Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

additional internal inconsistency criticism

I have briefly searched the discussion archive, and didn't immediately find anything about this:

The criticism section rightly points out the absence of convincing evidence for efficacy, and the incompatibility of the high dilutions and its supposed effects with physical and chemical knowledge. In addition, it already briefly points to internal inconsistency as a third independent pillar of criticism, which doesn't rely on knowledge of the sciences or literature:

• Furthermore, since water will have been in contact with millions of different substances throughout its history, critics point out that water is therefore an extreme dilution of almost any conceivable substance. By drinking water one would, according to this interpretation, receive treatment for every imaginable condition.

I think it would be informative to add to this the remark that the concept of extreme dilution also introduces obvious problems for quality control of the alcohol or water that is used for the preparations. How does one make sure that the solvent is pure and not previously contaminated by other homeopathic substances? If one can't separate a homeopathic dilution from pure water after preparing it, then how would it be possible to do it before preparing it?

I can not provide a source for this, but I think it would be worth looking for one and adding this as a second short example of internal inconsistency. --JH-man (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The claim is generally that the water used is "double distilled" and that this wipes the water's memory (although, as you suggest, there would appear to be no way of telling whether or not it actually accomplishes this, since water's memory has yet to be detected, and I don't remember having seen any source which indicates that Hahnemann, for example, used double distilled water in preparing remedies). Another claim is that succussion as well as dilution is necessary to force the substances into the water's memory so the water won't remember anything. Brunton (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That the water is boiled is also something waved about to excuse this. As always, Shelton has a section on this and can provide further citations.

The lack of consensus on what homeopathy is, and what the most useful versions are, is also a consistency issue - I see it as almost directly analogous to the discussion of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It's all predicated on whether you believe in angels. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So what about including it together with those citations and reference, then? Like I said, I think it deserves its place as another example of problems with internal consistency. --JH-man (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I could try to dig through Shelton again and see what he's got. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a clear problem in the section on dilution: when discussing the size of the universe, it is stated that there are appx. 10^80 atoms in the known universe, yet it goes on to state that therefore, a single MOLECULE in the universe is at a 40C dilution. Isn't a molecule made up of multiple atoms, generally? the reference points to a section of a book, which as far as I can tell is not available online. 174.30.12.247 (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It says "about" 40C, as does the book. Given that the mother tincture from which homoeopathic remedies are produced is itself often of unknown concentration this is probably about as precise as it is possible to be. Of course, given equivalent starting concentrations, a larger molecule (or collection of molecules) would require even more universes for the distinctive substance to be present, so strictly speaking we would need to multiply that 10³²⁰ universes by however many atoms it takes to make Oscillococcinum distinctive. Since it is a preparation of duck organs likely containing a large number of different molecules in different concentrations this would be rather difficult to work out. An approximate number is almost certainly the best that can be done. Brunton (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am specifically asking is "how many molecules are in the known universe?" - the number may be very close to the 10^80 estimate for atoms (perhaps 10^79, IANA physicist). whatever the case may be, the sentence should be altered so that the first and second clause both refer to molecules, for the sake of clarity (not accuracy). Otherwise, readers of this article will get to this sentence and be confused. "wait a minute," they will think, "if the original duck liver concoction had molecules made up of 100 atoms, then a single molecule standing alone in the universe would be at a dilution of only 39C, not 40C!" I realize these are only estimates when discussing the size and composition of the universe, but the sentence itself should at least be internally consistant. 163.41.136.11 (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

More Neutral Intro

I agree with the user Skycop. The reviews he/she suggested should be included in the article. Also in the light of these reviews and of what the http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/ US government says on homeopathy, the lead should read: Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed. However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies. ( no copyright problems they encourage duplication).--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any substantive difference between your proposal and improvement upon the current wording within the lead:

While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy.[15][16][17][18][19] Furthermore, higher quality trials tend to report less positive results,[17][20] and most positive studies have not been replicated or show methodological problems that prevent them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[9][12][21][22]

— Scientizzle 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! Then we can go ahead and change it. Since some users believe that there is a difference I m sure this is a fair compromise. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify, since you may not have seen my edit summary...I don't see how your text is in any way an improvement. The current text is heavily cited to reliable sources. — Scientizzle 21:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As you see some editors dispute that the current text is neutral and it is accurately cited to reliable sources. Since you see no difference with the above ( which belongs to nccam and there is no copyright) then we can change it. A fair compromise.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why make a change with no substantive improvement? — Scientizzle 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You want to make a change? Propose specific wording that incorporates (correctly) the current sources. Your current suggestion appears only to expand "some individual studies have positive results" to "some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects". That's just more verbose with no new information, and it leaves out the point that higher-quality studies typically show little-to-no effect. — Scientizzle 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Less bias is an improvement.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see less bias, only the removal of an inconvenient, cited claim (higher quality associated with little-to-no effect) and extra prose without use. — Scientizzle 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some users see bias. A fair solution should be found. What is more fair than a statement which belongs to such a major organization with no copyright and you think that it is acceptable in terms of bias.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears the working consensus of editors here don't see a bias problem...when you change some minds, a change in the text should follow. You haven't currently changed mine. You can--it's an open mind--but you need to make a clear case. Just saying "it's biased" doesn't make it so... — Scientizzle 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"bias" = "saying something negative about homeopathy"? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

[undent] Replacing a statement that is extensively supported by peer-reviewed sources with a quotation from a non-peer-reviewed source is not an improvement, and neither is introducing additional redundant wording to a lead that (while it has to be this length to summarise the article) has been criticised as too long. Brunton (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review the FAQ and archives. Neutral doesn't mean "positive" and the most reliable sources converge on homeopathy being effective only as an elaborate placebo.

Finally, that would place undue weight on primary sources when we are supposed to base the page on reliable, secondary sources. So no. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

no this is wrong: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.The sources we are talking about are major reliable sources: Naccam, Lancet, frenkel review. You cannot exclude them - whatever they state positive or negative- If you want to edit according to the Neural point of view. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Prominence is based on volume and quality of sources - again, best quality sources (Cochrane collaboration, Lancet, BMJ, AMA) are resoundingly negative. The idea that homeopathy works is present, it's just less present than the more dominant viewpoint of it being bunk.

What Lancet would that be then? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably the one that, according to a later paper by its authors, "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments". Brunton (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is little question good secondary sources, such as the recent Frenkel review (and others if they can be linked/substantiated) should be included, even as smaller sections. However, they need to be labeled as minority opinions and should be given less space than the current majority opinion. However, the wiki already states in no uncertain terms what the current majority opinion of Homeopathy is so there is no need to be further concerned about making sure that is clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skycop12 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this seems to be a continuation of the archived thread "NCCAM and the "Linde letter", and seems to be to some extent repeating the same arguments. The opinion of these sources does not differ from what is already reported in the article, and is therefore not being "excluded". Brunton (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Brunton and all : you keep misinterpreting the actual reliable sources: Linde;s letter to the lancet states clearly that homeopathy has not been proved as a therapy but it also states that Shang and colleagues's conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."...and that " The conclusion that "physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. "

This point of view is not included like the naccam point of view as the previous editor stated. Please do not do that.it is not only me who object to this kind of misinformation. --69.125.7.24 (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two issues here - you are proposing pasting in a statement from the NCCAM that is effectively the same as the statement you want to replace, that is supported by a series of references, on the grounds that this viewpoint is not represented in the article. It is, in the sentence "While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy," and in the following sentence which is also quoted above by Scientizzle.

Then you introduce the completely separate issue of a number of criticisms of a particular paper that you want included. "The conclusions that physicians should tell their patients that "homoeopathy has no benefit" and that "the time has passed for ... further investment in research"" that Linde and Jonas criticised were not even conclusions of the paper in question - they are the views of a Lancet editorial, which is not cited by the article, and they are not currently included in the article - we don't need rebuttals of positions that are not included in the article (and if we want to include them, we would need to include the views of the Lancet editorial that they are objecting to). All you are left with here is a complaint that the conclusion of the Shang paper (which had passed peer-review) was an overstatement.

Incidentally, on the subject of "further investment in research" into homoeopathy, I assume you remember the source (only a blog, but there's no reason to think it isn't an accurate account) linked to in the now archived section of this discussion, that quoted the current director of NCCAM as saying that "in the last two years (under her directorship) the NCCAM has not funded any studies of homeopathy." Do you think this "NCCAM view" should be included? Brunton (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this is pretty much the same stuff Brunton says, but by the time I started typing he hadn't answered. I'll post it anyway to demonstrate that Brunton isn't the only one objecting your views.It's funny that you think Linde's letter is “the actual reliable source” - why would you think that a comment/letter about an article is more reliable than the article itself? The part you're citing isn't even about Shang's conclusions but about the Lancet's editorial. By the way, who is that previous editor who wants to include the “naccam” point of view? I thought that was you (and that agency is still called NCCAM). How many times do you need to hear that “While some studies have positive results, systematic reviews of all the published trials fail to conclusively demonstrate efficacy. (that's what the article currently says) and the NCCAM's “However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies.” are quite compatible? I don't see any kind of misinformation there. --Six words (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Letters to the editor aren't reliable sources. Otherwise, fine with Six words and Brunton's statements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Letters to the editor of the Lancet from major researchers who are cited and quoted in the Homeopathy article are reliable sources.

Brunton: why are you keep repeating this kind of misinformation. After a while I start hearing the word "lying" which I don't want to use. Linde's letter is a direct and severe critisism to Shang conclusion that homeopathy is placebo( emphasizing the same time that it has not been proved as a therapy):Furthermore, since the main analysis is based on only eight and six (probably unmatched) studies, the outcome could easily be due to chance, as is suggested by the large confidence intervals. Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What in my post above is "misinformation"? Are you claiming that your quotation "The conclusions that physicians should tell their patients that "homoeopathy has no benefit" and "the time has passed for ... further investment in research"" from the Linde/Jonas letter is not about the Lancet editorial? Are you claiming that The Linde/Jonas letters comment about the conclusions of the Shang paper is not, as I said, that they are an overstatement (remember that the comments about reporting were addressed by the authors)? You appear to be making accusations based upon a misreading of the source and/or what has been posted here, and would perhaps be well advised to WP:AGF. Brunton (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to find the letter itself and had no luck. Can someone link it?

The letter is nowhere near so reliable as the article it addresses, and further the important issue is the convergence of evidence, above even a meta-analysis or Cochrane review. The convergence of evidence, from Linde's own studies, is that homeopathy is essentially indistinguishable from placebo, as well as being theoretically incoherent, based on primitive magical thinking, and lacking convincing evidence of efficacy. There's also that whole section that points out there research supporting homeopathy is really not that great, while the evidence it is no more than placebo is pretty broad and deep. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No. This is misinformation. If someone does it on purpose is lying. Linde's letter says clearly the above which I repeat. Linde himself says exactly that in the Lancet: "Furthermore, since the main analysis is based on only eight and six (probably unmatched) studies, the outcome could easily be due to chance, as is suggested by the large confidence intervals. Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."--69.125.7.24 (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. Again, link to letter please. And again - that is a single reply, by a single person, about a single meta-analysis, about a single issue. Homeopathy must deal with all sources. Picking one letter to the editor, as if it addressed all sources and criticisms, is inappropriate. At best it could be put in as a qualifier for that one study, but I would only endorse that if I can review the text itself. So again I ask - can anyone provide a link? And are there any follow-up statements by Shang? Plus, the Shang et al. conclusion isn't definitive - it merely states that it supports the idea that homeopathy's clinical effects are due to placebo - as do many others. I will not agree to cherry-picking of tenuously reliable sources to verify statements that contradict a body of literature. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A claim made in a letter to the editor, even of a peer reviewed journal, is not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, Linde and his co-authors are homeopathic practitioners themselves, or work for think tanks promoting homeopathy. They have had to backpedal on a previous meta-analysis they did (1998) that claimed to show effects beyond placebo. While a peer-reviewed meta-A of theirs should not be ignored due to suspected bias, a letter to the editor is a different story. btw WLU you can find that letter and other relevant papers through PubMed. Don't include obvious biased editorials in this article.163.41.136.11 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WLU: the letter can be found here.

Given that it says in its opening paragraph that its authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", it cannot possibly be taken as a statement that homoeopathy works, and it cannot be said that this viewpoint, which is the only general view of homoeopathy itself expressed in the letter, is not in the article. Brunton (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the letter. Given the criticisms are substantively methodological, I'm inclined to leave them out (and again, this is a single study, of many, that found similar results of homeopathy = placebo). It certainly shouldn't be in the lead, as this section ostensibly advocates for. If this letter were incorporated into the body, its criticisms would only apply to a single paper, and certainly would not be sufficient to adjust the lead. And as Brunton says, it's hardly a ringing endorsement of homeopathy's effectiveness. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The strong criticisms of the Shang study in the Lancet show that Homeopathy's efficacy is highly controversial and this should be appeared in the article and in the lead according to the wiki rules for controversial topics. Many reliable sources states that:

Controversies Regarding Homeopathy http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/ Homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics). Critics think it is implausible that a remedy containing a miniscule amount of an active ingredient (sometimes not a single molecule of the original compound) can have any biological effect—beneficial or otherwise. For these reasons, critics argue that continuing the scientific study of homeopathy is not worthwhile.

Major scientists you quote and cite in this article dispute that homeopathy = placebo. Not including these views is totally inappropriate and heavily biased editing. --67.81.109.134 (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a tad confusing. What words would you like to see added? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Critics say" is one suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.109.134 (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the "Linde letter" here, that is a methodological criticism of the Shang paper. To use it as anything other than a criticism of the Shang paper would be WP:SYN. If you want to include this alleged view of "major scientists", you need to find reviews or analyses that they have published which unequivocally state this view as their conclusion. Your "critics say" suggestion, incidentally, is a form of words discouraged by WP:Weasel. We have multiple sources cited for the statement you want to apply it to, so it is entirely unnecessary. It is also introducing bias to characterise the scientists who produced the research used to source that statement as "critics" simply because their results are not positive for homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Brunton: They dispute both the methodology and the conclusion homeopathy = placebo. Hence the the point of view homeopathy=placebo is stated by critics and not by all scientists who are involved and published in the reliable sources we are using. --67.81.109.134 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

They criticise the methodology, and say that the conclusion based on that methodology is an overstatement. Their only general comment about homoeopathy in the letter is that it "is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". To use a paper saying that the effects of homoeopathy can be explained by the placebo effect and a letter criticising that paper to support a statement that homoeopathy has effects over placebo would be synthesis, since neither source actually says that.

