Talk:Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I've taken the initiative and created this article as a main subarticle for Homeopathy (which at 109 kB was getting way too long), using the heading there as a LEAD here, but duplicating it as a summary of this article, within the homeopathy page. Fiddling with both may be done as necessary, but this is a first pass fix. SBHarris 05:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Jefffire (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
i agree that it looks very good. however i think that the outline of Great BRiains past homoepathy prevalence could be merged into the section on Great Britain to make it more consistnefct. Smith Jones (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Allopathy as an undesirable synonym for modern medicine[edit]

SJ, I think it might be advisable to use a word other than allopathic medicine which is regarded by many mainstream docs as derogatory, a term of abuse. Just a thought, cheers Peter morrell 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if Smith Jones actually used the word here; it seems that on this page he didn't. But it is mentioned in several places, including the Germany section that I wrote. The reason is that it is one of the terms used in the WHO report, and I tried to cite them as correctly as possible, in the first iteration. (That's also the reason for the clumsy "alternative/complementary medicine" wording.) --Hans Adler (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but 'mainstream medicine' might be a preferable term? Peter morrell 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fine for me, although I suspect that the WHO had good reasons not to use it. Of course, if it was because in some countries it's not mainstream, then it wouldn't really affect us that much. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
i dont think that i have use d the phrase "allopathic medicine" either here or on this article tiself. however i agree with your point about it being seen as derogatory and we should only mention it if necessary fto make the subject clearer. Smith Jones (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to second this: Allopathy is not a good synonym for "medicine as taught in regular medical schools." For one thing, the so-called allopaths in this sense have never actually followed the principles ascribed to them. Hahnemann's main complaint with them was actually their empiricism: a steady refusal to follow beautiful theories instead of their ugly data.
For another, there are true allopaths in the world (including most herbalists, although they don't use that name), and I suspect that they cringe every time they see allopathy mischaracterized as (for example) prescribing synthetic ethinyl estradiol for hot flashes instead of wild yam.
Finally, the prevalence of these two different uses varies by country, and we should not assume that "my" default interpretation of this ambiguous term is the same as all of our readers.
Obviously, we should never change direct quotes. However, in our own writing, we also shouldn't use ambiguous terms like this whenever we can avoid them. WP:WTA#Words with controversial or multiple meanings applies directly to this situation. I will try to remove a few unnecessary instances of this word in a minute; I'd appreciate it if someone else would see what other improvements could be easily made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by this phrase: Hahnemann's main complaint with them was actually their empiricism: a steady refusal to follow beautiful theories instead of their ugly data?? What 'ugly data?' whose 'beautiful theories?' he detested theories and would have been flattered to be termed an out and out empiricist. Your claim is odd. I never had that impression, can you please expand on your idea, preferably with some evidence? thanks Peter morrell 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with what Thomas Huxley called the "Tragedy of Science"? It is "the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact." As for Hahnemann's emphasis on the importance of theory, these may give you a different view:
  • "Hahnemann published only two cases in his long career, preferring that his students focus on the principles" instead of practical efficacy
  • Hahnemann rejected many then-current medical treatments "more on principle rather than because he had personally investigated each of them very thoroughly through first-hand use and found them wanting....If the theories were wrong, then all methods based on them were also wrong. This is flawed reasoning, however, as some methods might have worked but for very different reasons."
  • He "asserts that the true 'powers of the different medicines in the materia medica,' [Organon, xv] can only be reliably determined by testing 'their effects on the healthy human body,' [Organon, xv] and never 'from impure experiences at the sick bed'" -- entirely opposite from what modern people consider the highest proof of efficacy: that very practical "experience at the sick bed".
  • 'The third point is "upon principles that are at once plain and intelligible." This means law, it means fixed principles ; it means a law as certain as that of gravitation; not guess work, empiricism, or roundabout methods, or a cut-and-dried use of drugs as laid down by the last manufacturer. Our principles have never changed, they have always been the same and will remain the same. To become acquainted with these principles and doctrines, with fixed knowledges, with exactitude or method, to become acquainted with medicines that never change their properties, and to become acquainted with their action, is the all-important aim in homoeopathic study.'
  • According to Hahnemann, allopathy never followed any guidelines but was and still is based on experience. There is no real system and the theories change with every new one arising. Whereas homeopathy is, as Stuart Close put it, „A system of medicine based upon natural laws“. Now why is it important to have a system? If there is no system, there are no rules to obey, there is no direction and therefore there is just blind searching for the goal, guesswork – „theoretic medicine“ as Hahnemann said."
There is no question in my mind but that the state of medicine -- any style of medicine -- during Hahnemann's lifetime was horrible. Certainly some of the people he derided deserved most of the charges he laid at their doors, plus more. Some of them were even true allopaths (a statement that can't be made accurately about any modern physician). Some physicians were also astrologers, shamans, and more. However, these failings didn't make Hahnemann reject the notion of overarching principles and theories; to the contrary, it made him search diligently for the correct principles and theories, to reject effective treatments because of the theory ascribed to them, and to attempt to elevate his system of medicine to the Olympian honors generally accorded to the previous system.
Perhaps I use empiricism differently from you; I believe that some authors who write about homeopathy draw a very fine line between empiricism and rationalism, and I do not.
None of this, however, is especially important: the word allopathy can be used to mean more than one thing, and as a service to our readers, we should generally choose unambiguous terms when possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The ambiguities of the term allopathy are already in wiki in the relevant article so I think the word is OK. It has a range of meanings and they are all mentioned in the article about allopathic medicine, so I think the rest is tangential cruft. Nobody has yet come up with a better one, so until that time this encyclopedia can legitimately reflect the term's common use. I disagree with your simplistic rendition of Hahnemann's views and of the allopathic status of medicine both then and now, but it is perhaps futile here to pursue this thread. Cobbling together a few quotes (some not even attributable to Hahnemann himself, but to some of his successors) to support one's views is frowned upon here as synthesis and original research. thanks Peter morrell 08:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have only provided this information because you specifically asked for evidence that Hahnemann was dedicated to theory. Such evidence clearly exists, and this aspect of his work is clearly accepted by a number of his contemporaries as well as modern homeopaths and scholars who have studied his writings. It is equally clear that this documented aspect of his life's work forms no part of your POV.
I do not propose adding this information to this article. I consider it irrelevant to this article, in fact. Therefore WP:OR is completely inapplicable.
What is applicable is WP:AVOID. The very first thing that guideline mentions is the importance of avoiding ambiguous terms. You have agreed that allopathic is an ambiguous term. Therefore, we should make reasonable(!) efforts to avoid using it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. What this encyclopedia should be doing is providing information on all terms in current use INCLUDING aspects of their ambiguity. That is already covered with this term. Your previous comments re Hahnemann are indeed irrelevant. So exactly what are you beefing on about? Peter morrell 01:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article has to be renamed[edit]

