitrary process. The concept of vaccination was developed through observation and verifiable implementation and is not the same as the "like cures like" of Hahnemann. Essentially, a small amount of protein invokes an immunological response and the whole process fits very nicely into the established theory and facts of how the immune system works, based and solid agreement with principles of chemistry. Hahnemann's "like cures like" refers to administration of unrelated poisons in an effort to cure disease by a mechanism which remains elusive but which, in its most oft proposed forms, refutes simple principles of chemistry. This all works beautifully with in the realm of scientific investigation, mind you, since this non-existent mechanism would have to explain an unfeasible phenomenon which has been shown to not actually exist. Homeopathy and vaccination are two very different beasts. Debating their relationship based on the fact that "like cures like" is a simple term which is equally applicable to both approaches is like arguing that homonyms must have the same meaning simply because they sound the same. Like curing like in vaccination is entirely different from what Hahnemann was trying to pull out of his hat.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Wilson, if you look at the source mentioned on the "expanding a source to explain the models on scientific studies" section below, you will see that the problem with the scientific study on homeopathy effects is that it's so flawed that it's imposible to assess if the effects actually exists. So, yes, it's true that they probably don't exist because their existance would require changing several scientific laws, but scientists have not still nailed completely the effects or the lack of them. Also, please, articles on wikipedia are not for making moral judgements on stuff. At most, we can cite notable moral judgements or relevant moral judgements from notable sources. Making comparisons with unicorns and hobbits does not help to improve the article, let's keep the talk pages for discussing stuff that has some chance to improve the article (the thing about the cow workers should be discussed on Talk:Smallpox_vaccine, for example) . Also, we are not validating anything here, we are building a neutral point of view encyclopidia from reliable verifiable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC) P.D.: and sorry for being too harsh, but the conversation has gone so off-topic from the 11 May reverts that I have even given it its own section. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry about that. It started out as an effort to address the lack of examples of how homeopathy violates simple laws of chemistry/physics (as was my understanding of the 11 May reverts issue), but snowballed into other concerns. I can appreciate the desire to develop a neutral article, but I think the question of whether or not homeopathy is anything more than science fiction is the most important aspect of how any encyclopedia should handle the topic. I know this has been an ongoing and really irresolvable debate on account of aspects of faith driving both sides of the argument, but we should at least try for a very clear and detailed explanation of the problems with homeopathy (and the studies which are often referenced in support of it). I can see how the unicorn example would be offensive to proponents of homeopathy, but I feel it is a very strong, honest and warranted analogy. I'll do my best to not be offensive, but it's hard to sacrifice a clear point for the sake of political correctness. I also have no intention of editing the article itself, so there's no need to worry about my point of view getting undue weight; but I would like to be able to contribute to the talk page to help make a clear case. By the way, I have downloaded the above reference article "Research on Homeopathy: State of the art" and will try to read it over this weekend. If anyone else would like a copy, let me know how to get it to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddin'head Wilson (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Please, you don't have to use the talk page to make a case for or against homeopathy, you have to suggest improvements to the article. If you think that the article lacks examples of how homeopathy breaks scientific laws, then the most constructive path right now would be finding notable sources detailing the breaking of specific laws and listing them here for other editors to peruse --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Notice that, from the experience with User:DanaUllman, an editor talking only on talk pages can be disruptive even if only collaborating on talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC) The law of mass action does not apply universally since it relies upon assumptions like free diffusion of the reactants. It typically won't apply in vivo because that environment has a lot of structure which prevents free movement. Debunking claims based upon this law are therefore silly. Water memory is mentioned above. It is interesting to read the article Water cluster in this context: So little is understood about water clusters in bulk water that it is considered one of the unsolved problems in chemistry.. Since the structure of plain water is not fully understood, the idea that biochemistry has been so comprehensively analysed that homeopathy can be disproved from first principles is obviously premature. And I return to the point about Placebo. In physical terms, a placebo is open to exactly the same criticism as for homeopathy - that there is insufficient active ingredient to have an effect. But, nevertheless, an effect is found and accepted by science - E pur si muove!. With this background, a simple appeal to scientific principles is a pseudoscientific synthesis. As a true sceptic, I prefer Clarke's Law...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)

Inaccurate references

Some of the references quoted are not accurate vis a vis the article they refer to. For example in the subsection Research on medical effectiveness, the last line says "Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, says homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics". He adds, "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment."[15]" which is not what the article referred to in Newsweek says.

Secondly some of my edits to include a reference to an article published in New Scientist magazine were reverted, because it is not a primary source. Isn't that biasedHallenrm (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of the New Scientist was completely incorrect. That's why I reverted it. No need to assert bias. — Scientizzle 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. But, may I ask what led you to believe that my characterization was completely correct. Just as the Deputy director of NICCAM is quoted from an article published in the Newsweek, i just gave a reference to a news item published in the New ScientistHallenrm (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! (sorry, I think you mean incorrect...) I reverted your last edit as the statement is clearly in the source (just search for "in sum", it's above the rest of the quote.) Generally I think the page is pretty good, but there is a preponderance of sources in the lead; there are too many references! I guess this is because of the previous disputes, but so long as the sentiments of statements appear sourced in the article, is this really necessary? SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hallenrm, here is your addition that I reverted. You attributed to this article the claim "that despite the spate of skeptism Homeopathy is indeed found to be much more effective than a placebo". Compare that to the actual text:

4 Belfast homeopathy resultsMADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.
In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These "basophils" release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.
So how could it happen? Homeopaths prepare their remedies by dissolving things like charcoal, deadly nightshade or spider venom in ethanol, and then diluting this "mother tincture" in water again and again. No matter what the level of dilution, homeopaths claim, the original remedy leaves some kind of imprint on the water molecules. Thus, however dilute the solution becomes, it is still imbued with the properties of the remedy.
You can understand why Ennis remains sceptical. And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. But the Belfast study (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p 181) suggests that something is going on. "We are," Ennis says in her paper, "unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon." If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.

