Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 24

Medical Analysis and Criticism Subhead
Orange reports that there had been a consensus that this wording represents a NPOV; I wasn't objecting to the POV, but rather to the superfluity of the clause "and criticism" as a section heading. "Medican Analysis" does the job, as the critical aspect of that analysis is implied and manifest within the text. Naturezak (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look, I like most of your edits. Don't get so defensive about one of them.  This article was a total POV mess a few months ago, when several us tackled it.  I still think it's POV, but a lot of the crap in here is so hysterically inane that only sadly desperate individual would endeavor to utilize this "therapy."  Unfortunately, there are lot of desperate individuals, so I worry that they think using a piece of the Berlin Wall (I'm not sure if the reference is still in the article, but it was hilarious) cures whatever it was supposed to cure.  Anyways, here we are today, a mostly NPOV article, and criticism needs to be stated very clearly.  99.999999% of Medical science (give or take .000000378%) has shown that homeopathy does not work.  That's a criticism.  The word should stay, but it got their through consensus wars.  It's really not worth much effort right now.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, Orange. I stick to the point, though, and I'll observe that you haven't addressed it: the phrase "and criticism" is superfluous, and partial, as a section heading. That the sum of the medical analysis counters the claims of homeopaths does not mean that the medical researchers are themselves critics. It really should go. Naturezak (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Naturezak.
 * As an aside, the regular editors here appear to be far too defensive about this article. There seems to be a knee jerk response to ALL changes.  In my view, suggestions such as above represent positive contributions to this article and should not be treated with disdain.  I understand you guys are completely fed up with editors coming in and trying to push an agenda but please save the defensiveness for the real POV edits.  You cannot pigeon hole new editors and then disregard ALL their comments/suggestions just because you think some of their edits are too POV. David D. (Talk) 22:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what I have observed. There are probably 7-10 regular editors of this article, some who support homeopathy, some who think it's a load of hooey (myself included), and some truly neutral individuals, but only in the sense that they know it's a load of hooey, put in edits and references that show it's a load of hooey, but aren't as bombastic as I am.  Every day, there are some new editors (usually anonymous, but usually new to the article) who jump in, claim one side or another is full of crap, and make bad edits.  Several of us who watch this article just instinctively review the diffs, note anything that sounds bad, and revert (or if it sounds fine, don't revert).  I watched Naturezak's edits carefully (and he's a new editor to the article, as best as I can tell)--I disagreed with the criticism change.  I do not believe it is superfluous, but I'm certainly NOT going to get in a revert war over it.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is a very good thing that editors make this sort of investment, take a kind of ownership, in articles that are particularly vulnerable to idiotization. But I continue to disagree with you on this point. This section is sufficiently clearly titled by the heading "Scientific analysis" -- or perhaps better, "Scientific study." Since homeopathy is not a reality-based methodology, we should not be surprised to find that no analyses conclude that homeopathic remedies cure what ails ya, and that the scientific opinion is, in effect, a criticism of the theory of homeopathy. But to inform the reader, at the start, that the discussion of medical studies that follows is a 'criticism', is uneccesary, and unneccesarily biased. It adopts a tone of skepticism which is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Since I am a powerfully unlikeable skeptic, I am somewhat surprised to find myself saying this.
 * I appreciate your statement that 'you won't get into an edit war'. I'm explaining myself because I want you to agree, or so that you can point out the weakness in my position. I don't mind taking the time to talk about even a small change like this; this kind of deliberation is good exercise for the brain, I think. So if you continue to disagree with the change, will you explain in what way this 'and criticism' clause is *not* superfluous? I'd like to make the change, but I'd like more to see consensus among the good-faith, reality-using editors around here. Naturezak (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be supportive of Scientific analysis. But I don't want it weakened.  However, we should get more of a consensus from Tim Vickers, WDM and few others.  BTW, ownership of articles is not a good thing!   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 04:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that and criticism is unnecessary because (1) its denotation here is roughly redundant with that of analysis, and (2) it makes it seem that negative judgment is an immutable, preordained outcome. It's really not - it's an organic result of a priori neutral scientific analysis. Ante  lan  talk  07:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The word analysis is fine by me. Peter morrell 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Criticisms should stay, as they are criticisms and the reader will understand the content of the section quicker. If there is any scientific support then the criticisms header should go, but it should be made clear that subsections are pro or critical. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The section has scientific analyses, not criticism. That the results of the analyses fail to support the claims of homeopathy does not constitute an intentional criticism. You say that it should be made clear that the section is either pro-homeopathy, or anti-homeopathy... but this sort of segregation of opinion doesn't align with NPOV. Given the preponderance of support, and the absence of a more rigorous disagreement than a neutral desire not to 'weaken' the section, I'll make this change. Naturezak (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

agreed with orangemarlin. CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Using chemical notation