Would you like the article to describe any positive results as coming from "supporters of homoeopathy"? That would be exactly the same error as describing scientists whose work fails to support homoeopathy as "critics". Your wording would introduce a POV to the article. Brunton (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

NCCAM's position is represented in the section on meta-analyses. "Critics say..." is not acceptable per WP:AWW. And again, the best evidence, the most respected sources, state that homeopathy is a placebo. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Idem here. "Critics say" is an inapropiate attribution here. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed. Dogweather (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The best evidence is defined by the reliable sources not from your point of view. And here again the scientists you are citing disagree. :Shang says it is all placebo and Linde that the assumption is an overstatement and it is not supported by the data. Both are published in the Lancet. There is no consensus on the interpretation of the "best evidence". If it were Linde would not object to the Homeopathy = placebo.--67.81.109.134 (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. One was said in a peer-reviewed article. One was in a letter to the editor. There's a difference. You've asked, you've gathered several responses, and consensus is against you. Put down the stick and back away from the horse. Anon, you have made your points to the best of the sources available; they were judged by many editors to be insufficient. That's sufficient, you have to accept it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

And the letter does not actually state that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. Brunton (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the IPs we've been dealing with have been socks of the infamous User:Dr.Jhingaadey —Preceding unsigned comment added by BullRangifer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 May 2010

On the positive side, he has improved his English skills since the last time he socked. He probably got some practice from pushing his POV at citizendium.... --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I think this discussion is dead anyways.

Usually it goes edit, edit warring, block, civil POV-pushing, ban discussion, arbitration hearing, appeal to Jimbo, then Wikipedia Review or Citizendium. Did he go through all 8 stages? Did he go to the rare final step of posting on both WR and Citizendium? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

British doctors call homeopathy "witchcraft."

Interesting news:

Doctors attending the annual British Medical Association (BMA) Junior Doctors Conference voted almost unanimously for a motion that, ""Given the complete lack of valid scientific evidence of benefit: (i) homeopathy should no longer be funded by the National Health Service; and (ii) no UK training post should include a placement in homeopathy." During the videotaped discussion, which can be viewed on the BMA Web site, Dr. Tom Dolphin, deputy director of the BMA's junior doctor's committee, provoked raucous laughter by referring to homeopathy as witchcraft. http://www.bma.public-i.tv/site/player/pl_compact.php?a=40131&t=&m=flash&l=en_GB#the_data_area (See 4:55:30 to 4:58:43)

To become official BMA policy, the motion must be accepted at the BMA's full conference next month. [Donelley L. Homeopathy is witchcraft, say doctors. The Telegraph, May 15, 2010] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/alternativemedicine/7728281/Homeopathy-is-witchcraft-say-doctors.html The BMA has previously expressed skepticism about homeopathy, arguing that the rationing body, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should examine the evidence base and make a definitive ruling about the use of homeopathic remedies in the NHS.

Brangifer (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty good support for there being a consensus view. Dogweather (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably not notable until it actually becomes BMA policy, though? Another story that is possibly related, as it is one of the things that the motion called for (the motion is referred to by the story): NHS scraps doctors’ training at Scots homeopathic hospital. Perhaps more appropriate to the "regulation and prevalence" article? Brunton (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability pertains to "whether a topic merits its own article", not the viewpoints within an article. (WP:Notability; WP:NNC) For viewpoints w/in an article, Due Weight and Neutrality are the guiding principles. They mandate fair representation of "all [1] significant viewpoints that have been [2] published by a reliable source, and should do so [3] in proportion to the prominence of each." (WP:UNDUE) Here, the viewpoint that "homeopathy is witchcraft" is significant (1), the Scotland Herald is reliable (2), and the story makes clear that this is the majority view of physicians, and thus by proportion it can be thoroughly mentioned in the article (3). Dogweather (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "significant" is probably the word I wanted. However, the comment that "homeopathy is witchcraft" was not part of the motion; it was an off-the-cuff remark by a single doctor, and while it certainly got a laugh and may well have reflected the sentiments of many of those present, we can't really say it's "the majority view of physicians". Even the wording of the motion they passed can't really be said to be "the majority view of physicians". It was voted for by an overwhelming majority of those present at the conference, but a) there weren't that many of them and b) they only represent a subset of the BMA's membership. It might become significant if it becomes BMA policy next month. Brunton (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're both right. My main point is that something happened here that deserves mention using the RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would rather wait until the actual BMA policy comes out, since homeopathy is a large issue and I don't think it's appropriate to be including relatively minor things like motions made at a conference. Now, becoming official policy, that is big news. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It does make one wonder though. What do the witches think about being slandered like that? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OMG! You're right. It is very insulting to them... -- Brangifer (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are these views of physics common or prominent within homeopathy?

[1] To me, homeopathy is just another strange fringe medicine topic, but beyond that, when I saw this video, I couldn't help but burst out laughing. This supposed doctor presenting these preposterous claims about "science" and then somehow derivating it into "homeopathy is good" was almost beyond my comprehension.

Is this view of relativistic physics something shared by the proponents of homeopathy? In that case, I believe it is notable enough to be included in the article. 90.227.230.219 (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a citation that homeopaths misuse physics (particularly quantum physics). My guess would be most clinical homeopaths don't think about this kind of stuff because for them it "just works", but the theorists are the ones torturing physics and twisting logic through hoops to try to shoehorn in some science. Yeah, it's nonsense and completely false.

Youtube videos are self-published, primary sources, and accordingly unreliable. They can't be used for anything and would only be appropriate if addressed by a secondary source giving context. You can read more about that particular lecture here, but none of this is suitable for actually changing the page. Sorry! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't suggest the video as a source, it was the content that jumped out to me, and wondered if it was worth mentioning. Getting sources would obviously be the second step. 90.227.230.219 (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this article on Homeopathy or Scientific Validity of Homeopathy

Dear Editors,

In this section I may have to get to your notice on the deviation of the article from the actual nature of the subject of interest. The article has to discuss the theory of homeopathy and its implementations in various parts of the world i.e. the institutionalization of homeopathy as a alternate medicine. But the article (2/3 rd of the sections), almost just covers the scientific validity of this science and art of medicine rather than covering the various core aspects of homeopathy and its drugs and details regarding the way homeopathy handles chronic diseases. The core of homeopathy are the case studies taken by the homeopath from the patients to arrive at the right medicine. This article, I am worried seems to be carried away by popularity (news) rather than the actuality of homeopathy (facts about the cures in various countries and the patient satisfaction rates in each country). Hope this section would request the reasons from the editors as to why the article has been taken away from what it has to be. Thank you.

Sailpra (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the editors review the article on Ayurveda to see how the most part of the article has dealt with the system of Ayurveda and not the Scientific validity of Ayurveda. Now the argument being that much research has not been done on Ayurveda because it has not infringed into the Allopathy medicine market in a direct sense. But since homeopathy has come to an extent of public support where the allopathy medicine practice has been endangered, they have put a lot of focus on homeopathy's scientific validity. Now one thing to be observed is homeopathy may not be scientifically proven by the current knowledge of science. So we should not be hasty to draw conclusions and fill articles with popular claims.

Sailpra (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...an editor possibly using this IP from Karnataka, Bangalore.... Don't ask me how I know... I smell dirty socks. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes.Correct. Maybe the ......entire country should be banned from wikipedia to make sure that some editors who hold different views on the subject and live there will not be able to edit again. That would be an effective solution.( kidding ....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.109.47 (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We've been through all this before. The fact that other articles treat their subject in a particular way is not a reason for changing this one, which is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Any alleged shortcomings of the Ayurveda article should be taken up at Talk:Ayurveda.

The claim that "the article almost just covers the scientific validity" is something of an exaggeration. The sections on "Medical and scientific analysis" do not make up "2/3 rd of the sections"; they make up 8 subsections of text out of 27, and at a rough count (and excluding the lead) comprise around 3,300 words out of a total of over 8,000, and are preceded by the sections describing homoeopathy. The allegation that the article is a result of some sort of plot by "Allopathy" is not a valid criticism of the article and fails to assume good faith. And the answer to your question is that the article is about both. You may consider the issue of whether or not it actually works to be unimportant, but I put it to you that most rational people would consider this to be the most important thing about any system of medicine. Brunton (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes me wish I had time and energy to devote to Ayurveda... Homeopathy is a fringe theory and it's appropriate that the focus of the article is on its scientific failings and historical context rather than a detailed review of its dogma (particularly case studies, which are essentially the lowest level of medical evidence - barely better than an anecdote. No reference to wikipedia's policies or guidelines in that statement, no new sources, no need to discuss. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OMG, we really need an FAQ site for this kind of thing. Dogweather (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the FAQ at the top of this talkpage will serve? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we restore this source, someplace?

I added this source, which Brunton [2] removed, stating in the ES "Good source, but doesn't quite support the statement it's been attached to, which is already well supported, so removed." I do see Brunton's point. Really, I just want the source in there somewhere to support the use of Category:pseudoscience, because WP actually has objective criteria for when to use this category (WP:FRINGE/PS and WP:RS/AC; full explanation here), and I'd like to stick to them whenever possible so as to avoid ad hoc use and concurrent fighting. That was why my ES (abbreviations adjusted) said: "Restore excellent source indicating criticism as pseudoscience (or equivalent language) by a mainstream sci body, thus meeting WP:RS/AC & WP:FRINGE/PS for use of category:pseudoscience".

The source is BBC news saying (in the context of the UK govenment's classifying homeopathic medicines in ways that some scientific groups felt legitimized them excessively):

"In a statement, the Royal College of Pathologists said they were "deeply alarmed" that the regulation of medicine had "moved away from science and clear information for the public".

That's important, because for well-known topics like homeopathy, WP wisely requires that we source the existence of general scientific agreement that the subject is pseudoscience before adding the category or infobox. Statements by individual scientists (or petitions where scientists self-select) don't suffice for that, but mainstream scientific bodies so. So, given that this is an important source to have someplace in the article, any objections to my sticking it back in some logical place? There are several possibilities. Perhaps I could use the entire quote (with a bit more context) under Homeopathy#Regulation_and_prevalence, although I see no need to do that. Maybe, now knowing my rationale, maybe Brunton wouldn't mind returning it to the lead. It needs to go in, since it's the only source actually showing general scientific agreement as opposed to individual scientists' considered opinions. The difference, qualitatively, is huge. Thoughts? regards, Middle 8 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement is substantially about the regulation of homeopathy and other alt med in Britain. I would look for a place based on that. What we ideally should have is a similar statement from a recognized international organization such as the WHO. This position statement from a leading national society does carry considerable weight, but it isn't wp:WORLDWIDE. The western distaste for endorsing the clinical use of placebos is not universal. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point about WP:WORLDWIDE, but I don't think it has much of a chance of swaying a significant number of editors here, who would simply say that science trumps whatever global "superstition" might be. They have a good point, just the point about clinical use of placebos is a good point. Scientists aren't always as pragmatic as clinicians are in a clinical setting. I don't want to re-litigate the criteria for category:pseudoscience; I just want to help make sure articles reflect whatever consensus there is. I don't mind adding the reference I mentioned as a "see also"; as long as we can squeeze it in someplace, I can include hidden text explaining its implications. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a poor source (and science does trump superstition, that's what MEDRS, NPOV, REDFLAG, FRINGE and UNDUE are about). You can't say there's consensus over homeopathy, but you can find many citations that it's considered pseudoscience by many and defended primarily by proponents on a shaky research basis. News articles aren't generally good sources for statements like those for articles like these. Instead, [3], [4], [5] (which is quite interesting), [6], [7], [8], possibly [9], and so on. This set of results are merely the clearest from a google scholar search for "homeopathy pseudoscience" limited to 2005 and onwards. We don't need the BBC for this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi WLU -- Maybe I wasn't clear enough above when I said "It needs to go in, since it's the only source actually showing general scientific agreement as opposed to individual scientists' considered opinions." Sure, I'd rather have a formal statement coming directly from the Royal College of Pathologists, but lacking that, the BBC reporting on what they said will have to do. To be clear, the source that matters for purposes of WP:RS/AC is the opinion of the Royal College, and not the BBC itself. Every single source you cited is perfectly good, but none meets WP:RS/AC, nor do the lot of them taken together. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not presented as the academic consensus (though arguably it could be, or will be soon). The statement you added the BBC source to was "The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting homeopathy's efficacy and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery, and a "cruel deception"." The BBC is too low level of a source, and as Brunton says, it doesn't say pseudoscience or quackery. Frankly, I didn't read it before and now that I have I agree even more strongly that it shouldn't be used. If we're going to use anything regarding the RCP' position on homeopathy, we should use this. It still doesn't say that homeopathy is pseudoscience but it's a better source. Since no-one is trying to portray the academic consensus, RS/AC doesn't apply. Note that articles like Peter Duesberg, AIDS denialism, creationism and Kent Hovind, which are about topics for which there is clear academic consensus, the sources state "academic consensus" or something equally precise and wide-ranging. Homeopathy is not like this, and we're better off using higher quality sources than news reports. News reports are OK for events, but aren't great sources for academic consensus for which we should go to actual press releases, policy statements and the like. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for completeness, other stories on the same events that week were in the Times, the Daily Mail, the Guardian and hc2d (Health Care Today). LeadSongDog come howl! 01:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent)@WLU: We may be talking past each other. What sort of source or sources do you believe are sufficient or necessary to use category:pseudoscience in this and other CAM articles with a similar lack of evidence, impossible mechanism etc.? I ask because a couple of years ago, local consensus for adding the category here was just as I explained above. If consensus is changing, I'd like to know your views. Regarding the other articles you mention, yeah, consensus there isn't illustrated by a single source but rather the weight of the literature, which shows them clearly to be tiny-minority. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a news article. I would suggest the ones I linked to in an earlier post - peer reviewed literature particularly review articles, scholarly books by reliable publishers and statements by large medical bodies. There are easily enough sources available proclaiming homeopathy a pseudoscience to include it in the page and as a category; there are already five of them sourcing the statement.