Your addition was inaccurate & hardly neutral in tone. Furthermore, my reversion referred to this misrepresentation, as well as the long-standing practice on this page of avoiding the use of primary studies to make specific claims, preferring reviews and meta-analyses...two separate issues. — Scientizzle 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also question the description of David Reilly as "an avowed skeptic regarding homeopathy", considering that his entry in Who's Who says that he's been a MFHom since 1983, 3 years before the earlier of the two studies referred to. Brunton (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hallerm, I don't want this to come off as an attack on you, but a quick warning: Those two references are ones now-topic-banned editor DanaUllman was trying to promote, and the description is very similar to his preferred, rather inaccurate descriptions. Hallerm is a relatively inexperienced editor, and it may be chance, but I'd suggest being careful about who you take suggestions from =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for explaining. I understand nowHallenrm (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported contradiction

The lede currently says "Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] While advocates point to positive results reported in high-impact journals..." This is illogical - we are saying flatly that there is no support but immediately going on to discuss such support. I will therefore try a new wording for the first sentence: "Findings of efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect in scientific and clinical studies are disputed." Colonel Warden (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that sentence would then be saying the exact opposite of what its refs say. Better to say "the weight of scientific and clinical evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The new wording is not satisfactory since science is not a matter of weighing the evidence as if it were sacks of potatoes. But let's get more input from other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I always favored something along the lines of "There is no clear/compelling scientific or clinical evidence for any effect of highly-diluted homeopathic remedies." --Art Carlson (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The sentences weren't actually contradictory: while there are some studies reporting positive results, the weight of evidence is heavily towards there being no effect, and taking the weight of evidence into account rather than cherry-picking individual studies is important (p<0.05 means that there is a one in twenty chance that a given result is a false positive, for example). The current version of the first sentence (including the words "collective weight") makes the position clear, and should be retained. Brunton (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the editors defending the position that the studies that point effectiveness of Homeopathy are unacceptable only on the grounds of present knowledge of science, are not really to be blamed. They are just playing to the tune of multinational drug companies, that stand to lose if Homeopathic medicine gain more acceptance. Since when the scientific knowledge of a particular time was the last word. Was it before Galileo succeeded in puting forth the idea of helio centric solar system. Let's face it knowledge that is dubbed as scientific is never ultimate, one has to constantly look out for fresh evidence. But unfortunately at present almost the entire medical literature is dominated by the interests of drug companies, who understandably are not very comfortable with the idea of facing competetion. The influence of these companies can be felt across the academic world simply because most of the so called scientists are too gullible and easy prey to the crubs thrown by multiinational drug companies, they ensure that any reasonable research in a system that may compete with them does not find reasonable space, just like the church that was dominant at the time of Galileo. Hallenrm (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Do *not* use the talk pages for WP:SOAPBOXing about multinacional drug companies, *don't* disqualify the opinions of editors who disagree with you by saying that theur "playing to the tune" of drug companies, *don't* wikilawyer about how we should discount current scientific knowledge because it might change on the future, and *don't* make victimistic comparisons like comparing homeopathy as Galilio being judged in front of the church. Comment striken out, and user warned for soapboxing. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The point of our discussion is to determine what goes into the article. We should certainly say something about the general suspicion of "evil drug companies" which leads people to look for alternatives such as homeopathy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if we can find reliable sources for that perception increasing the reliance on homeopathy, then we can make a nice addition to the article. Unfortunately, it seems that Hallenrm's comment had nothing to do with improving the article with that information, and had all to do with ranting about stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In tha case how about the evidence provided by references on the following link? http://kulisz.com/how_does_homeopathy_work.htm . I am sure wikieditor editors of this article, who are thoroughly convinced of their present POV and are not ready to shed it even if heavens fell, will dispute it quite understandably. For them improving the article only means going along with the POV of the establishment!Hallenrm (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Above comment is making comments on other contributors and not on their contributions, I stroke out part of it. I'll let it to editors more experienced on the topic to evaluate the source provided. Hallenrm, you should make specific suggestions on where on the article the source should be used, and how, and what parts of the source to use. That would help a lot towards getting changes introduced into the article. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is on probation so editors who behave in an unreasonable way will be blocked. We're digressing from the point of this section though so I'll start a new section below. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Help Wanted

Can someone help me how can one include even a sentence even remotely in favor of Homeopathy. All my attempts so far have been reverted on surreptitious ground, like not been supported by a peer reviewed journal (can some one provide me a list of journals whose articles are considered peer reviewed. By the way is Newsweek a Peer reviewed journal, if not why was my last edited reverted. I am told to accept in good faith edits from other editors, but does that apply to all editors, or are some editors more equal then others. Edits only acceptable to those editors are acceptable rest all all to be trashed. Simply because it is a foregone conclusion that the article can only include statements that are not in favor of Homeopathy. If that is so, where has the spirit of wikipedia gone? Hallenrm (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Hallenrm (talk · contribs) to end the constant slinging about of bias accusations. Regarding the revert that precipitated this latest outburst: Hallenrm "deleted a statement that is a PPOV, not supported by any paper in a peer reviewed professional jounal" that was properly sourced, clearly relevant, and from a reliable source (a recent Newsweek article). I said as much in my revert. — Scientizzle 18:57, 2 Jun e 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article reads as a polemic against homeopathy. There is not NPOV here. For example : There was a big controversy on the last 2005 meta analyses published ( Lancet ). Many exceptional and reliable sources referred to this. Fisher ( a very notable homeopath) published a paper criticizing these meta analyses. It was removed from the article. Any attempt to add info about homeopathy’s point of view (in an article on homeopathy! ) is regarded as disruptive.