The word prevalence is unnecessary abstract. A better word would be usage. The word legality is not the correct term. It should be regulation or something similar. The phrase "around the world" should not appear in the title of the article. It is presumed that all articles in the English Wikipedia have a global scope (Englihs is the new Latin). My suggestion is: Usage and regulation of homeopathy. MaxPont (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain further, as it is not clear from what you say why it HAS to be renamed. I prefer the word prevalence to usage. What is your objection to prevalence? Peter morrell 09:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry. I had no intention of being confrontational. MaxPont (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
MaxPont's post sounds unnecessarily combative to me, but I think I have found out what happened. Max, if you are a bit cross I guess it has to do with the fact that the use of "prevalence" and "legality" can be seen as putting homeopathy in the company of diseases and seems to imply that it may actually be illegal. Moreover, except for Peter's response your comment about this at Talk:Homeopathy#New World Data on Those who "Trust Homeopathy" has been ignored. These things are unfortunate, but I think neither of them comes from an actual intent to discredit homeopathy by association. (Personally I just didn't see your post, since I am no longer interested in that thread. I think it would be out of character for Peter morrell or Sbharris (who created this article) to imply such things intentionally to discredit homeopathy. I am quite hopeful that we can find a consensus here, and to that end I will first describe what I think are the problems here.
prevalence: In ordinary language this is usually a synonym for dominance, which is misleading here. In scientific language it means exactly what we are talking about: how widespread something is. The question of how widespread something is is asked mainly in epidemiology. Epidemiology has a theoretical part that is sometimes applied to positive or neutral things as well as to diseases, and for scientists it is obvious that the right thing to do is to use the word "prevalence" in this wider context as well.
We have two problems here. 1. Some people are not familiar with the scientific use of the word and think of dominance. 2. Strong negative connotations of the word from its use in epidemiology. This is reinforced by the fact many dictionaries define prevalence (somewhat incorrectly) as if it could only be applied to diseases.
legality: Legality is about whether something conforms to law. In this case the obvious reading seems to be whether or not homeopathy is legal, and perhaps to what extent people who practise homeopathy conform to the laws.
This is not what this article is about. From only reading the title a reader must currently get the impression that there is a significant number of countries in which homeopathy is actually illegal. (Are there any? Then they should be mentioned in the article.) --Hans Adler (talk) 10:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I can add more of an explanation. In my opinion, prevalence is too abstract without adding precision, and legality is not the correct term (regulation is). MaxPont (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would definitely say that, unless reference can be made to significant numbers of countries where homoeopathy is actually illegal, "legality" is not appropriate. The subject matter of the page at present is usage and regulation. Brunton (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition: in the future this article would be the place to add market data (total size of the market for homeo products in various countries, etc.) Maybe that should also be indicated in the article title. MaxPont (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
When I first read the title I thought I had a better suggestion. But it turns out that the German word I had in mind, which is a bit like "widespreadness", translates exactly to prevalence. I think I can see why Peter doesn't like "usage", but I don't have a better suggestion. I suppose there is no doubt that "regulation" is better than "legality". I think it's even better than "legal status", the term used by the WHO in a similar situation.
I think the marked data are covered by "prevalence"/"usage". But we could try to find a common generalisation of the two aspects. How about "Status of homeopathy by country"? --Hans Adler (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "prevalence" because this word has more meaning that "use" (and it includes it), and I also prefer "legality" to "regulation" because legality includes regulation and is more. DanaUllmanTalk 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Prevalence is a specific word, but not a common one. The problem with "usage" is that it can be misunderstood in the same ways as "practice" to refer to praxis rather than geolocation. What we want is not just "usage" but "geographic usage"-- the closest synonym I can think of to locational prevalence. As for chronological prevalence, see below. Ah well, this is how articles naturally grow and multiply on Wikipedia. It's not paper. SBHarris 00:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence over time[edit]

Here is a radical idea. This article is about the synchronic heterogeneity of homeopathy, but there is also an interesting diachronic heterogeneity. E.g. around 1850, homeopathy was the leading alternative form of medicine in the US, with the number of homeopathic physicians being 1/10 the number of mainstream physicians. There are anecdotes about the wives of mainstreams physicians seeking treatment from, or being, homeopaths. 100 years later almost nothing was left. (All according to Whorton.) Why not present both aspects in one article. I am interested in starting an article on the history of homeopathy anyway. It could begin with a general outline, followed by sections about the history of homeopathy in various parts of the world. I think there is potential here for a large article, and that stressing the present a bit more than usual in a "history" article shouldn't be a big problem. So a solution could be to rename this article as History of homeopathy and add the appropriate content. Incidentally, I think that we need more relatively central articles of this kind, in order to get a culture in which editors interested in homeopathy and nothing much more can learn the principles of WP including conflict resolution in a somewhat calmer and more productive atmosphere. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want that then you should start a new article called history of homeopathy period. not sure how much support you will get for that. thanks Peter morrell 13:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This was an idea for getting a resolution to this bike shed problem, because I am under the impression that MaxPont and DanaUllman both feel strongly about it. If such an article is very controversial I obviously not going to start yet another conflict. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Bike shed? I don't follow riddles too well, sorry. Plainspeak preferred. Peter morrell 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe prevalence is OK, though I would prefer a less abstract word. We should make a title where we can include the following content:

  • Adoption of homeopathy in various countries
  • History: introduction, adoption, etc.
  • Monetary market size and market penetration (consumer usuage)
  • Regulatory framework in variuos countries

How do we capture this in an article title? MaxPont (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK how about 'International position of homeopathy?' or 'Homeopathy throughout the world?' Peter morrell 07:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't give my opinion on your proposal because I don't really care about the title. But here is another one: 'Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy'. It seems that the points we need to cover for each country are (at most) history, regulations for homeopathic medicine, regulations for practising homeopathy, popularity, and whether public health insurance pays for homeopathy. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New World Data on Those who "Trust Homeopathy" (copied from homeopathy talkpage)[edit]

Friends, I was alerted to this data from a skeptics' blog, and it provides a rich body of data. For info on the survey, see [1]. For info on the company behind the data, see: [2]. A summary from this report could be: An international market research survey discovered relatively high levels of "trust" in homeopathy worldwide. Specifically, they found that 64% of people in India, 58% of Brazilians, 53% of Chileans, 49% of Saudi Arabians, 49% of United Arab Emirates, 40% of French, 35% of South Africans, 28% of Russians, 27% of Germans, 25% of Argentians, 25% of Hungarians, 18% of Americans, and 15% of British "trust homeopathy."

Before I consider adding this data and reference, I'm bringing it here for discussion. DanaUllmanTalk 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A survey from a marketing and market research company, with no named authors? Importantly, there is no information on the sample size in this survey, no information on how the sample was selected, and no information on how the survey was carried out. This could be discussed in general terms, but I wouldn't trust the precise figures at all. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good points, Tim, but when you consider that market research companies provide information to large corporations who trust their work and then put their money (often big money) into products based on this research, it seems that large companies consider such research to be "reliable." This market research company is one of the biggies and thus seems to be a reliable source. DanaUllmanTalk 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd be OK with this being added if the source is directly specified and it is discussed in generalities, eg A market research survey suggests that homeopathy may be quite popular in India and but much less popular in developed countries such as the USA and Britain. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It would seem that if many of the largest corporations in the world consider market research data to be reliable, it would seem that we should simply report this information for what it is: "According to an international market research company". Perhaps something like this can be said: "According to a 2008 survey from an international market research company, a near or greater than majority of people in India, Brazil, Chile, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates “trust homeopathy,” and a 25%-40% of the population of people in France, South Africa, Russia, Germany, Argentina, and Hungary also trusted homeopathy. Only 18% of American and 15% of British expressed a trust in homeopathy." DanaUllmanTalk 05:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should consider including a modified and agreed-upon slab of this info above in THIS article. Comments? Peter morrell 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is always important to question the legitamacy of surveys (as well as all data), but when data from other surveys confirm parts of a potentially questionable survey, we might realize that the survey in question is trustworthy. In this light, below are some RS surveys published by major medical journals or by governments that confirm parts of the Global TGI survey. Judge for yourself:
In 1998, homeopathy was the most frequently used CAM therapy in 5 out of 14 surveyed countries in Europe and among the three most frequently used CAM therapies in 11 out of 14 surveyed countries. [Norges offentlige utredninger, NOU 1998:21 Alternativ medisin. (Official report published by the Norwegian Department of Health. Available at: [3] Three Europeans out of four know what homeopathy is and an impressive 29% use it for their health care. [Homeopathic medicinal products. Commission report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Directives 92/73 and 92/74]
According to a House of Lords report (2000), 17% of the British population use homeopathic medicines. [House of Lords Science and Technology Report, November, 2000] The respect accorded homeopathy and homeopathic practice by British physicians is evidenced by a 1986 survey in the British Medical Journal that showed that 42% of physicians referred patients to homeopathic doctors. [Richard Wharton and George Lewith, "Complementary Medicine and the General Practitioner," British Medical Journal, 292 (June 7, 1986): 1498-1500.] Other evidence of support from health professionals was a 1990 survey of British pharmacists that found 55% considered homeopathic medicines "useful," while only 14% considered them "useless." [M.V. Nelson, G.R. Railie, and H. Areny, "Pharmacists' Perceptions of Alternative Health Approaches: A Comparison Between U.S. and British Pharmacists," Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 1990, 15: 141-6.]
In Scotland, 12% of general practitioners use homeopathic medicines and 49% of all general practitioner practices prescribe them (at least one medical doctor in a group practice).[ Ross, S, Simpson, CR, McLay, JS. British Homoeopathic and herbal prescribing in general practice in Scotland. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 62,6: December 2006, 647-652.]
In 2002, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) reported that 75% of Germans have used complementary or natural medicine.[Tuffs, Annette. Three out of Four Germans Have Used Complementary or Natural Remedies, BMJ, November 2 2002;325:990] They also reported that 5,700 doctors received specialized training in natural medicine, with this number doubling to 10,800 by 2000. Homeopathic medicine is practiced by 4,500 medical doctors in German, almost twice as many as did so in 1994. The German government conducted this survey, and it also discovered that there was a 33% reduction in sick days if people used natural therapies, especially homeopathy or acupuncture. It was also reported that women used natural therapies more than men did, but when men used them, they benefited more than women did.
Other European countries in which homeopathy has a relatively strong presence include Switzerland, where different surveys have suggested that somewhere between 11% and 27% of general practitioners and internists prescribe homeopathic medicines; Italy where 9% of the medical doctors prescribe homeopathic remedies sometimes; and the Netherlands where 45% of physicians consider homeopathic medicines effective and 47% of medical doctors use one or more complementary therapies, with homeopathy (40% of these select doctors) being the most popular. [Fisher, Peter and Ward, Adam. "Complementary Medicine in Europe," British Medical Journal, 309, July 9, 1994: 107-10.] DanaUllmanTalk 01:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not very happy with the idea of using this source for anything but general guidance when making editorial decisions. According the the language used in the report ("respondents"), they got the numbers by just asking people about their opinion. Since the responses when doing this depend very much on your approach (ringing someone at 6 am and asking "Good morning, this is the homeopathy survey; do you trust homeopathy?" vs. leading up to the question with "yes" questions like "do you think health is important?"), the absolute numbers are not very meaningful. I am not saying I suspect obvious manipulation or leading questions, but I am just not personally convinced that the range of possible results depending on how you ask, even while trying to avoid obvious mistakes, doesn't look like 8-38% for Britain, 31-54% for Saudi Arabia etc. So I wouldn't mention the absolute numbers. As to the relative numbers ("Homeopathy is much more popular in Brazil than in Britain"), we would need to trust them that they really use comparable approaches in the different countries, translate the answers correctly (the nuances are important, and also the other questions on the questionnaire), and have some way of correcting for systematic errors if that's necessary. Other studies or statistics are not a good test here unless they are specifically comparing two or more countries, or perhaps if we had good statistics from two countries with virtually identical health systems. By the way, I don't understand the status of this document. Is it the complete report, which they are giving away to the press for free to get coverage? Or is it only a teaser? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the word 'legality'[edit]