It's not a tiny minority that considers homeopathy a pseudoscience. It's the majority; basically anyone who's not a homeopath. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced Article

The fact that there are now some homeopathic courses offered exclusively to physicians in Britain, that homeopathy is a regular aspect of conventional medical practise in France, and that every German medical school has a course or two on homeopathy, and not as part of the history of medicine but as a current treatment, suggests that the Wikipedia article is too strident in its blanket condemnation of homeopathy as nonsense. The bald-faced assertion that homeopathy, because it uses dilutions of substances below Avogadro's number, is without any possible validity in terms of scientific principle, looks positively silly next to the comment of the Nobel-Prize-winning Cambridge University physicist Dr. Brian Josephson (Letter, New Scientist, November 1, 1997), that homeopathy is perfectly consistent with the physics of liquid crystals which can flow like ordinary water while yet still retaining structure over macroscopic distances. You should at least take note of the debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.4 (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are homoeopathic remedies made using liquid crystals? Brunton (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As for education and training, the fact that courses are offered does not change the position on efficacy. However much it is taught it still, on the evidence, doesn't work. Information to do with education is covered in the Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy article. Incidentally, that notes (with sources) that the availability of couses in UK universities, and homoeopathic training for doctors in the UK, is in fact decreasing. Brunton (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A 13 year old letter to a popular science magazine? Seriously? We should rewrite the article, for a non-MEDRS in spite of the multiple peer-reviewed clinical trials and meta-analyses that demonstrate homeopathy is a placebo? No. No we should not. Baldly, as the scientific community essentially considers homeopathy a placebo treatment, so do we. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

More or less. However, to be strictly accurate, the Wikipedia is supposed to follow a neutral summary of all the available reliable sources, not just simply the scientific based ones. I doubt there's many reliable sources that have very positive things to say about homeopathy though.- Wolfkeeper 23:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement above, that this "Wikipedia article is too strident in its blanket condemnation of homeopathy as nonsense", misses the point. Ideally WP doesn't have an opinion, it doesn't condemn; it simply reports what reliable sources say. If all reliable sources state that homeopathy is nonsense, so be it. --TraceyR (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Birth of Homeopathy

Homeopathy was not the inception of some german in 1796, it was actually introduced to civilization in Ancient Egypt, and was first used by shamans to treat people with certain common ailments. Ex., Willow tree bark is a substitute for aspirin, and was used by the ancient Egyptians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.56.254 (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But did the ancient Egyptians dilute the willow bark until not a molecule was left in the 'remedy'? I doubt it, since willow bark works! Perhaps you a referring to e.g. herbal or natural medicine. To be more accurate, willow bark is not a 'substitute' for aspirin; the drug derives from willow bark and is considered to be its "active ingredient".--TraceyR (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The crucial thing is the idea of "like cures like" rather than the dilutions. Although homoeopaths often claim that their therapy goes back several millennia, there does not seem to be any good evidence for this. The claim that it originated with Hippocrates (particularly ironic in view of Hahnemann's denigration of Hippocratic medicine as "allopathy"), for example, seems to have been a misunderstanding of Hippocrates's writings (he actually seems to have written that treatments need to be of a similar category to the injury - for example wounds treated with surgery, internal illness treated with drugs). There seems to be no good evidence that Hahnemann based his idea on earlier writers. We've discussed this here before - see the archives. Brunton (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this page worth linking to in external links

[10] It is a blog and probably not an authoritative source but provides a lucid explanation that suits the masses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.52.187 (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased tone

While the very nature of this quackery is doomed to bias by anyone subconsciously rational, I'm removing the quote from remedies, rendered in the article as 'remedies,' as it places an emphasis on the word that can only lead to the reader believing as I do, albeit in a manner unbefitting Wikipedia. 98.87.71.186 (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I found some evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy?

Dear Wikians,

I looked at the webpage of British Homeopathic Association (http://www.britishhomeopathic.org) and found the following information sources which claim to show that there is positive scientific evidence for the success of homeopathy.

You can read one document here: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/export/sites/bha_site/research/evidencesummary.pdf

And more from here: http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/media_centre/facts_about_homeopathy/the_evidence_base.html

Would you please inquire if that evidence is reliable and in case it is, would you include it in the article?

Best wishes, Andres —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplejoy (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

We've been through this before pretty much ad nauseam, most recently when the same material was referenced by users such as "Dr.Vittal" or "NootherIDAvailable". The list is cherry-picked and fails to take trial quality into account. It also does not accurately reflect the results of the comprehensive systematic reviews, since of the four that it claims were "broadly positive", in three the conclusions were so highly qualified by comments about the poor quality of the evidence that they cannot really be considered unequivocally positive, and the fourth actually effectively retracted the positive conclusion of one of the other three, stating that it was likely that it "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." Additionally, it is the result of unpublished research, and produced by an organisation that, according to its own website, exists to promote homoeopathy. The article uses sources that are published and peer-reviewed. Brunton (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Harmlessness of homeopathic globuli?

Should the introduction mention that, while homeopathic pills are in themselves harmless, the fact that they sometimes replace other medications can make the treatment harmful? --TraceyR (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea - maybe add a few words to the end of the sentence that begins "Homeopathic remedies are, with rare exceptions, considered safe..."?

However, (imho) the lede is already a bit too long; maybe some other details could be moved back down into the body of the article.

bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say leave it as it is. This (along with other concerns) is covered in the "Ethical and safety issues" section of the article. In an article this length the lead can't include details of every point raised in the article - it can only summarise the main points. Brunton (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable idea, TraceyR, but I think the lead is already longer than ideal. The major points from each section seem to be covered in broad outline, satisfying WP:LEAD. There might be something we could cut from the lead to make room, but nothing jumps out at me right now. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"treat" vs "claims to treat"

The word 'treat' just means to give something to somebody if certain conditions are met. So far as dealing with the illness, the treatment may be completely useless (as with homeopathy), but they're still being treated.

For example, in olden days, people were treated for all manner of indications with leeches. They didn't do a damn thing in many cases, but that was the treatment nevertheless.

The only way 'claims to treat' would be correct, is if there was some doubt that people take homeopathic treatments at all.- Wolfkeeper 01:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Claims to treat is the correct and neutral form. Also, as most preparations contain no solute, I'd say there is some doubt as to whether people are taking homeopathic treatments at all. Leeches are still used in medicine and did have an effect, though perhaps not the one intended. Verbal chat 07:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of back-and-forth on this. Can't we try to work towards a compromise, or at least a ceasefire?

Personally, I'd be happy with either version. No doubt there are other parts on this article that could benefit from the attention ;-)

bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia policy on how to treat unsubstantiated claims (if there isn't there probably should be)? The only body whose policy I'm familiar with on this is the (UK) Advertising Standards Authority, who interpret any claim to treat a condition as a claim of effective treatment. Brunton (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Verbal chat 09:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument; while "treat" technically also includes ineffective (and even harm inducing) treatments, colloquially I think the use of the term has an implication of effectiveness. The easiest way to solve this is to find a good RS that uses the wording one way or another and to cite it. Yobol (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The ASA gives a pretty good standard, which more than clinches it for me. Verbal chat 12:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Current opening sentence:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that claims to treat patients with astronomically diluted preparations.

Could we solve this by replacing claims to treat (or treat if the lead changes again ... which ideally it should not for a while) with uses? - 2/0 (cont.) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We're not advertising anything, and we use the Wikipedia's policies in the Wikipedia, not the ASAs here. 'Claims to treat' is incorrect because they self-evidently do get treated, that's what 'treat' means. Either change it to something else entirely or leave it as 'treat'.- Wolfkeeper 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What do Wikipedia's policies say about treatment of unsubstantiated claims? Brunton (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The unsubstantiated claim that is being repeatedly edit warred into the article is that people only claim to take homeopathic stuff, but don't really. That's what this sentence means.- Wolfkeeper 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the claim is that it is an effective remedy. Verbal chat 19:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Which bit of "that claims to treat patients with astronomically diluted preparations." is the word 'effective' or 'remedy'? Hint: none. A remedy is something that actually remedies something. A treatment is something you use under a prescribed set of conditions. See the difference?- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, torture is a certain sort of treatment of prisoners in an attempt to extract information. Does that make it a remedy? No.- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you keep using the word 'treat' but you don't seem to have a clue what it means.- Wolfkeeper 23:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• In my book treating a person stands for applying a therapy with the intended goal of curing a medical condition. In the absence of a cure one attempts to alleviate the symptoms. Ergo, since homeopathy has been proven to be indistinguisable from placebo any homeopathic treatment is no more than a "claim."--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, so what you're saying is, they try to cure something by giving them something. And that's what they do. You'll note that there's no implication that it has to actually be actually successful, either always or ever, just that it's applied with that intention. So unless you think that homeopaths are always fraudulent, then the 'claim' bit is wrong.Wolfkeeper 01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Trying implies you are doing something you expect has an effect on the desired outcome. Since homeopathy has been proven to have no effect, other than placebo, one cannot reasonably argue "they try to cure something." How can you cure anything when you are doing nothing? In short, doing something you know is ineffective by definition means you claim you are treating a patient. Or, so we are absolutely clear as to what this is about: a claim is an unproven assertion, ergo homeopathy claims to be a form of treatment for many diseases. Regarding "there's no implication that it has to actually be actually successful" I disagree. Giving lemon juice to cure cancer is silly. We know it does not work. So it is not a treatment for cancer. At best we can say people claim it cures cancer. To be called a treatment it must be proven to be effective, although not necessarily a 100%.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 10:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is it written that a treatment has to be proven scientifically? It isn't. That's not the definition of treat. The definition of treat is something used with the intended goal of improving something.

However, many homeopaths and patients really are dumb enough to not believe the scientific evidence, and hence really do expect that homeopathy will have an effect on the desired outcome. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work. It didn't matter that leeches didn't work, applying them, or homeopathy in a particular way was/is still a treatment.

(as an aside: Leeches can 'work' - perhaps it's their use in bloodletting that you refer to.)--TraceyR (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't matter. Leeches are still a treatment however they're used. That's the point isn't it?- Wolfkeeper 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

English just isn't used the way it is in the article, you're using the wrong words for what you're trying to say.- Wolfkeeper 12:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can't leave this as 'claims to treat' it's a deliberate slur on homeopaths, it's saying that they deliberately give homeopathic treatments, knowing they don't work, that they're only claiming that they do. That may be true in some cases, but in general they really do believe it.- Wolfkeeper 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a deliberate slur; it says that homeopaths claim to treat. They really do claim[11] to treat[12]. Although we are working on the basis that the treatment is ineffective, "claim" applies equally well regardless of whether the claimant is ignorant, lying, delusional, confused, or something else.

I am not aware of any reasonable definition of the work "claim" which requires the claimant to knowingly say something untrue; if you have a good source that defines "claim" this way, please share it with us.

Where does the article say that homeopaths deliberately give treatments knowing that they don't work?

bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's mainly bad writing. A homeopathic remedy is a treatment. The claim is that this will cure the ailment. The treatment is a simple fact. It is the likelihood of the cure which is doubted. The current language muddles up these issues and by phrasing it in a strange way, gives the opening a tendentious tone. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So you claim that using the word 'claim' when referring to something that somebody else says doesn't cast doubt, or imply the existence of doubt, on the veracity of what is said? Uh huh.- Wolfkeeper 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Our opening lead seems poorly constructed. Compare, for example, with the Encyclopedia Britannica which has:

"...a system of therapeutics, notably popular in the 19th century, which was founded on the stated principle that “like cures like,” similia similibus curantur, and which prescribed for patients drugs or other treatments that would produce in healthy persons symptoms of the diseases being treated."

The word "prescribed" seems good in accurately describing what is done - the physician recommends a particular treatment according to his diagnosis and doctrine. The word "treatment" is used here without any special implication of success. Is it not well understood that, for all forms of medicine, treatments are no guarantee of a cure?

Also the phrase "astronomically diluted" seems quite misleading as it suggests that the matter has something to do with the stars or planets. The essential idea of homeopathy - the theory that like cures like - is not mentioned at all. The Britannica version is far superior.

Colonel Warden (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Treatments are generally understood imply a probability of success, see the ASA reference. While I generally disagree with your reasoning, I agree that "astronomically" is not a good word for the lead. See below. Verbal chat 20:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about "astronomically" (see below), but virtually every description of homoeopathy, even those from homoeopathic organisations, says that it uses highly diluted preparations. It is not true, by the way, that "the essential idea of homeopathy - the theory that like cures like - is not mentioned at all" - the second sentence of the lead says "Based on an ipse dixit axiom formulated by Hahnemann which he called the law of similars, preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals are given as the treatment for patients exhibiting similar symptoms." This mirrors, for example, the Society of Homeopaths' description of homoeopathy, which describes the medicines as "highly diluted" in its first sentence, and doesn't mention "like cures like" until the second paragraph. Having it this way round would not appear to be massively controversial. Brunton (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say, assumptions make an ass out of you, Verbal, and treatments do not imply a probability of success only an intent to have some kind of effect. The fact that you are incapable of understanding the distinction probably partly contributes to you repeatedly reverting to a version that is either nonsense or a deliberate bad faith attack on homeopaths; hey they are quacks, but they're not necessarily fraudulent quacks- they don't knowingly prescribe treatments that don't work.- Wolfkeeper 00:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made an assumptions, or used the word. What I did was give an opinion backed by references without personal attacks against other editors or homeopaths, despite what you have attributed to me. I suggest you take a break. Verbal chat 07:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Claims to treat" is an ambiguous wording. It could be interpreted as referring to a practice that does not actually occur, while its practitioners claim that it does. Moreover, this wording along with the use of "so-called" in the third sentence of the lede are examples of weasel wording (see WP:ALLEGED). Gobonobo ^{T C} 06:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "fails to treat"? Actually, I think the "practitioners use" option currently in place is better. Brunton (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On insanity

Why is this insanity periodically coming up? What's wrong with the following sentence?

The famous doctor always treats his patients with contempt.

Does it really have to be "corrected" to the following?

The famous doctor always claims [or attempts] to treat his patients with contempt.