A neutral editor should struggle to insert this kind of information and the mainstream criticism of these ideas to make the article interesting.

--Area69 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Area69 has been warned for making the above comment --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But, nevertheless his comments are not false. They are evidence of the fact how biased and intolerant are the editors and administrators who presently virtually control the page.Hallenrm (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the tone of this article is inappropriate. In some places it makes very clear from which POV it has been written: Homeopathy is pseudoscientific nonsense that has not yet been rooted out. It completely ignores the fact that homeopathy is first and foremost a method for healing, and that for reasons having to do with the nature of the placebo effect it's unfair to reduce discussion of homeopathy to the questions whether it is more effective than placebo, and whether homeopaths' explanations how it's supposed to work make sense.

The pseudo-skeptics here, by which I mean people who cherry pick the scientific literature for strong claims that support their point of view (the best example being the absurd Nigerian paper that we are still citing) and who don't accept that it's necessary to learn something about a subject in the first place before "debunking" it, are in a strong position, and they are using it to keep the article biased.

You are very unlikely to change anything if you just act like they do, but from the opposite POV. For some reason they get away with defending the Nigerian paper. As you have seen, if you try similar things you will get into trouble. If you want to be effective you need to fight for a truly neutral POV, read all policies, and follow them exactly. And contribute to a climate in which the anti-homeopathy side also has to follow the rules. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

putting in 'even one positive sentence' just for the sake of saying something positive isn't really a helpful way to build the article. I can appreciate the frustration with most of the pro-homeopathy articles being discounted or disallowed on account of their publishing journals being considered unreliable. However, many of these journals are not peer reviewed. Also, keep in mind the fact that if claims of many of these articles could actually be substantiated, they would be front page articles in "Nature" or "Science", so there is god reason to doubt the quality of the research. The current negativity in the article's wording reflects the preponderance of available evidence from quality sources, not opinion. I'd also suggest going back and looking through Enric Naval's work here before claiming that there are no impartial editors. After he had chastised me for what was admittedly a misplaced rant against homeopathy, a quick review of his editing made it clear that he's one of the few reasons this talk page has been roped into some semblance of a civil discourse.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

History from 1920 to the present

The main history section in the article peters out in 1920 with the closure of the last homeopathic school in the USA. This is inadequate and we should have the subsequent history in which homeopathy has been revived and is now expanding. There are many factors in this - disillusion with orthodox medicine and science in general; New Age enthusiasm; consumer activism; the high cost of regulatory approval for conventional drugs. I'll start sketching this out as I find good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the first source [20], since it details what happened on each decade (notice that I only changed the first sentence of the paragraph, even it appears all in red). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that there is still a gap between 1920 and 1960s. Also, there is nothing about how the ideas from the Summer of Love (1967), hippy revolution, and countercultural movements prompted people to step away from anything smelling to corporativism and embrace anything labelled "natural", causing the increased acceptance of CAM in the 1970s that the Caliber source talks about, and homeopathy with it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The section now seems to be semi-promotional, treating the history since the 1920s as the struggle of poor CAM against big mean mainstream medicine, and presuming CAM will be vindicated. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I know. That's why it needs to be paraphrased to use more neutral tone. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also a bit US-centric.

Perhaps we also need something about the rise of relativism and increased patient expectations giving rise to dissatisfaction with mainstream medicine when it doesn't give the answers patients want, and thus the rise in demand for CAM generally.[21] I've also seen a published talk by Edzard Ernst in which he suggests that popularity of CAM may (in the West at least) be related to general levels of affluence: he reported a correlation between CAM usage and BMW sales figures. In less affluent regions there may be other reasons for increased usage of CAM.[22] Brunton (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at the sources for the section again to see if they really speak only of CAM, or if they specifically mention homeopathy --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Meh, now I can look at the second source on the revival section, because it's now available for free here, but it was only used to source a tiny sentence (reference [57]). My university is not suscribed to the journal on the first source (reference [56]), so I can't access it to see if it deals specifically with homeopathy, and that's the source that had the lion share of the section :( --Enric Naval (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• User:Shoemaker's Holiday deleted this section without proper discussion. I have reinstated it since the article needs to continue the history to cover the last 90 years. I have rewritten the section in a terse style, developing it from the sources and citing accordingly. The historical trend presented is of a steady decline during the mid 20th century but then a sharp upturn in the 1970s which has been maintained since. If Shoemaker's Holiday or anyone else wishes to dispute these trends then they need to provide sources.

• there are probably more details at this NYT article --Enric Naval (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tautopathy

The text currently posted on tautopathy is not correct:

Tautopathy is a practice of alternative medicine that is similar to homeopathy in that it uses very diluted substances to treat illness. However, tautopathy does not rely on the "law of similars", as homeopathy does. According to practitioners of tautopathy, dilute solutions of lead and arsenic can cause the body to secrete excess amounts of these toxic metals.[105]

This would be a more accurate description:

Tautopathy is curing by means of the "identical" harmful agent in potentized form, e.g., if you are suffering from the ill effects or side-effects a specific antibiotic such as tetracycline, you can use potentised tetracycline to remove its side effects. This idea has been confirmed not only clinically by large number of homeopaths but has also been studied scientifically. There have been studies in which potentised lead and potentised arsenic have been used to promote excretion of the same substances in cases of poisoning. The results have shown that such use of potentised substances can help remove the symptoms caused by the toxicity, by enhancing the elimination of the toxin from the tissues.