 * I just recovered this discussion from the archives, i believe it was archived prematurely. See Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_26 David D. (Talk) 04:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water"

I think that that number should be changed to 1060. --200.69.215.69 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to log in. That comment was by me. --W2bh (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exponentiaal notation, but I think it's better to spell it out - most people won't realise how big 1060 is Adam Cuerden talk 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if you spell it out like that, is just reads like a bunch of zeroes, and it doesn't make any sense. You don't have a meaningful relation laymen can understand. On the other hand, "This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth" does provide an understandable relation. --W2bh (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, even spelling it out does not help. An analogy is far better. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you give it in numerals and covert molecules of water to a volume or mass of water then the numbers will become a bit more understandable. Metric tonnes might be the best option for units. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lessee. 1 kilogram of water = 1 litre, so ... 10^60 molecules / (6.022 * 10^23) molecules per mole  * 18 grams per mole * 1 kg /1000 g  * 1 L / 1 kg =  2.98904019 × 1034 litres of water. That's a lot. Adam Cuerden talk 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's supposedly a direct quote from Park. If we're going to quote him, we should quote him accurately, even if we think a different way of expressing his thoughts would be better. Otherwise we need to replace the quote with a paraphrase. Can someone find the source of the quote? I'm guessing it's his book Voodoo Science but don't have that handy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should express it in solar masses? 1034kg = 10 decillion kg, and 10 decillion kg = 5000 solar masses (suns). Roughly speaking, if you had 5000 suns worth of water, you'd find one molecule of active substance within one of those suns. Unless I did my math wrong, which becomes more probable the later it gets. Ante  lan  talk  07:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Text between the lines below was transfered from Nunh-huh talk page

So where was this discussion? David D. (Talk) 12:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was on the talk page when I mentioned it; I see you've rescued it from its archival. - Nunh-huh 13:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I thought there might have been an older one. That hasn't really reached a consensus yet, which is why I rescued it. Prior to me rescusing it I thought it was leaning to using an analogy to augment scientific notation rather than the huge number. David D. (Talk) 13:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * However it goes, it's use the quote, or use something else (or use both). We can't alter quotations. - Nunh-huh 13:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If its a quote then we might want to just rewrite the section. I don't see how all the zeros making it any more accessible. David D. (Talk) 13:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite clearly, people find numbers with a lot of zeros impressive. They may not be able to "name that number" - indeed, being able to name it is pretty much beside the point - but they know that a number with a lot of zeros is really, really big. It impresses them, in a way that scientific notation (which they may not even be able to understand) doesn't. - Nunh-huh 13:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With an anlogy no number is needed at all. The point here is to give a realtive quantity, i.e. how much is the dilution. Numbers this big don't help much, except to look impressive, but what does it mean? At least the scientifc notation is small and useless as opposed to big and useless. David D. (Talk) 14:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, looking impressive is the very reason numbers are used. Looking unimpressive is the reason scientific notation is inappropriate. And the vast dilution factor will be conveyed best to some people by a number with a lot of zeros, and to others by a striking analogy. Seems like an argument to use both. - Nunh-huh 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Text between the lines above was transfered from Nunh-huh talk page
 * I'd argue that looking impressive is not that useful if it does not have an relative meaning. I expect most people will see that large number and underestimate the dilution.  i.e. it may actually have the opposite of the desired effect. In that vain it may also cause readers to glaze over and we'll lose their interest. David D. (Talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have to rethink the wheel here. Such numbers have clearly been found useful by people who explain things to the lay public - that's why their quotes include them. - Nunh-huh 14:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But is it well known that large numbers foster any kind of understanding? To paraphrase one example of analogy I like: "A king once asked how long is eternity. His wisest advisor responded: Once every thousand years, a little bird sharpens his beak on a mountain made of diamond. When this activity has worn the mountain into a pebble, the first second of eternity will be over." He could have used numbers but would the king have been any wiser? David D. (Talk) 14:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly prefer the number to a fable. Though there is no need to chose one and omit the other. Carl Sagan used analogy, and used "billions and billions". (I believe the latter was more useful.). - Nunh-huh 15:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree a fable is not much use but it's an illustration of how an analogy can have more meaning than trying to write infinity as a number. My only point is that we need to make sure this dilution factor has more meaning that just a bunch of zero's which has no meaning to most people other than "that's a big number". Most will have no idea how big. Coming to homeopathy fresh I would not know what 30C was but I would understand the scientific notation.  Scientist and layman alike would not know what 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 represents with out actually counting the digits. David D. (Talk) 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The number isn't there for precision, it's there to give an idea of the size of the dilution. And it does that best by using zeros. You're getting hung up on its precise value; the point is not the specific number, but that the number is incredibly huge. For that matter, there's nothing wrong with giving 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, the same number in scientific notation, and an appropriate analogy. There's no "either/or" here.  Nunh-huh 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so worried about the precise number as getting across a true understanding of what the number means. But I also think it would be useful to know what 30C realy does mean.  Consequently my preference is for an analogy and scientific notation.  Both have meaning.  A big number is just wow factor but if thats what we need then I'd be fine to have all three. David D. (Talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason we don't give the reader both a large number and an analogy? Ante  lan  talk  16:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is preferable to a number alone. David D. (Talk) 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