The word "treat" does have connotations of efficacy, but they are rather weak, and certainly much weaker than the implication that people actually do something. Any formulation implying that someone doesn't actually "treat" a patient but only "claims" or "tries" to do so is a very clear statement about their actual actions, not about the potential efficacy of these actions. The following is absolutely ludicrous:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine, first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, that claims to treat patients with highly diluted preparations. [13]

The plain meaning of this sentence is that homeopaths try to give highly diluted preparations to patients but for some reason fail. It doesn't get clear though whether the problem is that the preparations aren't actually diluted, whether they try to send them to their patients by mail and they never arrive, or whether the patients, possibly after reading the Skeptical Inquirer or discussing with pseudo-skeptics on Wikipedia, decide no improvement at all is actually better than an improvement due to the placebo effect (which may well be better for homeopathy than "proper" medicine for susceptible persons), and so throw them away. Hans Adler 11:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the current wording which removes the bone of contention? Verbal chat 12:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where the current wording comes from, it's very clumsy and needs fixing. But I still don't have time for such things, and it's way too hot anyway. Hans Adler 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hans, while the wording does start to get a little cumbersome, the argument you have set up here is a bit of a straw man. The word "treat" has several meanings, among them ( from my dictionary) 1. behave towards or deal with in a certain way; and 2. give medical care or attention to. In your "claims to treat his patients with contempt" example, it depends on which definition of "treats" we are referencing. If the doctor claims that he "behaves towards or deals with in a certain way", the sentence comes across as saying that this doctor, for some odd reason, is known to brag about how poorly he treats his patients. If the doctor claims that he "gives medical care" in the form of contempt, then the word "claims" is certainly of use; otherwise the reader is being told that this odd method of dealing with patients is a form of medical care. Simply because he is a doctor, everything he does in the presence of a patient does not necessarily constitute medical care. He breaths, he farts, he ties his shoes, and he may even show contempt; but If he claimed to be medically treating you by any of these actions, you'd say he was an ass.

In the article, the word "treat" is most certainly being employed in the sense of "giving medical care", which implies that homeopathy is actually a form of medical care. According to the best evidence available, there is no reason to believe that homeopathy is any more useful than contempt as a form of medical care. The rest of the article makes it pretty clear that there is no reason to believe that homeopathy can be considered as a form of medical care, so why would we suggest it here? I, for one, think the qualification of the word "treat" is justifiedPuddin'head Wilson (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC).

Were you under the impression that you were responding to my core argument? If so, you failed. I suggest a Google search for "placebo-treated" if you want to know what I mean. Even when "treat" is used in the medical sense, efficacy is not a necessary feature of a treatment (although there is of course a presumption of efficacy to some extent), and efficacy beyond placebo is definitely not a necessary feature. It's the same with most words in a natural language.

E.g. there is a presumption that a "city" is big in some sense (bigger than a town or village), and there is a presumption that an English "city" has a certain status granted by the king/queen. Both appear in dictionaries as if they were necessary features, but neither is really necessary. Whether we can call an English village with city status, or a large English settlement with no legal status at all, a "city", depends on context.

Here it's basically the same situation, a matter of context. The context in question is not "Is it possible/ethical to treat certain conditions with homeopathy?" Instead, the context is "Homeopaths treat patients with certain obviously ineffictive stuff." Hans Adler 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You lost me. But then again, I'm quite dim. How about:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Practitioners of homeopathy administer highly dilute preparations of substances which, when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms of a patient's disease. The rationale for this approach was articulated by Hahnemann as the law of similars, an ipse dixit axiom which states "similia similibus curentur" or simply "like cures like".

Sound any better?Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Administer" instead of "treat"? I have no problem with that at all. I am not opposed to those people for whom the efficacy connotation feels stronger than for most of us replacing the word by something else that doesn't carry the same connotations. But this wasn't the first time that someone left the word "treat" in and made the article claim that homeopaths are even too stupid to actually administer the stuff.

I think the lead would flow much better if we replace the first two sentences by your text. (But I guess it should be "highly diluted", not "highly dilute". You can say either "dilute" or "diluted", but it seems odd to me to modify "dilute" with "highly".) Hans Adler 08:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Highly diluted" sounds fine to me. I'll make the change to the article tomoroow if no one has any objections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puddin'head Wilson (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current version (so I suppose this is an objection) and "are known to cause the symptoms" strengthens what is already a too-strong assertion in the current lead. Verbal chat 15:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The passage "...substances which, when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms of a patient's disease" (my emphasis) suggests that provings are carried out using undiluted substances. They aren't. They use the diluted remedies. Brunton (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would suggest a change to "substances which, when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms of a patient's disease" - some of these substances are merely speculated to cause analogous symptoms.

For a silly example, here's a proving of wood from a shipwreck, which the homeopath thinks will help treat people with obstructions, blockages, or traffic congestion in their lives: [14] - wood from an old shipwreck is not known to cause modern-day traffic congestion.

Helios sell such ingenious medicines as "Hadrian's Wall" and "Helium". What symptoms are known to be caused by old masonry and inert gases?

bobrayner (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans that the current wording is a bit clumsy, but I certainly appreciate the need to not overestimate the rigor of homeopathic practices. I actually liked the original bit about "claiming to treat" as it seems like a reasonable assertion. I won't change anything in the article yet, but will work on some changes here when I get a chance. One of the insurmountable problems with editing articles on alternative medicine is the fact that, by their very nature, they embrace the idea that anyone can claim whatever they feel like and we are expected to, by default, assume it is legitimate. Wording which might be true to Hahnemann's original delusions doesn't address some of the silliness found in the "state of the art". Quite a pickle.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

I actually agree with Verbal that "when undiluted, are known to cause the symptoms" is too strong. This is what most sources claim, presumably because it was the original motivation, but it simply doesn't seem to describe practice. We shouldn't repeat a misleading claim just because it's what everybody else is doing. (Sorry for just claiming that the claim is misleading. We actually researched this on the talk page, it must be in the archives somewhere.) How about the following:

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Practitioners of homeopathy administer highly diluted preparations of substances which are believed to be capable of causing the symptoms presented by a patient in healthy individuals. The rationale for this approach was articulated by Hahnemann as the law of similars, an ipse dixit axiom which states "similia similibus curentur" or simply "like cures like".

Does this work for everybody? Hans Adler 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks better to me.

At the risk of nitpicking, I think the latter part could be simplified to say something along the lines of:

This is based on the law of similars proposed by Hahnemann; "similia similibus curentur" or simply "like cures like".

hence avoiding a latin overload at the end of the sentence. Comments / criticisms / complaints? bobrayner (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It might work better inverted.

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine first practiced by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Practitioners of homeopathy select substances they believe to have been "proven" capable of causing the patient's symptoms in healthy individuals. They then administer highly diluted preparations of these substances to the patient as "remedies". Hahnemann dubbed the rationale for this approach as "the law of similars", an axiom stating "similia similibus curentur", later translated as "like cures like".

How's that look? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

luc montagnier's claim of radio waves

I added his claim to Water_memory#Subsequent_research, since it's more on-topic there. People claiming that it was a breakthrought discovery should read [this to see some of the reasons of why the scientific community has not taken the claim seriously. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In particular, it doesn't belong here because once again Montagnier didn't actually mention homoeopathy. The Sunday Times of the day before the story cited has a slightly fuller account, which says that Montagnier "did not mention homeopathy by name in his presentation." (Leake, J. Nobel laureate gives hope to homeopaths, Sunday Times 4.7.2010, p. 10) Brunton (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Astronomically" in the lead

The word "astronomically" in the lead doesn't come across as very encyclopaedic to me. I'd like to discuss possible alternatives, one such is "implausible" (supported by the lack of a scientific basis). Astronomically also pertains to big, but what we're talking about here is beyond miniscule - in nearly all cases it is 0. Verbal chat 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't read as encyclopaedic. "Astronomically" is a fairly recent addition (21st June). It used to say "heavily", and I've reverted it to that at least once - I hadn't noticed "astronomically" had been returned. I think "highly" is probably better, and certainly uncontroversial (for example the (UK) Society of Homeopaths (the larges body for lay homeopaths in the UK) defines homoeopathy as being "based on treating the individual with highly diluted substances", and the Faculty of Homeopathy (the organisation for medically-qualified homeopaths in the UK) describes the dilutions used as "ultra-high". We have a third editor objecting to "astronomically" above, so I'll change it. Brunton (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Highly is ok with me. Verbal chat 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that "astronomically" is not encyclopedic and would support a change to "highly".Yobol (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that we don't include words based on how they sound, but on references. 'Astronomically' is literally and figuratively true, and furthermore after whole seconds with google, I can reference it to the British medical journal. See [15]- Wolfkeeper 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally used the word 'astronomical' is pure hyperbole. In the sense that the word 'astronomical' is used here it refers to things that are related to or comparable to sizes found in astronomy. Some of the dilutions found in homeopathy are the same as one droplet dissolved in a sphere of water that is about the same as the orbital radius of the Earth from the Sun. We literally are talking about astronomical dilutions.- Wolfkeeper 00:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a figurative use of the word. The source cited above talks about substances being "diluted to astronomical levels", which is slightly different. I suppose "astronomical" is the sort of word "The Sun" (how appropriate!) would also use,, although the above comment is on the BMJ website; I'd be happier with a different word too. --TraceyR (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider it to be figurative; figurative implies something that flatly isn't true. In this scenario it's essentially literal.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word 'highly' is astronomical understatement.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It also states that homeopathy "really is impossible", but I doubt that a TV review is an appropriate source for that statement. Brunton (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm talking about use in the BMJ.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It used to say "heavily", and I've reverted it to that at least once - I hadn't noticed "astronomically" had been returned. Ugh. This is the kind of thing that has caused me to lose some enthusiasm for Wikipedia. I'm not talking about the content, so much: I haven't read the sentence yet. Simply how changes can be fixed-remade-fixed-... As far as I can tell, there's really no solution in the Wikipedia system for this? Dogweather (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the three revert rule and the possibility of sanctions being taken against editors who persistently make edits against consensus, not much. Brunton (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. And what about the lack of decent forum software? So that, e.g., one can get notified of replies. Is there a reason why a wiki page is the tool of choice for all communications? I'm actually very interested in these issues --- I've even started writing software for wikipedia editors to better communicate, but the solutions to some problems seem so obvious. Dogweather (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that "astronomical" does not have an encyclopedic tone.

Wolfkeeper's recent edit summary says "reinserted astronomical, added refs, this is a characteristic of homeopathy, and no other form of treatment, highly dilute is not characteristic" which I find baffling; "highly dilute" is certainly an accurate description of homeopathy. Perhaps wolfkeeper objects to words that could also describe other things apart from homeopathy, but getting rid of those would mean deleting most of the article.

bobrayner (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Highly dilute is completely inaccurate. For the sake of argument let's put down what highly dilute might mean:

• dilute (10%-70%)
• quite dilute (1%-20%)
• very dilute (0.05%-5%)
• highly dilute (0.05% - 1%)
• extremely dilute (0.001%-0.01%)
• incredibly dilute (0.0000001% to 0.001%)
• astronomically dilute (1 in 10^10 or less) [i.e. the 'strongest' homeopathic dilutions]

You can argue about the relative positions or an order of magnitude here or there, but basically, highly dilute is completely, massively, exaggerating what dilutions are characteristically used in homeopathy.- Wolfkeeper 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it at "highly dilute" or change it to "extremely dilute". The lower end of your scale doesn't have an encyclopedic tone at all, and I contest the numbers in that range. Also, preparations from harmless plants such as Arnica, Camphora, Calendula, Hamamelis are available in D2 (1%) and I believe rather common in D4 (0.01%). At the other end, preparations such as C60 (1:100^60) are a lot more diluted than 10^10, at least theoretically. And in any case "extremely" is already a superlative and doesn't need further escalation. We need to use language that describes the "typical case" (whatever that is) without too vehemently excluding the various border cases. One thing that this article should definitely not do is give our readers the impression that all homeopathic preparations are automatically harmless because they are by necessity "astronomically dilute". For people with severe allergies even a D6 preparation may well be dangerous. Hans Adler 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Hans Adler. It is not helpful to create an arbitrary hierarchy of descriptors and then pretend that they are mutually exclusive. If you add extra water to a 0.05% solution, does it cease to be "highly dilute"?

In any case, that arbitrary hierarchy of descriptors does not address the problem that "astronomical" has an unencyclopedic tone.

Why is "highly dilute" a "completely inaccurate" description of homeopathy? Simply saying so won't make it true.

bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Highly" is "completely inaccurate" in that it conveys no meaning. How long is a string? How far up is "high"? Numbers exist for a reason. At least the bizarre D and C notations used in homeopathy have a sort of meaning, even if it's not exactly the one that practioners construe. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does the word highly come from anyway? Astronomical is a referenced description.- Wolfkeeper 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And I completely contest the bizarre theory that is being offered that we should changed referenced material based entirely on whether it sounds encyclopedic; oddly WP:SOUNDS RIGHT is a red link. In the Wikipedia we write material based on objective criteria based on what references say.- Wolfkeeper 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "highly" comes from reliable sources. Many sources use it. I'm surprised you didn't notice that, as you pointed out how easy it was to google for a mention of "astronomically". I get thousands of results on Google Scholar, including [16], although there are plenty of sources elsewhere - perhaps you'd prefer a book or an interview instead of a scientific paper.

It would be absurd to reject "highly" on the basis of a made-up hierarchy of descriptions. It would be even more absurd to pretend that "astronomically" is the only label supported by reliable sources. Do you have any other objections?

What does the consensus say?

bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We can find sources that say just about any ridiculous thing on this topic. The basis to use is what the best quality sources say. Of course we know that any such adjective will be effectively meaningless anyhow, because of both ambiguity and false generality, so why not simply eliminate it? Then we could have "...practitioners use variously diluted preparations." Theres ample discussion later in the article to support that.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Homoeopaths use the term "highly" to describe the dilutions (see the BHA or SoH web pages that have been cited). I'm sure even "skeptics" can agree with this terminology. What is the problem? Brunton (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is what the dilutions really are, so that the reader understands the idea that is being put across. Astronomical is actually accurate as to the dilutions that are characteristically used.- Wolfkeeper 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys appear to be repeatedly edit warring 'highly' into the lead. My position is that this is severely inaccurate, and is actually unreferenced to a reliable source. It's my opinion that highly is being used in a deliberate attempt to slant the article in favour of homeopaths, to paint the topic as being less cranky than it really is, and further is also an inaccurate summary of the topic.- Wolfkeeper 15:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoa there.