how many cuontries actually have illegalized homeopathy? even places like the USSR that persecuted homeopathic physicians never oficially banned them and tolerated them for a large part when they did not get in the way of the state. If there is no actual variation in legality of homeopathy then maybe this article should become osmething like "Prevalence and Regulation of Homoephaty. Smith Jones (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


quesitons comments concerns???

I renamed from "Internationail prevalence and regulation of homeopathy" to "Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy" to . Normally I wouldn't have been so bold with a page move, but there was a typo in the title, and I wanted to fix that fast. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • whops thanks for the save there Hans. Smith Jones (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

Should the UK section make the distinction between the Society of Homeopaths and the Faculty of Homeopathy clear? The latter is a body for statutorily registered healthcare professionals who are subject to the disciplinary procedures of their relevant regulatory bodies. The former is the largest organisation for non-medically qualified homoeopaths. On a related note, the UK section also doesn't make the regulatory status of homoeopathy in the UK clear. It is not regulated by statute, and the title "homeopath" is not protected - anyone can practise as a homoeopath. Brunton (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If nobody has any objections, I propose changing the third paragraph of the UK section to:

The National Health Service (NHS) currently operates five homeopathic hospitals. Although homeopathy is not regulated by law in the United kingdom, the London-based Faculty of Homeopathy, membership of which is open to statutorily registered healthcare professionals[4] and which has over 1,400 members, was incorporated by an Act of Parliament in 1950[5]. There are also a number of organisations for non-medically qualified homeopaths, the largest of which, the Society of Homeopaths, was founded in 1978 and has over 1,500 members[6].

Any objections? Brunton (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am not sure you need to be as careful as that in the current microclimate at this article. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
On reflection, I'm not entirely happy with the second sentence as it may contain a non-sequitur - I'm not sure that the incorporation of the FoH has anything to do with regulation of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've arrived at something with the same basic content that I'm happy with, so as there's been no objection I'm making the edit. Brunton (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the UK section of the article ends with something about demonstrations. I don't see the relavence of a few isolated publicity demonstrations in the category of "Regulation and prevalence". I suggest this is removedCjwilky (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Source for information on many countries[edit]

The Liga Medicorum Homeopathica Internationalis (LMHI) has a newsletter containing interesting information on the state of homeopathy in various countries, including e.g. Georgia and Uruguay. Issues from 1997 to 2001 are available online. [7] I doubt it's a reliable source, but it's probably a good source of inspiration to extend this article if anybody has the motivation to look at this. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

possible source for US prevalence[edit]

A 1854 report about dissolving the connection of Homoeopathists(sic) with the Massachusetts Medical Society[8]. Not sure if this is relevant enough to add on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Help please and I have a question[edit]

Are random phrases typed into Google considered sources? I want to say no but I have seen long-standing edits to this page in which Google searches are treated as evidence of something and I couldn't find any policy pages saying anything one way or another agout this subject. Buubuub (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Long-standing edits to this page"? It was created less than 3 months ago. "Random phrases typed into Google considered sources"? I can see no evidence of this in the article history or on the talk page, but I am unwilling to spend hours on the search to be absolutely sure. If you are sure you are commenting on the right page, please be more specific. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
hes probably a new user and might have acidentally come utpon this new page. I dont think that we should scrutiznise these things too intensely. Just explain to him what he did wrong and leet him go?Smith Jones (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Under a section discussing Russian prevalence of Homeopathy, I noticed that a google search of the phrase '# ^' was cited a a source for the claim that Russian homeopaths have a "high web presence". Buubuub (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have removed it pending further discussion and better sourcing. Here it is: Russian homeopaths also have a high web presence.[1] --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk)


i think that a google search is an ecceptable form of citaiton for a claim about the web presence since google searches are in fact an epirical measure of web presence. i favor restoring the citation. Smith Jones (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the statement about a "high web presence" is unencyclopedic. It's the kind of thing you can say in a discussion on a talk page in order to justify an editorial decision, but it's almost certainly not notable enough for article space, and for stylistic reasons I don't think it should be used to flesh out the discussion. Except if there is something very special about it, but then there should be secondary sources discussing the phenomenon. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
the future has borught more prominent to the Itnernet and I think that prominence on the Net can be a good corleiaton as to prominence in the actual land. ESpecially in a place like Russia where they are frewer ways for people or organizae themselves due to their sovet system. The Internet web presence reflects the pravelnce for Homeopathy, which is the point. of this article. :D Smith Jones (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

source for russian until WWI, compared to other countries[edit]