--Fyerlyte (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)06/11/2008, Fyerlyte

Is the claim that tautopathy removes the substance itself, or the effects of the substance, or only the side effects? --Art Carlson (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just curious if anyone here considered it there enough ifno to merit giving tautopathy it's own article? Buubuub (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the above is an accurate description of tautopathy at all. "This idea has been confirmed" - I think not. Drug companies would be falling over themselves to produce this stuff! Please provide sources if I'm wrong, thanks. Tautopathy can have it's own article if it meets notability guidelines or if a redirect isn't more suitable. All you have to do is start one! :) SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tautopathy, currently redirected to this article, was a separate article prior to merging with this article. To (re-)start up a separate tautopathy article doesn't seem unreasonable to me, as long as greater sourcing is available... — Scientizzle 18:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help inserting this paragraph

This is from a journal called Annals of Internal Medicine (I suppose a reliable source), which in turn is sourced from Randi and Maddox from a Nature article (I didn't notice until I was about to add it to the article). This goes on the last paragraph of Homeopathy#Rise_to_popularity_and_early_criticism section as an explanation of why homeopathy started being criticized at that moment and not before. Problem is, I'm too tired, and I don't want to copy/paste the whole paragraph, so I'm leaving it here in case someone wants to help into shaping it up and hammering it into the paragraph.

The limit of molecular dilution (Avagadro’s number) was not discovered until the later part of Hahnemann’s life; by then homeopaths all over the world were reporting that even very high potencies (dilutions lower than Avagadro’s number) produced clinical effects. The implausibility of such claims has led many to dismiss any evidence of homeopathy’s effectiveness as artifact or delusion.

--Enric Naval (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to go through the old Google books now, but I find it very hard to believe that mainstream scientists needed Avogadro's result to dismiss high dilutions. I would expect that Hahnemann was generally ridiculed for that from the beginning, and IIRC the old criticism of this kind generally doesn't mention Avogadro. I think the point of the paragraph is that homeopaths started using extreme dilutions when it wasn't yet known that there are no molecules left, and after Avogadro's research it was too late to backpedal. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the point of the paragraph.

Not sure, but I think that at that point in time scientists still believed on preserving the "spirit" of things. Also, the high dilutions worked at first because they replaced harmful methods like bloodletting, so no point on criticizing something that works even if it looks unlikely :) . --Enric Naval (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Try Oliver Wendall Holmes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean Oliver_Wendell_Holmes,_Sr.? I'll look at his article later --Enric Naval (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• The article already has too much harping upon the matter of dilution - see the section above which urges that we consolidate this rather than add to it. What I found more interesting in the sources was:

Foreshadowing contemporary debates, homeopaths responded with statistics and helped pioneer comparative quantitative information and large-scale comparative trials. For example, during the cholera epidemic of 1854, homeopathic hospitals had dramatically lower mortality rates than allopathic institutions.

In this respect, homeopathy was rather like Churchill's description of democracy: "..the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.". I am currently reading The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker in which he mentions that President Garfield was killed more by his doctors than by the assassin who had just wounded him. His doctors killed him by starvation and infection and we still have exactly the same complaints about modern medicine today.

The article needs to make more of this point - that homeopathy doesn't look so bad when compared with the alternatives. We might also make something of the conservatism of medicine - that doctors in general seem to cling to treatments regardless of their success rate or whether they do more harm than good. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice straw man, Colonel. It is no longer the 19th century, and "modern medicine", which you denigrate as if it was still making use of bloodletting and arsenic, has saved millions, if not billions of lives. The nonexistent success rate of homeopathy pales in comparison. I fail to see what this has to do with inserting Enric's proposed paragraph. Skinwalker (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Colonel Warden, the article talk page isn't for soap boxing your personal views. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• I made three points regarding the article's content, as is proper here. Since you failed to grasp them, I shall summarise:

1. We need no further harping on the level of dilution; rather we need less.
2. We should do more to compare and contrast the success of homeopathy with other forms of medicine during its history.
3. We should perhaps say something about the conservative nature of medicine. Doctors clung to the theory of humours and other nonsense at the time of homeopathy's genesis and the homeopaths likewise hold to their theories despite more recent thinking.

Colonel Warden (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I don't see how adding the reasons for the criticism of homeopathy on the 19th century can represent harping on anything. If it was criticized for a certain reason, then we just add that reason, that's all.

We can add the "cholera epidemic of 1854" thing as part of how the efficacy of homeopathy compared compared to the mainstream medicine at that time helped in its popularity and in giving it legitimacy. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So, how about making additions like these ones:

;18th century medicie

Medical practice at that time was becoming more invasive, with use of blodletting and purging, and use of extremely toxic materials like arsenic, lead, and bismuth, was becoming more widespread. Standards of public hygiene were declining while Hahneman advocated for better public higyene, regular bathing and cleanliness of bed linen. part of this is already on the article, but Hahneman's promotion of hygiene is not.

revival

Criticism were based on three areas: homeopaths were usually not fully qualified regular physicians, doubts about the validity of the principle of similars in medicine, and the small doses used on the remedies ^{Peter Morrel's source}. That last area generated the most criticism and most printed word. ^{Peter Morrel's source} The principle of infinite division, a scientific basis for the great dilutions, was undermined by the discovery and consolidation of Avogadro's number and brownian motion. ^{Australia Council Against Health Fraud source}

Homeopaths defended the effectivity of homeopathy using statistics and large-scale comparison trials, like the low mortality rates on homeopathic hospitals during the cholera epidemic of 1854. ^{Annals of Medicine source}

I couldn't find a source for criticism of Principle of Minimum dose [23], I'm not sure if the principle had already been defined explicitely at that time, or if it was under this name. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources

adding new section heading to separate new topic --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I m confused about reliable sources. What is a reliable source ?This one could be used ? http://annals.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/5/393 Annals of Medicine source--Coyote3 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably reliable. It also includes lots of references for its statements, so it's easy to verify. Also, nobody has yet complained about it :)

Looking at its article on wikipedia, Annals_of_Internal_Medicine is quite notable on medicine circles, so it's probably very reliable.