• You argued that "Highly dilute is completely inaccurate". There were counterarguments on this page. You might not accept the counterarguments (and I might claim that your position does not hold any water) but at least acknowledge that there are folk here trying to present a reasoned position which does not agree with yours.
• Any number of sources use "highly". This has already been pointed out to you before. It's trivially easy to find such sources - both among homeopaths and skeptics. If you really need a citation just for an adverb, I will add one. Please do not pretend that "astronomically" is the only description which can be sourced.
• Please try to assume good faith. The people who disagree with you are not *deliberately* attempting to slant the article in the wrong direction.
• Take a step back and look at consensus. Please. It's just a word; why keep on warring with other contributors over one word? That time could be spent improving the article in other places.

bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Flower remedies

I'm not convinced that the section on 'flower remedies' is relevant to homeopathy. In what way(s) is it a "similar modality"? What is the rationale for mentioning "similar modalities"? --TraceyR (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be an offshoot of homoeopathy. Bach was a homoeopath, and the remedies are diluted in a similar way. It doesn't appear to use "like cures like", though: see the Edward Bach article: "If he felt a negative emotion, he would hold his hand over different plants, and if one alleviated the emotion, he would ascribe the power to heal that emotional problem to that plant." It would appear to involve similar concepts of "sympathetic magic" though. It probably is appropriate to a "related modalities" section here, but then so are tissue salts, which at least do appear to involve the principle of "like cures like", but which aren't mentioned. Brunton (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dana Ullman and Amy Lansky on the (perceived) bias of this article

"The moral of this tale: a single individual or a small set of individuals, if they have dedication and plenty of time to burn, can overtake a Wikipedia page with misinformation. Unless the “other side” is willing to devote a full time effort to combat this, there is very little that can be done. Any change they make will be undone the next day. Of course, in general, most credible sources of information have lives and careers and cannot devote all of their time in a never-ending Wikipedia war. This is what has happened to the Wikipedia page on homeopathy. "http://www.homeopathic.org/content/quackbuster-operations-target-homeopathy-article-on-wikipedia-0

As many people know that on many search terms, Wikipedia comes up number 1 in Google. They are almost definitely in the top 10. So when the search term is Homeopathy, how accurate are they? I was looking at following wikipedia page on Homeopathy. The general definitions and information on Homeopathy seem to be for the most part correct. The part where all of the information that is incorrect seems to be in the research side of Homeopathy. ...http://blog.hmedicine.com/homeopathy-and-homeopathic-medicine-blog/bid/4844/Homeopathy-Misinformation-on-Wikipedia......

Should these opinions be included in the article? It seems reasonable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheers1 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't do self-referential naval gazing. Dana Ullman isn't a prominent homeopath (he doesn't practice, I think) and isn't an expert - he is a "leading proselytizer of homeopathy". Also, he has been banned from contributing to homeopathy on wikipedia due to his excessively self-promotional and pro-homeopathy editing. Homeopathic.org is also not a reliable source. There may be some meat here for his own article, but I doubt it. Lansky's opinion also seems at odds with the RS which our article is based on, and is not published in a RS. Lansky is free to bring their concerns here for discussion. Verbal chat 12:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed, with the consenus being that the template is not needed. Brunton (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can take over a Wikipedia article, as long as they can produce reliable sources to substantiate what they write. 'Prominent homeopaths' will also need to supply reliable sources supporting their claims, just like anyone else. "Ipse dixit" is not proof, even from Hahnemann. If they can provide reliable sources for the effectiveness of potentization, 'remedies' etc, they can 'take over' this article (and be applauded for doing so). If they can find genuine 'misinformation' in the article, they should identify it here on the talk page and provide the proof that it is wrong. That's how Wikipedia works. --TraceyR (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

With so many peer reviewed sources to draw upon, there's no reason to cite the webpage of a non-notable homeopath. The page should be based on reliable sources and that ain't it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Prof. Peter Haber of the University of Basel (Chair of Contemporary History), who has been researching and teaching about Wikipedia since 2007, was interviewed in the German weekly paper 'Die Zeit' on 8 July, 2010 (No. 28). He mentions that the WP articles he and his students have looked into are generally correct and of good quality when they are edited frequently. He also states that there are seldom distortions in articles about controversial and sensitive subjects, a category to which this article probably belongs.

On the subject of Amy Lansky, it is understandable that she finds herself in disagreement with the facts in the article, given her experience of the improvement of her young son's "mild autism" while receiving homeopathic preparation(s), but, according to her website, she and her husband were trying several 'alternative therapies' concurrently; there could have been any number of reasons for his improvement. However much she feels that there is a link, anecdotal evidence isn't enough. The article reflects the current state of knowledge in a fair and balanced (i.e. un-Fox-like) way. If and when facts in support of homeopathy are established, you can be certain that Wikipedia will be one of the first places where they are reported. --TraceyR (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And what is this "biography" doing here anyway? She's definitely not notable (that is, INFAMOUS) enough to have her own entry. 190.20.195.109 (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely having written a book which was published gives her some claim to notability. I haven't seen any evidence that she is a practising homeopath, though. I think that she just writes (and speaks?) in favour of it. --TraceyR (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This googlebooks search finds Amy L. Lansky, PhD cheek by jowl with Dana Ulman not once but twice (with a third time on the next page)! Just when you thought things couldn't get stranger. This finds her as a CDC epidemiologist per John Donnelly in the July 10, 2001 Congressional Record-House, p.12743. Other hits show her work at the CDC on mother-child HIV transmission in poor rural American populations. If anything this seems to indicate she is not a homeopath.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There no rule which says "Once a homeopath, always a homeopath" ... but it might be a different person, since her field wasn't originally epidemiology or statistics. Her WP article provides a link to her website, which might give more information. --TraceyR (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They may, or may not, be different people, but wouldn't this discussion be more appropriate here? I don't see that this is directly relevant to the homeopathy article. Brunton (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Amy Lansky has been a board member of the NCH since December 2003 and has been Secretary of the NCH since April 2005" and she is dedicated to helping others -- especially families with autistic children -- discover the curative powers of homeopathyaccording to the http://www.homeopathic.org

"Gregory Dana Ullman (born December 22, 1951, Hollywood, California) is an American author, publisher, educator, and proponent in the field of homeopathy." according to Wikipedia.

Are these people notable enough to have their own entry in wikipedia for promoting or practice homeopathy but their opinion on how wikipedia describes homeopathy is not relevant here? This approach does not seem so neutral.--Cheers1 (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to improve the article, suggest specific changes instead of tagging the article. The reasons the above quotes are not reliable for this article has been explained to you already.Yobol (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive mention of 'none (or only one) molecule'

I counted about 13 mentions of the argument that there is none (or only one) molecule of the original substance at a given concentration. Of course, this is a key argument against the efficacy of homeopathy, but it get's a little annoying. Most humans have short and mid term memory and telling them the same thing over and over again may bore them or they may think you think they have a memory defect. Reorganizing the article to reduce the frequency of this argument might improve the article. Darsie42 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Everybody who reads this article is either a believer in homeopathy and therefore clearly has every brain defect that you can imagine including various memory defects. In this case you can't hit them on the head with the clue bat often enough, which of course can't do any damage under the circumstances. Or they were sent here by a web forum or mailing list of sceptics and discover that contrary to their expectations the article isn't actually unbalanced much in favour of the rabid homicidal fringe and there is little to do here to prove their correct alignment other than perhaps add the word "alleged" or "purported" where it was omitted as clear from context, or perhaps add another sentence or two describing how incredibly demented, sorry diluted, that stuff is.

This is not how this article should be written, but it is how it is written in practice. At least it's skewed in favour of the unscientific pseudoskeptic fringe that regards the placebo effect and psychosomatic medicine as evil incarnate. If this article must remain an eternal battlefield and can't be neutral and informative, that's still better than if it was dominated by the pro-homeopathy fringe.

My vision of this article would be that it should give a lot of information in a neutral tone but make it absolutely clear (without needless repetition) that homeopathy is a pre-scientific belief system including a strong founder cult, that higher dilutions cannot and do not have an effect beyond placebo, and that whether homeopathy is a better placebo than others, perhaps for patients of a certain disposition, has not been tested sufficiently. (Only one very old study.)

By the way, there is currently a debate about homeopathy in Germany. Public health insurance insists on covering homeopathy because it saves them money. Apparently extensive homeopathic consultations are effective in unearthing underlying conditions and in making patients change their lifestyles. Again, these factors have never been measured rigorously, because extremists from both sides agree that the only thing that matters is whether there is a measurable effect beyond placebo. Hans Adler 10:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe in homeopathy and I do not believe this article is skewed. If you have anything constructive to say please do, otherwise please be polite. I do not appreciate being randomly insulted. Useful parts of your arguement are in the article. Feel free to improve them! Greggydude (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I said it clearly enough, but let me put it differently: My problem with this article is that we have a binary choice between it being written by believers who would turn this into apologetics or advertising, or by pseudo-skeptics who have a tendency to insist that it says the few things they know about the topic (of which much is a simplification) over and over. Homeopathy is a significant topic in history of medicine and in general culture. In fact, it has as much cultural significance as astrology, oracles, animal magnetism or any of numerous religious sects such as the Puritans or the Cathars. A serious encyclopedia has proper articles on such topics, and it doesn't commission them from individuals who are proud of not knowing much about the details because they are obviously worthless. A serious encyclopedia has articles on such topics, not position papers. That ultimately it's all worthless nonsense is an important aspect of each of these topics, but that's not an excuse for omitting the actual information. One can study a pseudoscience in detail as a pseudoscience with the same emotional detachment that an AIDS researcher has in studying the virus. A good researcher, while working on eradicating the virus, will be fascinated by it the more he learns about it. Unfortunately this article is dominated by people who seem to be completely unfamiliar with how science works and think it's just another religion. The only right one, of course, because it's the one they subscribe to because they want to be cool, or progressive, or "skeptic", or whatever.

For every editor who claims that homeopathy has been proved beyond doubt to be effective beyond placebo, we have several who claim that since homeopathy is (in the standard case of sufficiently high dilution) obviously just a placebo, it is obviously not effective at all. They are completely ignoring that the placebo effect is not well researched at all, and that obviously not all placebos are equally effective as such. As a patient I want to be healed, and I don't care if it is by a placebo or not. A physician who rejects placebos for ideological reasons while there is evidence that they may be able to heal some patients, and rejects practices that might improve this effect, is almost as bad and almost as much of a quack as a homeopath who rejects normal medicine. Both attitudes are symptoms of intellectual laziness: People join a faction and follow the group think because that's easier than looking at the acutal arguments.

Fortunately, in practice a lot of regular physicians, at least in Germany, do prescribe homeopathy for conditions such as allergies, which are known to be particularly susceptible to placebo. Homeopathic preparations are cheap, and they appeal to patients who tend to mistrust regular medicine. This is likely to make them very effective placebos (the label being the medicine) in many cases.

Sorry for the long, disorganised response. I don't have the time to make it shorter. Hans Adler 20:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "whether homeopathy is a better placebo than others", for which you say there is only one very old study, there is actually a recent systematic review which suggests that homoeopathy isn't an especially good placebo, even for the type of homoeopathy involving an extended consultation where there would appear to be the greatest potential for an enhanced placebo effect: "CONCLUSIONS: Placebo effects in RCTs on classical homeopathy did not appear to be larger than placebo effects in conventional medicine." Brunton (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. This looks very interesting. I am glad to see this question is finally getting some attention. Now I hope there will be a number of studies that address the question directly (instead of repurposing by-products of studies on other questions), to see if the result can be confirmed. Hans Adler 15:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's a particularly notable finding, given that it appears to have concluded that as far as placebo effect is concerned there is nothing particularly distinctive about homoeopathy. The first sentence of the abstract is interesting. It seems to address a post hoc excuse for homoeopathy not performing better than placebo in RCTs. Brunton (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Treatment of animals and Homeopathy

In a blinded study where rats were treated for urinary infections results showed that rats treated withhomeopathic remedies had clear reduction of bacterial colonies. Results were at least as clear as fortreatment with antibiotics. Untreated rats had no changes in bacteria colonies, compared to a reductionto 33 % of original bacteria levels in rats treated with antibiotics, and 22 % and 39 % in rats treatedwith homeopathic remedies (Phosphorus and self-nosode). Gonçalves et al. O uso da homeopatia no tratamento da infecção urinária em ratas. Anais do VIII SINAPIH; 20-22 May, 2004: p.25-26.

In a study of homeopathically potentised remedies the incidence of haematomas was reduced by 30 % in turkeys during transportation. The study was randomised, placebo controlled and double blinded. Filliat C. Particularité de l´utilisation de l´homéopathie en production avicole. Annals of the “Entretiens Internationaux de Monaco 2002”, 5-6 October 2002.

Comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheers1 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

PMIDs? Links to the full text? Or at least to abstracts? --Six words (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

They appear to have been copied and pasted from here, or a similar list using the same source.

Addendum: the missing spacings and additional line break in the above comments correspond to the line endings in this pdf document; the title of the document ("An Overview of Positive Homeopathy Research and Surveys") suggests that some cherry-picking of studies may have been involved. Brunton (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The article uses the results of published and peer-reviewed meta-analyses and reviews rather than individual papers. These appear to be conference presentations. I haven't been able to find either on Pubmed - have they been published in any journals, and are there any English abstracts (or ideally reliable translations of the entire papers) available? Without that there's really nothing to discuss. Even if there was text available it wouldn't outweigh the sources already used. Brunton (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The dogmatism of Q9 makes no sense

Since the wikipedia article boldly affirms that it is contrary to all the fundamental principles of science that homeopathy could have any pharmacological effect, it seems odd in Q9 to deny contributors the possibility of adding that it may well have a pharmacological effect outside of what are usually thought to be the basic principles of pharmacology. I refer specifically to the view of the Nobel-Prize Winning physicist, Brian Josephson, of Cambridge University, who in a letter to Science News in 1973 stated that homeopathic medicines could act through the flowing crystal phenomenon -- which is in fact part of the fundamental principles of physics. Generally, although I do not believe that homeopathy is effective, I find the rabid, viciously polemical tone of the entire article to be profoundly out of character for a wikipedia article, which as an encyclopedia entry rather than a broadsheet, should cultivate a neutral, purely informational style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.4 (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Q9 does not say that the article shouldn't say anything about mechanisms for homoeopathy - it says that it should not mention that it might work by some unknown mechanism. If decent evidence is found that it works via some mechanism, then that should be included (as long as it can be sourced reliably, of course), but then that would no longer be an "as-yet undiscovered" mechanism.

As for this particular suggested mechanism, this is clearly not an "as-yet undiscovered" mechanism, since you state that it "is in fact part of the fundamental principles of physics." Is there any actual evidence that homoeopathy works through this phenomenon? I haven't noticed homoeopaths referring to this as a possible mechanism, which suggests that it isn't a mainstream view even within homoeopathy. Homoeopaths suggest all sorts of speculative "mechanisms" for homoeopathy, from quantum entanglement on up, but never seem to produce any actual evidence for them.