[ The history of homeopathy in the Russian Empire until World War I, as compared with other European countries and the USA: similarities and discrepancies] --Enric Naval (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I consider these edits completely unjustified. I don't feel strongly enough about them to revert your edits (or Kenneth Cooke's earlier edits to Homeopathy to which this has drawn my attention) now, but I think the attempt to outlaw the use of standard terms such as "homeopathic medicine" for "homeopathy" and for "homeopathic remedy" is inappropriate and a sign of intolerance. (This is structurally similar to objections against the term "homosexual marriage".) If allowed this would have a negative effect on the style of Homeopathy and some related articles. The question is likely to come up later, if and when this article gets to the point where such nuances of style become relevant, or perhaps earlier. For the moment let me just note that in the European Union the term "homeopathic medicinal product" is defined by the directive on "medicinal products for human use". [9]. The "Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 630A" on "Homeopathic Medicine" also seems to be relevant, and I am sure there are many other official sources like this, as well as many mainstream medicine sources that use these terms without a second thought. Please be careful not to push an extreme point of view, not even unintentionally. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unjustified how? Governmental bodies hardly qualify as reliable sources. In fact, homeopathic potions are so diluted as to have no medical effect, therefore, homeopathy cannot be considered medicine. And there are thousands of reliable sources that aren't governmental entities that support that statement. Please, do not engage in personal attacks such as stating that I am intolerant of homeopathy. I don't actually give a shit about homeopathy, I do, however, insist that the neutral point of view be followed by not giving undue weight to the fringe idea that homeopathy is a medicine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Please try not to confuse the neutral point of view with the scientific point of view, and the scientific point of view with the extreme point of view of a minority of scientists. You seem to have a peculiar definition of medicine. I would like to keep that separate from the homeopathy question, but I don't know how. There are people who insist that the settlement Leeds is not a city. (Because it does not exist as a legal entity and consequently does not have formal city status. The larger City of Leeds is a legal entity but not a settlement.) You seem to have a similar fringe position on the word "medicine", where efficacy is part of the definition for both the treatment and the substance sense of the word. That's not how most people use these words. At the same time you seem to be artificially restricting the notion of efficacy to exclude the placebo effect. If homeopathic treatment heals more people than no treatment at all, then clearly it's a form of medicine. There is no need to discuss whether it heals more or less patients than mainstream medicine, or how this may have changed over the last 200 years.
And please don't pretend that you have no feelings about homeopathy. You are making your feelings very clear, and it doesn't contribute to a good working atmosphere. If you don't understand the structural similarity between your attack on the term "homeopathic medicine" and certain attacks on the word "homosexual marriage" (I can't imagine where else you are seeing a personal attack, so I am assuming that this is what made you so excited), then why don't you ask someone else whether it makes sense for them? By the way, using the term "homeopathic medicine" is not the same as claiming that "homeopathy is a medicine" (peculiar formulation, btw, but true). Just like calling Leeds a city in an informal context is not the same as claiming that it has city status. Language has always been, and will always be, fuzzy. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Condescension is a wonderful attribute. Medicine means "the science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease." Homeopathy is not a science. And to your rude point about science and neutrality, in most cases the NPOV requires the reliable sources and verification that comes from a scientific analysis. Homeopathy cannot diagnose, treat or prevent a disease, as is shown in a few thousand peer-reviewed articles, so therefore it is not medicine. We're done here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the question whether a single definition from a dictionary or elsewhere can trump actual usage of a word, are you aware of the meaning of the word "or"? Treating homeopathy as a science, which it is clearly not (although clearly many of its proponents wish it were) is one of the main problems around here, and has led to such nonsense as classifying it as a "pseudoscience". You still haven't given me even one of your thousand sources that say "homeopathy is not medicine". As opposed to "homeopathy has no scientific foundation". --Hans Adler (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Prevalence in Nigeria and IQ[edit]