See also Wikipedia:RS#Scholarship and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources for more info --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Annals of Internal Medicine is definitely a RS. Of course we need to keep in mind that Jonas is a true believer in homeopathy ;-) I'm not sure about the other authors. -- Fyslee / talk 17:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition

per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An interesting one: Homeopathy: water and 'intent'. I wish I could take credit for it, but I can't. -- Fyslee / talk 17:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Do you have a sauce source for that? (Apologies for the bad pun)--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC) No apology needed. Occasional humor helps to lighten up heavy discussions. Only true believers take offense. Somehow they are allowed to declare their personal POV (which is allowed), but skeptics are not allowed (by them) to express their personal POV. Hmmm... -- Fyslee / talk 19:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Homeopathic Hollandaise sauce: One atom each of eggyolk, cream, lemon juice and salt. Boil in one ton of water. Eat while firmly believing it tastes like hollandaise sauce. Alternative recipe: one atom of BS. Boil in one ton of water. Tastes the same as homeopathic hollandaise sauce, has the same effects, and is perfectly harmless. ;-) -- Fyslee / talk 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC) thats al very well and good and but this page is forf discussing how to improve the article, not for making jokes about the articles subject. Please stay focussed. Smith Jones (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I agree with Smith Jones. This is inflammatory and will only create bad "vibes". MaxPont (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Yes, back to dealing seriously with the absurd.... This is nothing but a provocation. Fyslee should be topic banned for a week. MaxPont (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Enric found an article above which has this relevant quote: "What was being created, it seemed, was not a drug, but the idea of a drug, what an artist friend of mine calls "conceptual medicine." I thought, Welcome to homeopathy." - James Gorman is the author of "First Aid for Hypochondriacs." [24] -- Fyslee / talk 18:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity endorsements

moving on from the huge debate re: Steve Barett, I think that these statements could be use to "testifyIn print ads and TV and radio commercials, such celebrities as Lauren Hutton, Larry King, Rush Limbaugh and Lindsay Wagner testify to their effectiveness." that homeopathy is being popular. Smith Jones (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just link to Dana's book and have done with it? Brunton (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we could use the fact that celebrities have been paid to promote these products to support the statement that homeopathic remedies have been advertised by celebrity endorsement. However, advertising and popularity are two different things - one is hoped to lead to the other by the people paying for the advertising, but it isn't a necessary connection. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Where doe s it say that Lauren Hutton, Larry King, Rush Limbaugh, and Lindsay Vagner has been paid to endorse homeopathy? Perhaps they feel that they got good results from it and have decided to endorse it based on their personal views on its merits? Or are you saying that no one can suport homeopathy without being bribed??? Smith Jones (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just cynical about "celebrity endorsements" in advertisements, that's a general opinion, not derived any view about homeopathy. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

you are rite to be cynical but you need a source to add it in the article. you cant edit the article based on your personal prejudices agianst celerity endosements unless you have proof in the form of a surce[ that these celebrity endorsements werte coerced or extracted using money rewards rather. --:D---| Smith Jones (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think any normal person assumes that if a celebrity appears in an advert then they have been paid to do so. I therefore don't think you need to make an explicit statement, if you just mention that these are adverts people will draw their own, entirely correct conclusions. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do that if your so confidence. I am sure that an equal mount of people will simply view these endorsements as a sincere faith on the part of these significants peoples that homeopathy is a valid and respectworthy scientific and mediscal discipline. Smith Jones (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. ;) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that we should have a section of this sort which lists some of the famous people who use and espouse homeopathy. We should do this because it is typically what our reliable sources do - the associations are clearly notable, just as it is notable that Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, George Foreman promotes a grill or Richard Dawkins is an atheist. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If this went anywhere, it should be in the "prevalence" article. However, celebrity endorsements should be assumed to be paid for unless a source states otherwise. Indeed, when celebrities make endorsements without taking a fee, or donate their fee to charity, the advertisers usually make a big deal about this. I also think reporting on celebrity endorsements is not suitable material for an encyclopaedia. Let's stick to scientifically rigorous population data (which is the attempt over on the prevalence article). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that many celebrities use homeopathy because they believe it helps them. That's the kind of information that can add human interest to the treatment of a subject, but it's not core encyclopedic content. If a celebrity is well known for talking about homeopathy all the time, that could be mentioned in the article for that person. If it gets to the point that a considerable number of people know about homeopathy mainly because of a certain celebrity, then it's probably worth mentioning that particular celebrity at Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy. On the other hand, while I know nothing about the "celebrities" in question, or US television, at least in Germany I would be quite confident that when celebrities talk about a medical therapy in talk shows they are motivated by conviction, not money. People do have personal opinions, you know. Or are there TV ads or full-page newspaper ads for homeopathy in the US? (This would explain some of the attitudes here.) --Hans Adler (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To clarify, I was talking about "celebrity endorsements" in advertisements, which are usually paid for, not opinion pieces in interviews etc. However, sometimes these can still be suspect when the person has an undisclosed (or non-obvious) interest or arrangement with a firm related to the products they endorse. This is true in all areas, not just CAM. For a recent example, look at the endorsement given to the recently collapsed Dore (dyslexia treatment) by Kenny Logan. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I made a quick trawl for notable folk who use homeopathy and are commonly mentioned as such by RS covering homeopathy. They include:

• Ranjit Singh
• M.K.Gandhi
• British Royal Family - many members across several generations
• Pope Pious XII
• Bill Clinton
• Paul McCartney
• Mother Theresa

Some list of this sort should be included here because these people have been quite influential and so directly responsible for encouraging homeopathy in the UK, India and elsewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If these aren't already mentioned on the prevalence page, add them there with sources or take it to that talk page. This page is not the right place for this. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is not the right place even for these very notable people. I am all for mentioning one or two of them unobtrusively in a context where it fits. But a list is not appropriate, and even just mentioning one is likely to lead to more opposition than it's worth. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree and this list should be incoluded (in a differet format than a list) in the Regulation and prevlaece of homeopathy Smith Jones (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Most changes made to this article result in opposition from the polarised camps of true-believers and debunkers. Such opposition must necessarily be confronted if we are to get anything done. The points in favour of such content are:

1. such examples commonly appear in general treatments of the topic (which is where I found them)
2. it is an important aspect of the history of this therapy
3. it provides good content for the general reader rather than the committed fanatic or medical professional. We are a general encyclopedia and so should not treat topics in a narrow way.

As for the Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy, I don't even want to go there as it sounds like a tedious geographical catalogue. VIPs such as Queen Elizabeth and Bill Clinton are known to the entire world and covered by global media and so belong here in this top level article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. This is a general overview of the field, such very specific examples have no place in an overview. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The comparisons above to Tom Cruise and Scientology (and to George Foreman and his grill, and to Richard Dawkins and atheism) are apt, and can guide us here. In the first case, Cruise's relationship to Scientology is widely reported in the media, and (I believe) he voluntarily promotes Scientology as a belief which he espouses. It receives broad coverage. Asking the average person on the street about Cruise, one would probably hear that a) he's an actor, b) he's married to Katie Holmes, and c) he's a scientologist. In the case of George Foreman, his eponymous grill is certainly the best-marketed use of his name today. I'm sure that there are many millions of people below a certain age who have no idea he was a boxer. For Dawkins, atheism is a central part of his writing—the guy's most recent book was titled The God Delusion, after all.

When noting a celebrity's practices or interests, we ought be careful not to simply engage in star worship, or to attempt to buttress the credibility of a particular idea through association. In all honesty, now, is it fair to say that the practice of homeopathy is linked – in the public consciousness – to the names Bill Clinton or Mother Teresa in the same way that atheism is linked to Richard Dawkins? Are there celebrities for whom such a link does exist? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The presence of celebrendorsements does not make thie idea or policy of Homeopathy any more plasuible than it already is. It deos not enhance credibility or make it more scientifically valid. ALl it does is says that some celebrities feel personally that it is a benifeet to their lives and an improvement on their physical and mental holistic health. I see no difference between Bill Clinton and Pope Pirus XII and the Brtish Royal Family's dneorsements of Homeopathy than to the endorsement of atheism conferred by the scientist Rickard Dawkins. To imply that Clinton and Queen Elizabeth and Pope are all liars who into homeopathy for the money without any proof of that being so is fundamentally opposed to the concepts of WP:V that Wikipedia is built upon, the fundamental undermining of our culture and the downfall of the meaning of adding ONLY verifiable and well-cited/sourced assumptions onto the article instead of our own persojnal biased feelings either in favor of or in opposition to homeopathy, the Clinton administraiton, the royal family, Scientology, atheism, or the nature of celebrindorsements. Smith Jones (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No one has said or even implied that these people are liars. There is a difference between famous people using something, and advocating/lobbying for it. Richard Dawkins is not a good analogy for these people and their use of homeopathy; he is an advocate, like Dana Ullman is for homeopathy. The Royal Family do not campeign tirelessly for homeopathy - if they did then that would be notable (I wouldn't put it past Charles though!) You are right that celebrity endorsement has no bearing on homeopathy's scientific validity or credibility, hence this isn't a good place for it. TenOfAllTrades et al are right on this one. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

it was implied above that the only reason the people who have publically endorsed homeopathy is because they were paid advertisers for it. I disagree. However, I dod agree that this info in disappropriate here, whih is why I have chosen to include in a related article that I will not name for fear that people ere will attempt to carry this debate over there and disrupt that article (which has developed far more expeditiously than this one) Smith Jones (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think you're mistaken - the only person who has said this is you. People who advertise any product are usually paid, that is a general truism; I don't think it's been said that anyone who recommends homeopathy is in the pocket of BigHom (which is as ridiculous as saying all critics are if the pay of BigPharma!) :) Please point me to the post where this was said, if I'm wrong (on my talk page if you like, I'll then strike this and update if needed). I agree that this info is more relevant to the prevalence page, but even then it still has to be notable and fit into the article properly (no lists or simple enumerations, for example). --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not and should not be exclusively about the science or merits of homeopathy. It is a general article in a general encyclopaedia and so should cover all general aspects of the topic. These would include culture, economics, marketing, politics, fashion and whatever else is commonly found in general coverage of the topic. I shall be looking to broaden the article in this way and hope this may get us out of the curent single-issue rut. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While I generally support the notion of a broader article that touches upon topics beyond the history, regulation, and efficacy of homeopathy, the specific inclusion of celebrity endorsements is, in my opinion, trivial and vapid. Naturally, a case-by-case evaluation would better determine if a particular promoter/marketing ploy/etc. has encyclopedic merit (the Royal Family is probably a specific example, given the apparent influence they've had in legality and popularity). A laundry list of supporters (not implying that is CW's suggested outcome) would also be a NPOV problem, I think. — Scientizzle 01:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

there is another betre article inlcluding this topic. That is where I have alreddy included all the celebrendorsements mentioned here. Smith Jones (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that the information has – apparently – found an appropriate home. Smith Jones, could you let us know where that is? (We're all about collaborative editing on Wikipedia, remember?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was added to Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy on this edit --Enric Naval (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Part of the misunderstanding above was that SJ used the term advertising when he meant endorsement in an editorial. There is a more recent Time article here that may be of interest: [25]--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

that article does not seem to be as well-written as the previous one. Time's standards must be slipping in recent monthsSmith Jones (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed tag