The same proposed mechanism, and the sort of sourcing you were proposing to use for it, was briefly discussed the last time you brought up Josephson here. Speculation is speculation, even if it does come from a Nobel laureate. The evidence from meta-analyses of research conducted in the 37 years since Josephson wrote that letter strongly suggests that there is no effect to be explained. Brunton (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider the situation of physics in 1690, after Newton had published his theory of gravitational action at a distance, when there was nothing in the existing science of the day to support or explain it. The Cartesian, mechanistic physics of the day insisted that all propagation of force effects over space had to be supported by some material field or communicated by successive collisions of physical particles, but the speed of transmission of gravitational action at a distance established by Newton showed that nothing material could be communicating the effects. So all Newton had was a theory describing the connection between two sets of phenomena -- the mass of the earth and the motion of the moon -- but no underlying scientific theory or mechanism to explain how it worked. This is analogous to what homeopathy has now: an unexplained relation of healing between a certain kind of substance and patients with various illnesses. Now while you may validly dispute whether the evidence of healing is real, the preliminary state of the science does not justify dismissing it, unless you are willing to dismiss all regular correlations, which is all Newtonian physics was for many years after it was developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.12.4 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiability. If you can produce verifiable information from a reliable source, demonstrating a mechanism by which homoeopathy works, then it can be included. Until then, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Brunton (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare the essentially religious-based world of Newton with the empirically-dominated world today, and expect anything even close to the same kinds of scientific revelations. Empirical research of the highest quality consistently shows that homeopathy is no better than placebo at treating health. Plus, homeopathy has existed for over 200 years and come no closer to proposing a mechanism by which it works. I can just as easily, on your logic, say in 1690 they believed in unicorns, and the preliminary state of unicornology means we could expect a revelation any day now - but I won't.

Seconding Brunton's comments - need sources to adjust page, not opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Q7: Should proof that homeopathy works be included in the article? (No.)

I'm unhappy with the answer to this question. The current answer refers to "alleged proof", but that is not what the question is about. Surely if genuine proof of efficacy, from a properly conducted clinical trial published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, were to be produced, then it must be included. The answer should be an unequivocal "yes". --TraceyR (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We can revisit that when a proof in published in WP:MEDRS. This is referring to quacks proofs and anecdotes. Verbal chat 09:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The the question should be formulated accordingly, e.g. "Q7: Should quack proofs and anecdotes that homeopathy works be included in the article?" My concern is that the present question and answer create the impression that WP has a closed mind about homeopathy. --TraceyR (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because quacks don't self-identify as such. It should remain as "No" and maybe add that in the unlikely event of there being a MEDRS proof it should be discussed and consensus reached first. Verbal chat 10:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The current answer to Q7 makes it abundantly clear what sort of "proof" is being referring to here, and why it is not included. Perhaps the question could be changed to "alleged proofs", but I'm not particularly convinced that this is necessary. Brunton (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably should be changed to add "alleged", just for sake of clarity. Yobol (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps "unscientific"? --TraceyR (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Assertions that homeopathy works" could work, the point of the question is that the best quality evidence is resoundingly negative, and that's captured in the rest of the response. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Should articles and papers like this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759025/ be included in the article, or is it considered quack proof? 79.180.25.235 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That isn't capable of being proof that homoeopathy works, because it is a study of a possibly anomalous effect, and does not actually involve treatment of any patients. It isn't actually a test of homoeopathy. Perhaps it belongs in the discussion about Q9, which deals with speculative or hypothetical mechanisms. Brunton (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this study undermines some of the basic premises of this article, namely, that there can't possibly be any effect of homeopathic solutions on living organisms due to lack of any active substance at that level of dilution. If in some cases, as the study suggests, there are detectable biological effects of certain extremely diluted solutions, one can no longer claim that there's no known chemical principle that allows homeopathy to work even in theory. The principle may be yet unexplained, but it clearly exists (acc. to the study). Of course, the study shows an effect of one specific solution on one specific cell culture in vitro, and that's a long way from it to real medical effects in vivo, so it doesn't prove homeopathy works - it just shows, that theoretically, it can. Denying that there are, indeed, possible mechanisms for ultra-diluted solutions to affect living organisms is, in this case, unscientific dogmatism. Nowhere do I try to claim that it proves that homeopathy indeed works - only that it can work. 109.67.35.234 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the best evidence from systematic reviews of controlled trials suggests that it does not actually work. The allegedly anomalous behaviour of some dilute solutions under particular conditions is not necessary to explain this.

"Nowhere do I try to claim that it proves that homeopathy indeed works" - so your point is not really relevant to this question, as I have already pointed out above. What you are talking about is a speculative and unproved mechanism. Brunton (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That single study may, but that's why we base our pages on reliable secondary sources summarizing numerous primary studies. If I run 20 studies, at a 95% confidence interval, there's a guarantee that one of them will be spuriously positive. There is still no chemical principle that posits how homeopathy can work, even with that study - there's only an anomalous finding that suggests homeopathy may work but there's still no principle to explain it. It suggests that there may be something to homeopathy, but we must summarize the whole of the evidence, not cherry pick single studies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if the answer sought above, to the question "Should proof that homeopathy works be presented?" is something like: No, because no such proof exists, at least not to the standards of proof used in medical science. The 'proofs' you might be thinking of, on closer investigation, turn out to be erroneous, misconceived, statistically unfounded, or just plain fraudulent. If someone comes out with a 'proof' that is actually accepted as medical science research (see WP:MEDRS for how to demonstrate that), please come back and tell us about it. Meanwhile, if you don't like medical science, please don't fight with us about it. We're not medical researchers, we're just an encyclopedia. --FOo (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Excessively dignified arguments

What seems lacking here is a more cynical take on what is involved. I think that most people who try such products see something like "10X" and the name of one or more herbs and think that it is a concentrated herbal medicine of some sort. This isn't truly a pseudoscience but a simple street hustle. Wnt (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While your point about the ignorance of consumers may well be true (see for example Beliefs about homeopathy among patients presenting at GP surgeries New Zealand Medical Journal, Vol 122 No 1295 p 94, which found that 59% thought that homoeopathic remedies are "moderately" or "very concentrated") what you suggest would not really be an appropriate approach. Brunton (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a pretty good source, but what's frustrating both in this source and in the article at large is that "homeopathy" is not subdivided according to whether it uses real drugs/supplements or not. Products like Zinc lozenges and sprays can be effective (and consequently, potentially can have serious side effects), but are labelled and described as "homeopathic" even though they have nothing to do with the "20X" products. I think the article can be shifted in this direction, nonetheless. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Scare quotes"

Per [17] - what terminology are we not endorsing, and why? Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to suggest that it isn't really a form of alternative medicine. Brunton (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

At this time, I would tend to concur, but perhaps there is something I have not thought of/am not aware of. I have asked LeadSongDog to reply here, and explain his/her rationale. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, KC, I omitted to explain here. To anyone unfamiliar with the controversy behind it, the term, "alternative medicine" could be taken as plain language, completely missing that it has a dual meaning of "alternative to medicine", as when applied to various placebo, faith-healing, and sympathetic magic practices. Scare quotes have numerous uses. These scare quotes serve to alert the reader to the potential irony inherent in that dual meaning. We should not mask the existence of the controversy. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The term is linked; the term applies. I'm not seeing your justification; would you try to be more specific? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Linkage is not a substitute for getting it right. Some readers do read print copies of articles. The simple fact is that the meaning of "alternative medicine" is not what most readers would take from the simple application of normal rules of English grammar. One meaning is nearly the polar opposite to the other. The scare quotes alert the reader to that fact.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You state "the meaning" is "the opposite" of what "most readers would take". I disagree. I see no reason not to presume most readers comprehend the term correctly; if they are in doubt, they can follow the link. You have given no reason other than your bare assertion, which is insufficient. I am removing the scare quotes. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether Homoeopathy really works or just a placebo effect.

WP:NOTFORUM Brunton (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let me state at the very begining that 'it works'. Let any of the 'non-believing' rationalists under go the following test: 1. Take 30 ml of potentiated mother tincture of Tuberculinum Bov 200 for 10 days by sipping it slowly for 5 minutes. It is supposed to contain 'zero' molecules, no doubt. Simply lt him make note of what happen to him through the 10 days period and 10 days next.. Now we will have the best result. One may try even other medicines like Graphites200, Glonoine200 or psorinum200 or Aconite200. Let them just try. PURE ALCHOHOL!!! is n't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.74.221 (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 1. A mother tincture will contain appreciable amounts of the supposed active ingredient. I also suspect that 30ml of "PURE ALCHOHOL" would have observable effects. 2. What you are proposing is an uncontrolled experiment, from which nothing can be deduced about possible effects of the mother tincture. 3. This talk page is for discussing proposed changes to the Homeopathy article, not for general discussion of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC) I propose this experiment because, the 'zero molecule' tincture will generate precisely same dominating symptoms that the tincture in minutest quantities was supposed to heal. This personally happened to a 'Doctorate' in Chemistry who started out to disprove Homoeopathy and challenged that he would go for blind tests.(He tested potentiated tinctures in Atomic spectroscope, NMR which proved the Tinctures as PURE ALCHOHOL)) He had his 'shocks' of learning starting with Natrum mur 200. His big shock was blind test of same nature with Argentum Nitricum200. (Desiring sweets, fearing heights but desire to jump etc etc) and after hurting himself from jump, he opened his windows of learning, subsequently proving 21 medicines on himself and now became a great Homoeo doctor, healing many big cases(as I have myself witnessed) in Convulsions, Diabetes, TB, Menses problems, Creatinine etc etc. He was a scientist with a big conglomerate in USA for 10 years. Left everything to be a Homoeopath in life. So, I hereby request people to have an open window in their minds.30 ml or 15 ml does not matter. You in fact should dilute it with pure water and sip it as I suggested. Homoeo- A fine, inexpensive system that is capable of helping millions of poor people. Let it live and flourish. For the love of our future generations, at the least. The Pharma giants may disagree and think of only their share value. But where is the cure for common cough and cold? For Creatinine in Blood? Kidney problems? Cancer(It is not just located in those 'affected tissues'! Thats why it keeps coming back)? Head aches? Convulsions? (I am talking abt 'cure'. Not MANAGEMENT or cut and paste technology)How many women with Gynec problems are suffering with 'unending harmone taking' thru out their life? Congenital problems? Anger? Depression? Laziness? My daughter and son are 12 and 7. Never used any other medicines. If I can, anybody can.With a little care. It is true that we come across 'very good' homoeo docs rarely. that is because, too much hardwork and intellect are involved in learning it properly and serve the patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.132.32 (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Do you have reliable sources for any of that? If not, it is not relevant to the article or to this talk page. Brunton (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC) In any case, even if you have sources, the fact that medicine cannot cure certain conditions is not relevant to an article on homoeopathy, and neither is the alleged preoccupation of "the Pharma giants" with their share values (BTW, Boiron seem happy to announce on their website that their share price rose by 75% in 2009). And nor are anecdotes about "great Homoeo doctors" who believe that homoeopathy works. Brunton (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Bringing attention to your ' A mother tincture will contain appreciable amounts of the supposed active ingredient.' No sir, the problem here is, if Mother tincture of 13 C does not have any molecules.(Zero molecules as per 'scientific' reasoning) 200C which is 187 times further diluted at 1:100 with Alchohol will have one(1) in a billion -chance of having 1 molecule in 100 ml of Alchohol So, this can't be right. Yes, even after these dilutions, if the mother tinctures are able to create dominating symptoms of the material(After undergoing the test I suggested)in the Humanbeings,that is what TODAY'S SCIENCE SHOULD PURSUE. AND RESPECT Dr.Hahnemaa's genius. Note, Human beings are the medium of test here. Take 100 volunteers and start the blind tests like I suggested. All, for the good of humanity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.87.250 (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Old Chestnut. A similar “trial” was done back in 1835, and the homeopaths didn't accept the (predictable) outcome, so why would anyone bother to repeat such a trial? This is not a forum (or your blog), so please stop posting your anecdotes and ideas. You're welcome to help improve the article with valid sources, but this isn't the place to proselytise “allopaths”.--Six words (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Replying to 122.175.87.250: A 13C (or 200C) remedy is not a mother tincture. The MT is the undiluted initial preparation from which the diluted remedies are made. Brunton (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I spoke research officers of CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR HOMOEOPATHY RESEARCH www.ccrhindia.org about this discussion.They are surprised that still the basic questions exist. They said they would officially contribute. Till then Bye. and Thanks. Just I state here: ALL I WROTE IS TRUE. NO FICTION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.185.216 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can placebo effect be seen in a 3 month old baby ?