The final sentence of the section on Nigeria ("Homeopathy is relatively more prevalent in Nigeria than in other parts of Africa, in part due to higher IQs in the Niger delta") appears to be completely unsupported. There is a reference given (currently reference no. 58 in the article), but it is to a Google search for "IQ, homeopathy": none of the first ten pages found even mentions Nigeria. I propose removing this sentence unless RS sources can be found to support the contentions (i) that homeopathy is more prevalent in Nigeria than in the rest of Africa, (ii) that IQs are higher in the Niger Delta, and (iii) that there is a causal relationship between the two. Brunton (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this raises a huge WP:REDFLAG, and the sourcing is plain horrible. I just removed it [10]. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there are other issues with this section - it's a bit adjective-heavy (2 organisations are described as respectively as "paramount chief" and "premier", while the references given don't appear to give any evidence of their status), and I'm not sure what "registered with tehe United Nations" means as far as the Nigerian Homeopathic Institute is concerned - according one of the references given the organisation in question is listed as "ECOSOC only" but a search of ECOSOC's NGO database for it gives no hits. The other reference for this is to a pubmed reference with no digest - text is hidden behind a paywall. Brunton (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: ECOSOC's database does list a "Nigerian Institute of Homeopathy" as having "Special Consultative Status", so maybe the article just has its name wrong. I'm still not sure about the phrase "registered with the UN" though. Brunton (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that thie statement about Higher IQs was invalid in retrosepct. However, the website listed as a sour ce for the UN claim is the UN's website Smith Jones (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, but the page referenced doesn't mention a "Nigerian Homeopathic Institute". I'll change the reference to the ECOSOC page, which is the page of the UN organisation concerned, change the organisation's name to the one mentioned on the UN site, and change the wording so it accurately reflects what the source says. Brunton (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The page referenced about Osmond Ifeanyi Onyeka doesn't support the statement that he helped found the Open International University for Complementary Medicines: it just says he went there in 2001/2002. The university in question seems to have existed since the early 1960s. Additionally, the Open International University doesn't appear to be particularly relevant to Nigeria - it appears to be in Sri Lanka.
Neither does the source support the contention that he was "one of the earliest proponents of homeopathy in Nigeria" it doesn't mention anything he did before training as a doctor in 1987-1992, and as the article says the "All-Nigeria Homoepathic Medical Organization" was founded in 1961, and Onyeka doesn't even seem to have been born by then (the page referenced suggests he was born around 1970). The first homoeopathic practitioner in Nigeria seems to have been one I. Okogeri, according to the source you referenced for the sentence about the All-Nigeria Homeopathic Medical Association.
Is Onyeka even particularly notable? If we remove the statements about the University and his having been "one of the earliest proponents", neither of which appears to be true according to the references cited for this section, all we're left with is that he's a Nigerian homeopath. Brunton (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The only notability I can find for Osmond Onyeka is being "The Head of Department of Homeopathy at the National College of Alternative Medicine, Surulere, Lagos," [11], but that's not enough by itself for inclusion. I suggest removal for now. I also suggest using this book to source the Nigeria section
Eswara Das (2005). B. Jain Publishers, ed. History and Status of Homeopathy Around the World. p. 189. ISBN 8180565734. Retrieved 2008-08-11. 
--Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's the same text as the page linked to from one of SJ's references that I've now used for the first section - presumably a more reliable source for it (although they've spelled Peter Fisher's name wrong...). I'll remove Dr. Onyeka. Brunton (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's been a "citation needed" tag on the statement about prevalence of homoeopathy in Nigeria relative to the rest of Africa since early August. Since no source for this has been forthcoming, I propose removing it. Brunton (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a reference I would like to rely on, but there is something here [12]. If we can find out what "OMHI 2003" means (presumably a publication of the International Medical Homeopathic Organisation), this might help. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Boiron reference states that homeopathy is "restricted to doctors", while the reference we've used states that lay practitioners are also allowed. It does appear that the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, a statutory body, includes in its remit "supervising and controlling the practice of homeopathy" (see the Nigerian Medical and Dental Practitioners Act [13], Section 1(2)(d)). The act also states (section 18(1)), "A person shall not hold an appointment or practice as a medical practitioner or dental surgeon in Nigeria unless he is registered with the Council under the provisions of this Act". We should certainly have something about the Council in the article. Can anyone find any clarification of the status/legality of lay homoeopaths in Nigeria?
Haven't been able to find much about the OMHI. I've found a link to a now defunct website, and they appear to publish a journal (Journal of the O.M.H.I.), but it doesn't seem to be widely available. Brunton (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Regulation of Homeopathy in Nigeria/Prevalence in Nigeria/IQ[edit]

Moved from article page --Enric Naval (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I condemn "Mr brunton's" poor suggestion that Osmond Onyeka be removed from the above subject site, while brunton is right that Osmond Onyeka is not one of the first proponents of homeopathy in Nigeria and is not a co founder of the Open International University which indeed is in Sri Lanka,but Dr Onyeka can well be called the father of modern day Nigerian Homeopathy today with the level of work/recognition he has locally and international achieved i.e, Sri lanka,the US and Nigeria,Professor Onyeka an international teacher/researcher and doctor has achieved technical recognition in America,Asia,Nigeria which were hitherto not seen in the resume of an alternative medicine doctor, including his recently being recognized by the US Govt. as a worker of extra ordinary ability/achievement in science and education. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:50, 12 August 2008

You need to provide reliable verifiable sources for those claims. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The section of the article is about the regulation and prevalence of homoeopathy in Nigeria. The fact that a particular homoeopath may be from Nigeria is not particularly relevant, whatever his status there or in other parts of the world. What we need for the article is well-sourced and up to date information about how many homoeopaths practice in Nigeria, how many patients are treated with it, and, if applicable, information about government regulation of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. This article is not for listing famous homeopaths. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting information[edit]

Under the "Middle East and Asia" section it says "In China, homeopathy appears to be almost unknown." And under the China/Taiwan section it says "In many parts of China, homeopathy is a respected and professionally accepted form of medical treatment. According to Dr Emma Bentlow, the Chinese have favored homeopathy throughout their country since 1911, as evidenced by its presence in a homeopathy hospital in Shanghai." These two statements are diametrically opposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  • It's been over two months since I posted the above. I'd resolve the problem myself, but am unsure of how exactly to go about it. The article is seriously arguing with itself. Either it's unknown in China or it's favored throughout the country. It CANNOT be BOTH. (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone had added an additional section on China/Taiwan without noticing that China was already mentioned above, and had mixed the acceptance in 1911 and 1934 in Shangai with the acceptance nowadays in the whole of China. I made a few changes[14], tell me what you think. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Homoeopathy is now practised in Singapore and now also has facilities for dispensing Homoeopathy education by the medium of colleges through the Singapore Faculty of Homoeopathy. One can check

British homeopathic assosciation ansd similar[edit]

I think these are highly misleading. For one thing, DEFRA is cracking down on homeopathy n veterinary medicine, so the numbvers are unlikely to be completely accurate in that case; for athother, these organisations re meant to promote homeopathy, and thus may inflate values, and, finally, they lack any context, e.g. comparison to numbers of real physicians.