• This tag has been removed without recent discussion or consensus. I still consider the article to have an unnecessarily hostile and offensive tone by comparison with other encyclopedic treatments. I am therefore reverting this change. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• It may be useful to have a good example of a NPOV treatment, to indicate where we need to get to, in order to remove this tag. I recently found that the National Health Service has a good encyclopedic A-Z of medical topics on their home page. I just looked at their entry for homeopathy. This introduction tab corresponds to our lede. You will notice that it has milder tone and neither extols nor condemns the therapy; it just explains its origins and essentials while indicating that it is "outside of conventional medicine". Here is the text, which we should take as a model:

Introduction

Homeopathy is a complementary therapy. This means that it is one of a group of health-related therapies that are considered to be outside of conventional medicine. Other complementary therapies include osteopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic.

Homeopathy (meaning similar suffering) was developed by a German physician named Samuel Hahnemann at the end of the 18th century. Unhappy with the conventional medicine of his day, he began to research alternative treatments.

He began a series of provings, giving repeated doses of common remedies to healthy volunteers and carefully noting the symptoms they produced. This research led him to discover that swallowing quantities of some common substances would produce certain symptoms that mimicked those of medical conditions.

For example, herbalists claimed that Peruvian bark cured malaria. Hahnemann swallowed a quantity of Peruvian bark and began to experience the symptoms of malaria itself such as fever, intense thirst, drowsiness and agitation.

Eventually, Hahnemann formed a theory that like cures like, calling it the Law of Similars. His theory claims that if a substance that causes a symptom is taken in small amounts, it can cure a medical condition with the same symptoms.

Homeopathic remedies are said to work by stimulating the body's own healing processes to treat the individuals condition. Homeopaths claim that homeopathy doesn't just treat a person based on the symptoms of their condition, but is holistic, taking into account the persons mind, body and spirit.

Colonel Warden (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• In case it is not obvious, discussion of the therapy's effectiveness are found deeper in their treatment. Again the tone seems good, indicating that clinical proof has been difficult to obtain but not going over-the-top with extravagant debunking. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Another point. The NHS example generally seems more accessible than our version - the text is light and readable, while ours is cluttered and turgid. Since we are supposed to be writing an article for a general audience, just as they are, we need some vigorous pruning. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you give examples of where you think this article is unduly negative in tone or confusing, and suggest alternatives? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just did so above. I suppose you mean that I should start fussing over the fine detail. I'm not going down that road because working upon this article is clearly a huge waste of time. This became clear when I looked at the very first version of the article from nearly seven years ago. This was not perfect but was better-written than our current version. It seems better to flag the article as the plaything of POV-pushing fanatics so that readers may understand its provenance and look elsewhere for a balanced presentation. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have to disagree, CW. You need to point us to specific examples of places where the article needs pruning, that editors can take as a reference to solve the POV issues. Specially places where "going over-the-top with extravagant debunking" happens, since that should be able to solve if it's really non-neutral over-the-top, and not just plain statements of debunking and criticism from reliable sources. Also, I'm afraid that doing a wholesome comparison to an article on other website and saying that it needs to follow the same style is not helpful, since I don't think they have the same style guidelines as here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's easy. The entire second lede paragraph must be rewritten before the tag can be removed. It's way over the top. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Uh, isn't this the one that kept being reworded and that its references were being challenged and improved all the time? Looking at a random version from 500 revisions ago, I think that it was expanded because of complaints that the claims on the paragraph were not correct, and every claim was picked apart and sourced by separate, I didn't follow all the discussions. (P.D.: I mean that there are probably good reasons for why it became so long, but it would require me to dig thought several archive talk pages to find them before I can find them) (P.D.D.: Notice that I don't oppose on principle to reducing the size of the paragraph, but it's a landmine that has been built after several disputes. I can't opinate without first looking at what caused it to grow so much) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement that this "the plaything of POV-pushing fanatics" is clearly breaking the terms of the article probation, does not assume good faith, and is unworthy of a wikipedian. It is also not a valid reason for the tag to be placed. The article is a mess as it has too many references in the lead (demanded by Ullman and his ilk), and too much explanation to support the valid statements. The article is fair, it just needs a good copyedit now. I suggest the tag is removed and CW is appropriately censured for this statement. --83.171.151.158 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a strong statement from a coward who comments using the TOR anonymising service. It is also so obviously inappropriate that I will refrain from further comment unless you choose to log in to claim responsibility. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience requires us to explain how mainstream science views homeopathy, that's not going to change. If you have SPECIFIC points with it, then we're open to talking, if you think it should not exist, or should not say anything negative about homeopathy, then this article is not for you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The policy page you are quoting is adequate. Your interpretation of it is not. It doesn't say that the reader of a Wikipedia article on a pseudoscience topic should see the foam around the mouth of the article's author. It doesn't say that Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience topics need to be in the same tone as Skeptical Inquirer articles. It does talk a lot about objectivity, balance, and NPOV. Also note that it quotes an Arbcom decision: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Homeopathy in Europe has a slightly smaller following than psychoanalysis (the US situation is special), but it is extremely similar to it in most respects. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