WP:NOTFORUM Brunton (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can placebo effect be seen in a 3 month old baby ? This is my son's case where I saw cure in 5 minutes, honestly(started in 3 sec) First time vaccinated at 11.00am on that day, my baby son developed high fever, skin turned dark and kept his eyes closed(not opening for anything or anybody or any reason), wailing every 5 minutes like wounded animal.Not even drinking water or milk. Not able to see his condition,(he was in my lap) at 9.30 pm, I administered Belladona 30C- 5 pills in one small spoon of water, shook it and took it to his lips and let the first drop touch his lips. With in 3 seconds he opened his eyes(not sleepily but with an expression of 'where did that nectar come from...').Then I gave him the whole spoon of water with medicine. With in next 2 minutes, he became very active, turning his head freely, looking clear eyed and we offered him milk bottle(full feed) and happily after approx 10 minutes, he consumed his milk and finished his bottle. Body temperature turned normal. We shifted him to the bed room and my wife accidentally(Intentionally) caught both his thighs and settlled him in a better position for sleep. He did not wail or even show slightest pain (Before medicine, even if you touch the 'uninjected' thigh or even leg, he would wail verrry loudly). NOw we said 'HAil Hahnemann' and went to sleep, whole episode of vaccination-trauma forgotten. back to business from next day. Explain this in terms of his body weight vs the medicine administered? Not just possible. Just because today's science can not 'measure' it, pl don't conclude saying its 'placebo effect'. It is equal to hanging Galeilio when he said 'earth is round'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.175.74.221 (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 1. This is nothing more than an uncontrolled anecdote. The article uses peer-reviewed reviews of controlled trials as sources. 2. The placebo effect is well known to work on small children and babies, most often in the form of "mummy will kiss it better". The placebo effect has also been observed to work in rats. See Conforti et al. Rat models of acute inflammation: a randomized controlled study on the effects of homeopathic remedies. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2007 Jan 17;7:1, noting the "discrepancies" between the single-blind and double-blind phases. 3. It was a generally established fact in Galileo's time that the world was round. What got Galileo in trouble with the religious (not scientific) authorities was his observations of the moons of Jupiter, his arguments for the heliocentric solar system, and (perhaps most importantly) a book in which he put the Pope's arguments into the mouth of a character called "Simplicio". In any case, to quote Robert Park, "to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right." The evidence from properly conducted studies suggests that Hahnemann was no Galileo. 4. As already noted, this talk page is for discussion of changes to the Homeopathy article, not for general discussion of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Short answer: Yes. Long answer: It’s more like confirmation bias – you’re just seeing what you want to see, i.e. baby acts one way, you give him a homeopathic ‘remedy’, and he acts another way, therefore the homeopathic remedy must be actually doing something, and that something’s good. Ridiculous. Placebo effect and confirmation bias are kind of related. In one, your mind might actually produce some real, measurable effect. In the other, the effect is totally imaginary. Anyway, Brunton is right, this isn’t quite an appropriate discussion to be having here – Talk pages are for discussing articles, not their subjects. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 05:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I facilitated cures for some people recently.1) Subject 13 yr old, suffering from convulsions for last 6 years before . With STRAMONIUM 10M, cured. No recurrence in last 2.5 years.2) Convulsions 38 yr old man. Cured with Arg.Nitricum1M. No recurrence last 3 years.I want to tell them its only placebo effect? There is a man whose creatinine level came down from 10 to 1 in 2 months. What do I tell him? A diabetes patient with 10.5 value coming down to normal in 2 months. Placebo? My wife advised to take EPTOIN for 4 years after cysticercus infection in brain. Cured with Belladonna and Dulcamera (inimicals) in a day.(They were taking all sorts of alloathic medicines for years).So pacebo effect I believe. Since I realize that this is no forum for 'discussion', I shall not write here any more. But I am deeply pained by the fact that www.wikipedia.org, which people believe will impart knowledge: will deliver wrong message to millions by carrying a negative info filled article(starting from para 3)and continue to EDIT OUT all criticism stating their own 'formulated' rules. How sad!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.185.216 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and neutrality issues

Several users have stated that the paragraph needs improvement. Please respond and improve the article taking into account their suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Try to be a bit less vague: what paragraph are we talking about? Which suggestions have been made and not taken into account? --Six words (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on where you put the tag I would assume you meant the lead was the problem. I don't see any undue issues with it. Millahnna (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a dichotomy among the researchers on the effectiveness of homeopathy and the interpretation of primary studies and meta analyses. This is one concern. Give me some hours and I will show you specific examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE while you gather your response, paying particular attention to the points on relying on secondary sources such as review articles (and not juxtaposing primary articles to try to debunk secondary reviews) and which describe which sources are to be used - we rely on high quality peer-reviewed research. Tempted to remove tag but will wait until I see examples given. Yobol (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Also keep in mind Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, particularly the point about not using tempate messages as a Badge of shame. Given the number of times we've had this discussion without any real sources coming up, I'd like a 24 hour maximum limit on the tag. If nothing surfaces in that time, it should come off. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Brunton (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a controversy on the interpretation of the high quality studies. There are 3 positions.

1.Homeopaths ; who say that the meta analyses somehow prove their therapy and that individualized homeopathy differs from placebo giving specific examples. 2. Researchers and skeptics from the mainstream majority point of view who say that it is non sense and placebo. 3. Some researchers who say that it is not proven and but it is not only placebo.

Only #2 is stated. The other points of view are not there )not as the majority view but just as minority views - appropriately weighted. Hence , my concern and objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC) Should I cite sources for this? They are well known but I could if you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to cite specifics, did you look at wp:undue? Can you provide high quality sources that state an opinion that you feel is not represented at the appropriate level in the article or lede? Until this is done there is no reason to tag the article, removing it again and you need to look at [[wp:3rr]. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

you have to wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. The onus is on you to produce sources, you don't get to just tag an article and tell the rest of us to "wait." Produce what we have asked for, or stop placing the template on the article. It should be removed until you produce a high quality source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to kindly wait. You may be professional editor but i m not. I showed you my concern. I will give you the sources. The other editors said they can wait for 24 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You have got 10 hours max, or until someone else comes along and removes it sooner. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

that;s so kind;thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

1 Shang's study in the lancet and more in the article : Mainstream view (kind of- since many MDs at least in Europe they don't practice it but they don't reject it either ) 2. Vithoulkas 's view about the complexity and the bias of the meta studies and analyses. http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/186/9/lang,en/ 3. LInde's view "Shang and colleagues's conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement". this is from a letter to the lancet from Linde you can subscribe and read it for free.

There are high quality sources. I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see the difference between a peer review meta study published in a international medical journal, versus a guys website, and a letter to the editor? Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Vithoulkas website Linde and Jonas letter are not peer reviewed, and the Vithoulkas letter was not even published. Can you produce a peer reviewed systematic review or meta-analysis which concludes that homoeopathy works better than placebo? Brunton (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm still confused how the lead has undue weight problems; since that's the paragraph indicated by the tag and all. Millahnna (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if there are letters to the editor to the Lancet. The fact remains: These are different views which reflect the controversy among researchers on homeopathy;s meta studies and you want them out of the article for no reason.? VIthoulkas is a famous homeopath and has his own entry in wikipedia. His opinion on homeopathy;s effectiveness doe not count ?This is not reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you really need to read up on wikipedia policy. It matters very much where a source is published, how it is published, and who publishes it. A peer reviewed meta study in a major international medical journal will always trump some guys website no matter how "famous" he is in homeopathic circles. Without sources of similar quality to the meta review, I see no reason that any changes should be made to any section, let alone the lede. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So your main concern is that the article doesn't say “homeopaths believe homeopathy works”? That pretty much goes without saying, doesn't it? --Six words (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)::

No. The article should present their opinion on why they believe it works or why they believe it does not tested correctly. you still don't respond to the actual concern. It is not only the peer reviewed meta studies in major international medical journals but the controversy about them as long as this appears in reliable sources. like the Lancet or even the press.

Please provide specific changes you would like to make to the article, give us the sentences you wish to add and where you want to add them. Then give us the sources you would use to support those sentences. I personally see nothing worth adding from the sources you have provided. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will do. As I said It is not only the peer reviewed meta studies in major international medical journals but the controversy about them as long as this appears in reliable sources. like the Lancet or even the press. Readers should also know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

When even robtex gives Vitholkas' website a poor reputation, one wonders why we'd waste any time on it. His claim that he sent the letter to Lancet doesn't seem to be supported by any other source, and I see no indication that it was ever published by any other publisher. Hence it is, at best, self-published. On its face it has gross errors, such as the incorrectly spelled author names in the listed references. It doesn't come close to meeting wp:MEDRS, and should be ignored for this discussion and for the article. Konzept has yet to answer the direct questions posed above. Until we get an actionable proposal to edit in or out some article text, the tag should come off. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User leadsongdog and all : 1. Vithoulkas is a famous homeopath and thats why there is an article about him in wikepedia. He is self published but that does not mean that his opinion on homeopathy's effectiveness does not count. Furthermore the article on Homeopathy makes a direct reference and criticism to him ; therefore his opinions are notable and relevant . Linde 's objection to the Lancet ( published ) on Shang study is just shows a controversy among the researchers which is too big to be ignored. Please. How many editors need to tell you that the entire thing is biased and unbalanced in order to start suspecting that something is wrong here? Your approach is totally irrational, emotional and weakens the skeptical point of view for homeopathy. The only reason that the article remains in this state is because you block or threaten to block everybody who point out these facts.

I will retag the article. It is fair the readers to know that some editors disagree with this biased approach. I will make suggestions in a while. --Konzept1933 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fame of an author doesn't matter on wikipedia. Certainly an anonymous wikipedia editor's opinion on his fame doesn't matter. What does matter is that unpublished letters cannot be verified per wp:V nor are they reliable per wp:RS. If and when you find support for his claims that is 1)a review or other secondary source per wp:PSTS, 2)published as such in quality peer-reviewed journal, then it might have a chance of meeting the standard of wp:MEDRS. If you had taken the trouble to read the above comments, you would know that. Still, if you really can't accespt what you are being told here, you are always welcome to raise the question at the reliable sources noticeboard. Removing the unjustified tag.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Leadsongdog this is published in vithoulkas;s website Did yo read the article you are defending? .Again there is an entire paragraph to criticize his statements you have chosen . Is he notable enough to be criticized and have his own article but not notable enough to include his own opinions on the subject eh? And Linde 's objection to the Lancet ( published ) on Shang study which shows a controversy among the researchers is also not notable enough or irrelevant or what? The Lancet is not good enough for you? --Konzept1933 (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point, until you provide specific changes to the text of the article there is not much point in this conversation. You have your opinion of the sources and the article, but that is meaningless until you provide us with specific changes you would like to see made to the article. Those specific changes can be reviewed based on wikipedia policy and the sources you provide to back them up. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will do. It is not so bad though to accept that you make a mistake. You know that I m right. No editor responded rationally to the above concerns about the censored Vithoulkas' s and Linde's objections.--Konzept1933 (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was explained to you in detail multiple times. Anyway, we are all waiting for your specific changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You say that there are "Some researchers who say that it is not proven and but it is not only placebo." To establish this you will need to provide references to published systematic reviews or meta-analyses that conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo. A letter criticising the conclusion of another study is not sufficient. Brunton (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh brother…. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 13:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No I don't have to do that Brunton. It is not that the point. Wikipedia requires that you have to report whatever controversies exist on a subject as long as there is evidence published in reliable sources. Here you have a objection letter in the Lancet ( stating that homeopathy is not only placebo and it not proven as well) by researchers who are considered notable and important and whose research and quotes are used in the article. So you have to report it. Do you understand that? --Konzept1933 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is not a reliable source. If he's done some scientific studies that are peer reviewed and haven't been dismissed as flawed in some way, well that would be a valid source. Millahnna (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A letter to the editor to the LAncet by the people the article quotes in many paragraphs is not a reliable source and evidence of a controversy which must be reported according to wikipedia policy?--Konzept1933 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on your specific changes. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Here you have a objection letter in the Lancet ( stating that homeopathy is not only placebo..." No, the letter does not say that homoeopathy is not only placebo. It claims that the conclusion of Shang that their findings "provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects" is an overstatement because of limitations in the study design. That is not the same thing; it is comment about a specific study, not a general comment about homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's undue weight to put the opinion of a single person, even a noted homeopath, in the lead when it's just a letter to the editor. Per WP:MEDRS, systemic reviews, Cochrane collaborations, meta-analyses etc. are the best sources. They are negative. Some guy's opinion, particularly if not published as a journal article, is not worth including in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy#Revival in the late 20th century

Is it possible to add sth about situation outside of USA? Bulwersator (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Need sources, plus it may never have died off, therefore never revived, in other places. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Regulation and prevalence" article linked from that subsection has some information about recent history, particularly in the UK. In view of this and the current length of the Homeopathy article it is probably best to keep the "Revival..." subsection fairly brief and include more detail in the other article. Brunton (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Text duplication

"In 1978, Anthony Campbell, then a consultant physician at The Royal London Homeopathic Hospita"(...) It is duplicated (it belongs to both sections, but similar duplication is rather not the best idea). Bulwersator (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Should anecdotes counter to homeopathy be included?

In the section "Ethical and safety issues", (2nd para, 10th line et seq.), I see:

"Also, in one case in 2004, a homeopath instructed one of her patients to stop taking conventional medication .... The patient was admitted to hospital ... and died eight days later.....[152][153]"

Which looks , well, rather anecdotal to me, so would seem to be counter to NPOV (since anecdote is generally not permitted in support of homeopathic claims). Am I wrong here?

Also, "the final diagnosis being acute heart failure due to treatment discontinuation" would seem to be very much opinion, albeit highly respected opinion. In logic, of course, there is no proof that said patient would definitely have survived given continuing conventional medication.

One might speculate (within the boundaries of that thought) that, as an alternative hypothesis, the death could have been a result of unwanted effects of the conventional treatment already received, or other external (or internal) cause.

The learned view of the medical enquiry might just possibly have been a tad biased, too, coming from a faction whose advice had not been followed. That too, is speculation, but not, I hope, an unreasonable notion.

The details of this case seem rather strange and atypical, however, and could not be proposed as a general occurrence (IMHO).

Perhaps a new rule to keep some semblance of unbiased order here, that anecdotal accusations should not be used either way? BLaChenal (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Although it may 'look anecdotal', it is linked to a reliable source (a UK national newspaper) which is reporting on the findings of an investigating tribunal. An excerpt from the report: 'A woman who gave up conventional heart medication on the advice of her homeopath made a "catastrophic" decision, a medical tribunal heard yesterday. The patient, from London, collapsed and died of a heart attack during a visit to France. Her death came within months of Dr Marisa Viegas telling her stop taking all the medication prescribed by cardiac specialists.' This is relevant and from a reliable source, i.e. not anecdotal. --TraceyR (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And walks like an anecdote, and quacks like an anecdote. Clearly skeptics like an anecdote, too, expanded from reliable sources, selectively quoted; but it looks to me as if the Wiki-reader is being invited to make a Faulty generalization. BLaChenal (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not anecdote, and trying to brush them aside in that way is poor behaviour. These are the supported findings of investigations. There is no parity between "anecdotes" here. Verbal chat 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a thread regarding this at WP:EAR#Homeopathy. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The tribunal's findings about the then Dr. Viegas can be found here. The tribunal suspended her medical registration for 12 months; I have read elsewhere (no reliable source yet) that Viegas was subsequently struck off the UK medical register because she still considered that she had been right to advise the patient to discontinue her heart disease medication. --TraceyR (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth. This may be helpful http://webcache.gmc-uk.org/minutesfiles/Viegas%20%28M%20rev%29%2011%20June%202008%20-%20PUBLIC%20ANON.htm This is the from the official page of the GMC, and it's often quite useful for tracking down medical miscreants in Britain Max Quordlepleen (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops. You already had that. I feel silly now. sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Quordlepleen (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's the second decision from 2008, not the 2007 one we already had. Brunton (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between an anecdote and a case study. Anecdote refers to a story, generally lacking in evidence told in a subjective sense. A case study refers to a collection of facts and evidence told in as close to an objective sense as possible. Conflating the two is incorrect. Rmosler | ● 06:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