I think the information is useless and should be deleted. 86.** IP (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, First, I think that there is something about regulation and the bodies and systems that perform this that is missing from the UK article. The article starts with homeopathy is declining without giving clear information about this - just one figure about prescriptions which is by a long way not the whole picture. Really, a historical table would be useful about patients, possibly prescriptions or appointments, orgaisations, number of members would be the basic start of this article.
I don't see how that DEFRA etc have an ongoing approach has a bearing on the "prevalence" of homeopathy. You suggest the numbers are therefore likely to be "completely" inaccurate - why?
The organisation are registers. PART of that is to promote homeopathy for its members, but having a register is for contact not promotion. Those registers are current. The number of "real" physicians is likely to be higher than those on the register not lower, maybe that can be added? Its certainly the case that there are more than 1500 practitioners of homeopathy as was stated in the Independent. There are approximately that number in the Society of Homeopaths and there are other registers too.
The information is the kind of thing that is the basis of "prevalence". Can you explain how such stuff as a few groups organising publicity stunts which is included in that section is relevant to "prevalence"? Cjwilky (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone has deemed that the figures I included are unreliable and tagged as such. I disagree and have made my case above. Cjwilky (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and I agree with the word changes you made :) Cjwilky (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Tell you qwhat, why don't we run it by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and go with what they say? 86.** IP (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The source for the statement that "in 2010, the approximate number of Registered Homeopaths was 1500" is not clear in what it means by "Registered Homeopaths". I suspect that is means the non-medically qualified homoepaths who are registered with the Society of homeopaths, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, etc. but there is no way to be sure. We also seem to have lost the information that used to be in the article about regulation of homoeopathy in the UK - homoeopathy is unregulated and registration is not necessary to practise as a homoeopath. Brunton (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What else would it mean by Registered Homeopaths?
I agree there needs to be information about regulation. There is Statutary Regulation, which hasn't happened as yet, and there is Self Regulation which is widespread. To say homeopathy is unregulated is untrue. Cjwilky (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Self-regulation is the same as unregulated, if there's no need to participate in the self-regulation (and there isn't). 86.** IP (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thats not an argument 86......?
1) Self regulation is the same as unregulated how? They are two different concepts.
2) This article is about prevelance and regulation. The prevalence is one thing, the regulation is another.
3) Brunton says "Needs better source, indicating what body they are registered with - there is no requirement for registration so without this info it is meaningless." I agree with the first part, the second part is untrue. Registering bodies have requirements. The article says "regulation" NOT "state regulation". Cjwilky (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The self regulation is entirely voluntary, and carried out by at least two different bodies. Homoeopaths can practise without being registered or regulated. Brunton (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
It is true we have a law that permits medicine to be practiced by anyone, however there is state regulation depending on what they use in their medical practice and of course with what titles are used.
We are referring here to Registered Homeopaths and we can be more specific by refering to the particular registering bodies if people here think that is useful, though I feel its pedantic. These homeopaths are regulated by their registering bodies in the same way that the state registered practitioners are regulated by the state.
We can also mention that there are an unknown number of people that practice homeopathy who are not registered with any body. This of course includes eg the lady down the road who has a limited knowledge, but has been giving out remedies to help with whatever it may be for decades, as well as someone with a first aid kit who gives remedies to her friends. Not useful to state this category as its self evident, just in the same way as someone can suggest chamomile tea to help with sleep.
The ARH claims to have over 500 members in the UK [1]. I can collate the rest of the registering bodies in the same way and we can have an approximate total to match the approximate totals of Doctors etc that are mentioned in the article Cjwilky (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Another source of info to suggest the number of homeopaths is the yellow pages which lists over 1700 in the UK. This is a fraction of those registered and qualified as many won't pay for yellow pages ads. I know this isn't a great source, but its accurate as a massive underestimation, and combining these sources we can give an indication of prevelence which is the point of the article. Cjwilky (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"These homeopaths are regulated by their registering bodies in the same way that the state registered practitioners are regulated by the state." No, they aren't. The statutory registration and regulation of doctors, dentists, nurses, etc., and even osteopaths or chiropractors, is compulsory. It is a criminal offence to practise as a member of one of these professions without being registered, so the registering bodies can stop members practising via their disciplinary process by suspending or withdrawing their registration. In the case of homoeopathy the registration is entirely voluntary, so if a homoeopath were to have their registration withdrawn or suspended they could legally continue to practice as a homoeopath. Brunton (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality tag in European Union[edit]

I don't see any discussion on this tag at the end of Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy#European_Union. I suggest it be removed as I don't see any issue of neutrality there. Cjwilky (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's presented as if this was a bad thing. That's a bias. 86.** IP (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how it is presented that way. It reads to me as stating fact. Maybe you could suggest how it could be rewritten in a neutral way? Cjwilky (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, first of all, it's not in the source given (not in the way it's presented, anyway, as a statement of fact): it's in a powerpoint presentation given as the second link - and an unreviewed powerpoint is NOT a reliable source. The actual reliable source states it as a concern by some people that may or may not happen or be happening, not necessarily as a present problem, and the report itself is simply on what the homeopathes WANT the EU to harmonise. At the least, a good bit of that paragraph (There doesn't appear to be anything about exemptions in the report, for instance) cannot be justified without using the powerpoint to augment. As well, although some of the information is in there, there's a major issue with using a report about the complaints of the ECM as fact, since there's no actual evidence offered to support the complaints. As such, think it's best gone. 86.** IP (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy available in UK Universities[edit]

I removed the line saying universities have stopped offering homeopathy and gave a reference to show this is incorrect which demonstrates a MSc (ie a degree) course is offered. This was reinstated asking me to give the evidence, which I already had done in the edit. So here we are on the talk page. So I suggest here that line in the article is changed to indicate degrees are still offered in the UK. Cjwilky (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No discussion so will add that there are two courses currently available for 2012/13 - multi-referenced:
Cjwilky (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed the refs (the template requires a title, apparently) and removed a couple for redundancy.
What is the status of the Centre for Homeopathic Education BSc? You didn't mention it above. Is the course offered by Middlesex Uni, or is it an external organisation offering a degree validated by Middlesex? Brunton (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
On the Centre for Homeopathic Education site it says "On successful completion of the course you'll be awarded a BSc (Hons) in Homeopathy, validated by Middlesex University; and a Licentiate from CHE (LCHE)." On the Middlesex University site it says "We work with prestigious academic partners to provide Middlesex degrees to thousands of students throughout the world. Many of our partners are delivering Middlesex franchised or validated programmes to their students....." So this is a BSc in Homeopathy with official University status. Cjwilky (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
But that isn't quite the same as a degree course offered by the Uni, which is what the reference is being used to support - it's a degree course offered by an external partner, with the final qualification validated by the Uni. Brunton (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What constitutes "Regulation and Practice"?[edit]

I suggest removing the bit about demonstrations in the UK section.

