Talk:Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy

Orphaned references in Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Evidence and efficacy of homeopathy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "shang": From Homeopathy:  From Society of Homeopaths:  From Alternative medicine:  

Reference named "nhsdirect": From Homeopathy:  From Society of Homeopaths:  

Reference named "pmid17285788": From Homeopathy: </li> <li>From Society of Homeopaths: </li> </ul>

Reference named "inquiry_cfm":<ul> <li>From Society of Homeopaths: </li> <li>From British Homeopathic Association: UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

'Explanations of perceived effects' section
As part and parcel of the article's scepticism, this section seems, logically speaking, both contradictory and an example of 'over-egging the sceptical pudding.' If we accept the article's repeating main thesis that homeopathic treatment is proven to be ineffective, whyever do we need an additional section 'hedging its bets' by adding that, if homeopathy ever is effective, it may be because of X - where X = something other than the actual homeopathic remedies? Perhaps the need for this section arises from the failure of research studies, and the article itself, to distinguish between the efficacy of homeopathic remedies themselves, and the efficacy of the homeopathic treatment experience as a whole? One may reasonably vouch for one but not the other, and the article's apparent satisfaction with equating the difference between the latter two with 'the Placebo effect' seems an example of Reductionism, resulting from a failure to properly understand, estimate, enumerate or measure supplementary effects in the medication (or any comparable) process. Richard Comaish (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)