[<---undent] As far as the inclusion of documented examples of individual cases like this is concerned, this is not really comparable with anecdotal accounts being used to support efficacy. The "Ethical and safety issues" section cites reliable sources, and the examples used as illustrations do not contradict them (in any case, this sort of thing can hardly be investigated under controlled conditions because people have a tendency to behave themselves when they know they are being watched). Anecdotal accounts of miraculous cures, however, would flatly contradict the evidence from well-conducted and peer-reviewed analyses of controlled trials. Brunton (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Luc Montagnier

As a Nobel laureate, French virologist Luc Montagnier's suggestion that there could be a firm scientific foundation for homeopathy is clearly notable: [18] I therefore propose that we examine ways of making mention of it in this article. Vitaminman (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See archive.--Six words (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-peer reviewed. If this were an article on virology or viruses, maybe his popular speculations would be applicable. Since it's not... There's lots of speculation on how homeopathy could work, but it's still not settled that it does work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See also the archive. Brunton (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the lead to include Linde and other scientists objection to the statement that Homeopathy is only a placebo therapy

Other scientists report that Homeopathy has not been proven as a therapy pointing out that " the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement" --Konzept1933 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I have proposed the above change. I see different people reveritng me without even bothering to look at the talk page let alone participate in the discussion and read the sources. No one threatens to block them. Interesting.--Konzept1933 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this addition as it is unsourced (referring to the talk page is inadequate). Please refer to WP:CITE.Yobol (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with letter published in the Lancet please ask for help from wikipedia administrators. It is a reliable source and the writers are quoted in the current form of the article. The letter can be found if you subscribe to the Lancet and it is free of charge.--Konzept1933 (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a fact tag to it (it had already been replaced), but on reflection quoting this single specific letter in the lead (which does not even quote the study it is commenting on) is giving it seriously undue weight. I'm removing it again. If it is to be replaced anywhere it should be in a section of the article specifically relating to discussion of the specific paper it is commenting on, and even there it needs to be in proportion to discussion of the study. The lead is supposed to briefly summarise the main points of the article, so is not really the place for this sort of specific point about a specific study. Brunton (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you add something similar and more generalized showing the controversy I will remove the tag. Agree. Suggest something and we will talk again.--Konzept1933 (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no real scientific controversy here - none of the published systematic reviews or meta-analyses reports an unequivocal finding that homoeopathy works better than placebo, apart from the 1997 Linde paper, which was described by Linde et al as having "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments" in their 1999 reanalysis of the same data, thus effectively retracting this conclusion (Edzard Ernst reports that in a recent article in Der Spiegel, "Klaus Linde, the first author of a much-cited, positive meta-analysis (Linde et al, Lancet 1997) is quoted as saying 'we can no longer uphold our conclusions, because positive results can be caused by bias'"). The findings of Shang et al are directly compatible with the findings of Linde et al 1999 and Cucherat et al 2000 that higher quality studies tend to be less positive. The only "controversy" is caused by homoeopaths not liking the results. Brunton (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE seems to imply that this single letter certainly has no business in the lede. Maybe in the article body about the actual study, but is questionable, and deserving of only passing mention at most. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see a citation to this letter, it seems to me the onus is on the person proposing the changes to provide a citation before anything can even be discussed. Speaking in generalities, a letter to the editor when compared to multiple secondary studies seems like an WP:UNDUE would preclude it. We shouldn't include primary studies to rebut secondary sources, I don't see why we would include letters to the editors. Yobol (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Konzept would state clearly whether xhe has yet read wp:V, wp:RS, wp:MEDRS and wp:UNDUE. From the above discussion it certainly seems otherwise. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The letter is at The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9503, Pages 2081 - 2082, 17 December 2005, and has already been discussed on this page ad nauseam - see the archives. It starts "We congratulate Aijing Shang and colleagues on their meta-analysis examining the clinical effects of homoeopathy. Their methods largely reproduce those of our meta-analysis on the same topic published in The Lancet 8 years ago. We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." In any case it isn't a suitable source for the lead, or for the purpose Konzept1933 is trying to use it for, because quite apart from it being a letter to the editor rather than a peer-reviewed study, it is a comment on a specific paper and not a statement about homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not reasonable and according to the principles of editing in wikipedia. When you have different point of views published in the same reliable source you owe to report it, Period. You use LInde to show that homeopathy does not really work but you don't want to use him when he objects to the Lancet that the notion that homeopathy is mainly placebo is an overstatement. That 's a ridiculously strong bias. --Konzept1933 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A letter is not "the same reliable source" as the article it is commenting on, and the fact that Linde is an author of RS papers does not mean that everything he writes counts as a RS. The article uses peer-reviewed secondary sources, as per policy. If you want a statement of this sort to be included in the article you will need to find a published systematic review or meta-analysis that supports it. Brunton (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Brunton that's false and you know it. The article uses all sorts of reliable sources to support different statements. Even the press different books etc. Not only meta studies and peer reviewed papers. Besides that yes everything Linde and Jonas write and is getting published in the Lancet counts as a reliable source. Their opinion on Homeopathy differs. They object Shangs findings. And you for metaphysical reasons you want to cover it up? --Konzept1933 (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You are attacking other editors in a personal manner now, you should always wp:assume good faith in discussions. We have pointed out why WP policy doesn't support what you want to see added. Every other editor here has disagreed with you, perhaps it is not us that needs to adjust our perspective? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I m not attacking anyone. If you look at archives you will see several editors objecting to the bias and the inaccuracy of the article. WP policy says every view has to be included as long it appears in a reliable source. --Konzept1933 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to take issue with the statement "WP policy says every view has to be included as long it appears in a reliable source." This is untrue. Per policy WP:UNDUE inclusion of concepts in articles is not only due to the ability to provide reliable sources, but also the degree of the acceptance of the viewpoint. Per Jimbo Wales "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." While this may not immediately appear notable due to this article being said ancillary article, taking this statement into consideration casts severe doubt on the thought that policy requires the inclusion of every view as long as it can be sourced. In addition I take issue with the attempt to compare a peer reviewed article in a respected journal with a non-peer reviewed letter to the editor in the same journal. There is a major difference, least of all in the inclusion of peer review in the journal article. Rmosler | ● 06:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Their opinion on Homeopathy differs"? Do you have any source in which they say that homoeopathy works better than placebo? The letter, in case you hadn't noticed, doesn't say this. Using the quotation from the letter outside the context of the study it was commenting on, as in your suggested change, risks giving the impression that they have concluded that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. And, seriously, using a letter to contradict the systematic reviews on which the article bases its account of the scientific evidence is giving the letter hugely undue weight. Brunton (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The position of the article is that "Homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect is unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence" based on the results of the systematic reviews you refer to. Linde's position is that Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.. This is a different view of the systematic meta studies. If you don't mention it you give the false impression that Linde agrees with Shang that meta analyses show that homeopathy is mainly placebo. There is no reason you have to cover it up. --Konzept1933 (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If we don't include it we give no impression whatsoever about Linde's opinion on Shang. Meta-analyses and reviews carried out by Linde have results that are entirely consistent with Shang - they fail to demonstrate conclusively that homoeopathy has effects beyond placebo, and find that higher quality research is more likely to be negative. This is entirely consistent with the article's position. If you want Linde's findings about homoeopathy you need to look at the reported results of the research he has done, not a comment about somebody else's work. The comment about Shang is a comment about the conclusion of that particular paper in view of the methods and findings of that particular paper - it is not a statement of a position about the efficacy of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FIrst of all Linde meta analyses differs from Shang. Linde says that "If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered." The article supposes to present all the views on the evidence about Homeopathy and its criticisms as well.This is an important objection to the Shang from Linde part and has a significant weight: it is not by a fringe homeopath but from a mainstream group of researchers. Their opinion should count in an article like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, that is a quotation from the letter discussing the methodology of Shang - it is not a report of the results of Linde's meta-analyses of the evidence for homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Some light reading WP:SPA Shot info (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, but a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion and/or advocacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konzept1933 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep reading - and welcome to Wikipedia. Shot info (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

On an aside, can you sign all your posts with four tildes? Thanks Shot info (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Brunton : Why wikipedia should not report all the criticism of the meta analyses which regards homeopathy as a placebo therapy since they are coming from a highly regarded group of researchers and published in the Lancet ? Give me reasons. Why criticism of meta analyses from such a reliable and exceptional source should be censored? --Konzept1933 (talk) 10:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It was reverted because you were attempting to put it in the lead, which does not actually mention or quote Shang (although it cites it as a source), so the comment was being taken out of context. It does not contradict the well supported statement in the lead that homeopathy's efficacy beyond the placebo effect is unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence, and is going into too much detail for a lead, which is supposed to summarise the contents of the article, not introduce new material. It is a comment on the methodology of a specific paper and as such belongs, if anywhere, with discussion of that specific paper. Even there it needs to be given appropriate weight wrt its context. Brunton (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Shang analysis did not "regard homeopathy as a placebo therapy" - it concluded that its findings were compatible with the apparent effects of homoeopathy being placebo effects. Brunton (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has all sorts of things for the new editor to have a read of to help them edit better - WP:LEDE, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT. And of course the lot WP:LOP. Shot info (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this user refuses to read the policy and guideline links that have been provided. Until xhe does so, I suggest DFTT pertains. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you are not interested in giving e a rational answer to the specific questions which have been raised not only by me but by different users. Wikipedia policy Bruton requires that one reports all the views as long there is reasonable evidence - it does not say it should be a meta analyses or metastudy. Of course the collective weight is an unsupported statement since it gives the false impression that all researchers hold the same view and are in agreement that homeopathy is a placebo therapy . Linde disputes the Shang's conclusion. A strong criticism of Shang in the Lancet is more that reasonable and automatically qualifies for inclusion. Let's start by adding it in the article and then we will see how it affects the lead.--Konzept1933 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That addition just seems like a massive WP:UNDUE violation to me. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You should give reasons. Is the Lancet a poor source or Linde is not notable?--Konzept1933 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a violation of the WP:UNDUE part of WP:NPOV. We do not rebut secondary reviews with letters to the editor, especially when the overwhelming consensus contradicts the letter. Yobol (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. You have to report the criticism of a study if it s coming from important scientists whose objection appears in the Lancet. That ;s the policy. Report all the views to the proportion of their prominence in reliable sources. --Konzept1933 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote the policy that says that criticisms of studies by letters in the Lancet have to be reported? Brunton (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you quote the policy that says that criticisms of studies by letters in the Lancet should not be reported? "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"."--Konzept1933 (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Do you understand that peer-reviewed sources should be given more weight than sources that are not peer-reviewed? And by the way, I'm not claiming that it is a policy that Letters in the Lancet should not be used. You are the one claiming "that's the policy" - it's up to you to back it up. Brunton (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FIrst of all the letter is from Linde and Jonas. It is not a letter from one person but from a group of researchers they published almost half of the meta-anelyses. Then finally we agree on its inclusion and we are now discussing the weight. As long as we refer to the actual objection of Linde and Jonas to the Shang study we can discuss the weight. For the time being you want to cover it objections up completely.--Konzept1933 (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it is "from a group of researchers" because it is not part of their research. The quotation you want to introduce only exists in the context of the study it criticizes. If it is to be included, it still needs to be given appropriate weight wrt the peer-reviewed study. And, of course, it cannot be used to support any statement that Linde and Jonas have found homoeopathy to be more effective than placebo because it is not a published research finding, and it doesn't say that. Brunton (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the reason they object the study is stated ( homeopathy being a placebo therapy is an overstatement and not backed up by the data) it is fine with me.--Konzept1933 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What they say in the letter is that the conclusion is not supported by the methodology of the study. Brunton (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is not supported by the data and the methodology" ,They also say that there is evidence that in some conditions homeopathy ( and conventional medicine) both work. --Konzept1933 (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No one has justified this per wp:undue, this letter to the editor is now getting more coverage than the metastudy. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is not a WP:MEDRS and should not be in the lead, particularly since it contradicts the converging mainstream opinion based on high-quality research that homeopathy is a placebo. Konzept1933, consensus is clearly against you. Your edits are indeed, from what I can tell, not in keeping with WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:V. You appear to think that wikipedia is here to promote the truth about homeopathy. It is not. Let it go, you are very, very obviously wasting your time. Keep it up and you will be blocked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems there's a bit of tension here, which, given the somewhat contentious history of this article, is not terribly surprising. To voice a brief opinion, talking about other users being blocked doesn't seem appropriate given the emotional involvement on both sides. The emotional attachment to the issue on both sides appears to be affecting the weight granted to specific materials. The notability of material related to the subject determines its inclusion or exclusion from a relevant article. In my opinion, this generally means the debate here should be centred around the specific notability of whatever material is involved. If notability is sufficiently proven as per WP guidelines, then the material should be included in some form. If it does not meet those guidelines, then it shouldn't be included and that's that. This being one of the most contested discussion 'spaces' on wikipedia, please try to remember the strongly held opinions on both sides and realise we're all editors here to make a better encyclopaedia. I don't often wade into the middle of a heated discussion, but all of the editors involved seem to have good intentions. --Xaliqen (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're all irritated that someone is insisting, against very visible consensus and with no support from any other editor, that a letter to the editor deserves a position in the lead, and despite this, continues edit warring. That is where the block comment came from.

Also, sources are reliable, not notable. Per WP:MEDRS, which has been cited several times, a meta-analysis is essentially the best, most reliable source of information available; a letter to the editor simply is not comparable, particularly not for the lead. Particularly irksome is a single purpose account who shows no familiarity with our policies and mores cherry picking one low-quality source and repeatedly citing it against consensus as if it somehow trumps all six of the other sources appended to the point [19]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My comment related to notability is specifically about claims from various sides of the argument. If a claim is notable in that it comes from a source identified as such, is relevant to the context of the article and/or achieved notoriety within the community in question, then it should be included as a notable claim with the appropriate sources and references used to verify notability. A claim doesn't have to be reliable in the scientific sense in order to represent a notable argument. Since the article is encyclopaedic, it will necessarily include information a scientific article would not include in order to represent the notable claims about a specific subject or belief. At the same time, unscientific information should not be presented in a false light suggesting scientific veracity. Inclusion of a notable claim is, of course, different from endorsing it. As for whether the current 'letter to the editor' is notable, I'm not commenting on that issue. In order to avoid any unnecessary confusion, I thought it necessary to clarify my intent related to the subject of notability in my original comment. --Xaliqen (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that using the letter in the lead like this could give the impression that there are researchers who have found that homoeopathy works better than placebo. It doesn't say that - it is a comment on whether the methodology of a particular study supports its conclusion. It is not a statement about the efficacy of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)