To me this artlicle is about regulation on the one hand and practice on the other - so numbers of practitioners, training courses, gov regulations etc are all what one would expect here. However, there is the entry in the UK about "demonstrations". I fail to see why this is appropriate. If it is, there are plenty of other things that can be entered about homeopathy in the UK but lets be clear about what the article is about.Cjwilky (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thats enough time for discussion. Will remove this paragraph as its not relevant to Regulation nor Practice. Cjwilky (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, here's the section. Right. You did it. You were reverted. You dpon't get to be judge, jury, and executioner, and say that because you sad we should, and did it, you can keep it out until we convince you otherwise, as your edit summary says. Please read WP:BRD. This is relevant as it's a public movement, relevant to the state of feeling in the country (hence prevalence). 86.** IP (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Good to see you found it :) So conversely, you get to be judge, jury and erm... executioner? In WP:BRD the way wiki works is if you disagree with a revert, you take it to the talk page. I did the revert, you didn't take it here but chose to revert it again. Hmmmm....
Anyway, as you're active here we can resolve this quickly. "This is relevant as it's a public movement, relevant to the state of feeling in the country (hence prevalence)." It appears its a public movement of a small number of people - maybe you can find evidence to suggest how many? However, the prevalence of something is defined as how much it occurs. Please show me a definition that is different to this or even better, one that shows your interpretation, or maybe you wish to start an article called "State of feeling towards homeopathy"? Cjwilky (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
You're the one removing it. And it was nationwide. It was very heavily covered in the press at the time. 86.** IP (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thats what I said, I reverted it. Anyway, better we discuss the issue :)
What happened is not the point. How many people were involved would be relevant if the topic were to be included here. So far you haven't backed up what you say re the definition of prevalence or even the relationship between opposition, esp. in this case, and the prevalence of homeopathy in the UK. Have you any evidence that shows this action has effected prevalence of homeopathy in the UK? I'm trying to be helpful here :) Cjwilky (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Cjwilky on this one - it isn't really about prevalence, it's a protest. Brunton (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

FDA hearings about the status of homeopathy[edit]

Keep abreast of the current FDA hearings about the status of homeopathy. This may result in changes to current USA laws and regulations, and there will be sources we can use to document these hearings. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathy usage in India[edit]

An article has been doing the rounds mentioning that Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) is much less used that previous reports. I did some digging and tracked down the source to the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Sample Survey Office. The report itself is behind a login but I do have a copy of the pdf. The best commentary I've found is the article NSSO - Key Indicators of Social Consumption in India Health from the The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy. The reference to homeopathy was in the statement Only 5 to 7 percent usage of ‘other’ including AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga or Naturopathy Unani, Siddha and homoeopathy) was reported both in rural and urban area.

I think this statistic is important to include as often the number of homeopathy users are given raw and with a population base the size of India these are impressively large. At least until you consider them as a percentage. Personally I think a fraction of 5-7% of the country gives a more honest perspective.

I would like to suggest this addition to the India section;

Despite this growth Homeopathy remains a fringe phenomenon. The National Sample Survey Office of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation showed in the report, Key Indicators Of Social Consumption: Health, 2014 that only 5-7%[1] of the surveyed population reported using "other" which is the category AYUSH falls into and the H in AYUSH is Homeopathy.


  1. ^ "NSSO - Key Indicators of Social Consumption in India Health". The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy. Retrieved 25 September 2015. 

--Citizen Gold (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebo"[edit]

The phrase "and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebo" implies that all homeopathic remedies (both diluted and non-diluted) have been shown to to be no more effective than placebo. However, the three cited references are about diluted remedies only, and not about all remedies.

My original edit in this regard was to add "some" before "remedies", but this was reverted by GraemeLeggett with the comment "If it isn't diluted then it's not a homeopathic remedy", which I believe is an error. I realise that particularly in the United States, dilution is practised extensively by homeopaths and that for many people, dilution = homeopathy, but homeopathy is broader than that. Not all homeopathic remedies are diluted.

To solve the problem, there are two options: either allow "some" to be added, or remove the cited references here (and possibly move them to elsewhere in the article, where dilution is discussed). -- leuce (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Homeopathic remedies are diluted by definition, otherwise they wouldn't be homeopathic. Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying very hard to figure out how to make sense of your statement. The only way that I can see that your statement could be true is if perhaps you hold to a very specific definition of "remedy". The web sites of many homeopathic practices mention the use of mother tincture as a treatment, which, as you might know, is undiluted. Could it be that you do not consider mother tincture, as used by homeopaths, to be a "remedy"? Or could it be that you do not consider homeopaths who use mother tincture to be true homeopaths? --leuce (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
We describe what homeopathic remedies are in our homeopathy article, based on good sources. They are ultra-diluted. However, our text could be improved to the standard of the parent article; I have done this. Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
By definition, aren't homeopathic remedies diluted? If they weren't diluted they would just be remedies, not homeopathic remedies, and there is a chance that they might have some effect, but only by accident. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No, they are not necessarily always diluted, even if many proponents of homeopathy imply that they are. But the mere fact that some remedies are capable of causing some effects does not mean that they are effective in treating disease. There doesn't seem to be anything in the way of RS to show that undiluted homeopathic remedies, when used homeopathically, have the claimed efficacy against disease. Indeed, Hahnemann started using diluted remedies when, after several years of using homeopathy, he realised that giving his patients remedies that caused the symptoms they were suffering from tended to make them get worse rather than better. Brunton (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)