‘Foam around the mouth of the article's author’? What are you talking about? Sit back, and have a cup of tea and a biscuit. When I came here to find out what this POV tag was all about, only to discover that it was about the second paragraph, I was really surprised, and not in a good way. The second paragraph explains in neutral terms that homoeopathy doesn't work, why this is not surprising and what tests have shown. When reading about a medical treatment, the first thing the reader will want to know is its effectiveness and we should not withhold that information. The only thing that I could find that could be considered slightly objectionable is the use of the word ‘quackery’, but if that is the common opinion in the medical community, and also taking into account that the definition fits, the reader has a right to know this. Rewriting the second paragraph to obscure, circumlocute or water down any of the claims currently there, could only serve the purpose of confusing or misleading the reader. I honestly fail to see the POV here, unless people are going to claim reality itself has a non-neutral POV. The scientific method and in the medical sciences double blinding in particular, is science's way of ensuring that the results arrived at are in agreement with reality. And using the scientific method it has been determined beyond reasonable doubt that homoeopathy doesn't work. Taking a statement of this fact as a violation of our neutral point of view policy in imminent need of tagging is obscene. I strongly encourage the editors of this article to remove the tag because an article tagged for, one might argue, no reason at all will leave a very unprofessional impression on our readers. Shinobu (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken since it seems quite clear that homeopathy does work. Moreover, at some points in its history, it worked much better than rival schools of medicine. For example, during the cholera epidemic of 1857, patients in homeopathic hospitals were much more likely to survive than those in the more usual sort. The lede is current written with your hostile and counterfactual POV and this won't do. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

While it seemed to work in comparison with 18th and 19th century medicine (ignoring the very real possibility that the groups treated in the homoeopathic hospitals in 1857 were not comparable to those treated by "rival schools of medicine"), the best that modern meta-analyses of the research can come up with are vague statements that the effects may not be entirely down to placebo (and in the case of one of the studies frequently cited by homoeopaths, the authors later stated that even this was probably an overstatement of homoeopathy's effectiveness). Saying that "it seems quite clear that homeopathy does work" is certainly "counterfactual". Brunton (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Brunton. To say that homeopathy "clearly" works is "clearly" incorrect, otherwise we wouldn't be having these problems. It seems clear to me that the evidence says it works no better than placebo. I think Gerbrant is also correct, that the scientific and medical view should be in the lead. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

When you says that homeopathy works no better than a placebo then you are agreeing that the therapy does work. Moreover, since placebos are quite effective for many conditions, it follows that homeopathy is correspondingly effective. Moreover, since the formulation of homeopathic remedies is especially designed to ensure safety, there are unlikely to be the side effects which one commonly sees with allopathic medicines. In this respect, homeopathy is better than SSRIs, say, which also are little more effective than placebo but which have serious side-effects too. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoting CW "When you says (sic) that homeopathy works no better than a placebo then you are agreeing that the therapy does work" No, I'm not. Placebo means not working. The rest of your comment is ridiculous and is not discussing the article (See WP:TALK). Why have you written QED? What have you proven? Please take this to your talk page if you wish to continue, and let me know on my talk. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My point seems clear enough already. So far as the neutrality issue is concerned, then comparison with the SSRI article may help in understanding the point. The lede for that article states "Their effectiveness and safety have been questioned." A single sentence of this sort would be appropriate NPOV for our article. A whole paragraph of tendentious attack is excessive. The whole article has this excessive and unbalanced tone and that why we have the NPOV tag. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The paragraph is proportionate and neutral. It could probably do with some trimming, as could the whole lead. For example, the only thing that is "excessive" is the number of references in the lead. Surely if they appear in the article then so many aren't required? I really don't see how a valid summary of critiques of homeopathy adds up to a "whole paragraph of tendentious attack". Your point seems to be that we should say homeopathy works and keep any criticism down to an absolute minimum (for example, your ridiculous "clearly works" statement). This would not be neutral, be incorrect, and break many wikipedia policies. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a permanent battleground and everyone knows it. This does not need to be tagged. I have removed the {{POV}} tag. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

dude. this place is a battleground. you people into flame wars explode over the most minr punctuation decisions. we are on PROBATION for gawds sae. i am no tsure if it is a goo didea to strip off the NPOV tag without even consulting anyone. eprsonnally I support the decision but some of these people might not. Smith Jones (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Schmucky, we know it, but the tag is for all readers. Your reason for removing it happens to be the best reason for it being there. I'm restoring it. When there is no dispute about NPOV, then it can get removed. -- Fyslee / talk 04:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

These tags are not meant to be perpetual. When treated as such on controversial and fringe belief articles they do a disservice to all readers. It, in fact, creates a POV problem when true believers can highlight their battle to the general readership. This article will never appeal to homeopathy supporters. There will always be disputes about it. Allowing any editor to come along and highlight the dispute is a form of undue weight allowing the detractors to control what is displayed to readers.

The answer is for these editors to use inline tags to identify specific problems: {{POV-statement}}, {{POV-assertion}}, or {{Lopsided}}. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I placed this tag this year (not sure whether it has been used in previous years). I did so because the nature of the disputes here obviously indicated that a warning to the readership was required - that they should not assume that the content was stable and generally accepted. I gave some pointers as to what was required when the tag was placed and have done so again when it was reinstated - see the head of this section. My suggested benchmark is the encyclopedic treatments of the subject which one finds elsewhere. These do not appear to have been written by or for homeopathic advocates and seem to have a significantly more dispassionate and NPOV style than we find here. I myself am not a homeopathic advocate and so reject ad hominem jibes of that sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)