deleted comment
BTW please do not delete my comments agreed with orangemarlin. CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.

thanks.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete it but moved it the section above where it has the correct context. David D. (Talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry I did not see it.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

please comment and dont delete or revert edits without discussion
what was wrong with my last edit and I should be blocked ? (according to user orangemarlin) This is NOPV edit and supported by the already cited references. Who disagrees?

Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, reported positive results, which were regarded as inconclusive and/or unconvincing, because they faced difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The major problem is that the statement is not in agreement with the sources we have. The most recent meta-analyses in the big journals failed to show positive results. Ante  lan  talk  21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong.

I see that the previous editor changed the sentence  referring to the previous meta analyses t which are already included in the article. The statement referring to the recent metanalsyses was not changed.

This is the current version. Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design.[13][14] However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo.[6]

And the proposed version.

'''Meta-analyses, which compare the results of many studies, reported positive results, which were regarded as inconclusive and/or unconvincing, because they faced difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo.[6]'''

Dont you think that the above is more consistent with the source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.227.35 (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, literally, above on this talk page I quoted from a recent meta-analysis in the Lancet, a major medical journal, that found that homeopathy's effects are consistent with placebo effects. This is why your version is incorrect, or at least ignorant (your version, not you) of the major recent meta-analysis on the topic. Ante  lan  talk  04:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * no one changed that - this is the last sentence. "However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo.[6]'''


 * Again the change concerns the reference to the  previous meta analyses not the last one  (lancet 2005) .The sentence supposes to summarize this :'CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions' because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias.


 * OK, thanks, I see what you're saying. Let me work on rewording that sentence a bit. Be right back. Ante  lan  talk  04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about: '''Various publications using meta-analysis, a common approach to pooling the results of many studies, reported positive results from the use of homeopathy. Facing difficulty in controlling for publication bias and the flawed designs of the studies they analyzed, these reports were regarded as inconclusive and unconvincing. A 2005 meta-analysis published in the Lancet comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicine demonstrated that homeopathy's effects are unlikely to be different from that of a placebo.[6]''' Ante  lan  talk  04:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed.Of course. Thats a correct reading of the previous metanalyses. But perhaps it should be clear that these conclusions belong to the writers? Jsut a thought maybe it is OK the way it is.


 * Now: you could edit the article and add it.

Actually I did it. Thanks for your nice editing. Best.


 * Great, thanks. Are you (or others) sure that so much detail on meta-analysis belongs in the intro, though? I was thinking this might go better in the body... Ante  lan  talk  05:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont know about the others. I think it is Ok the way it is. The lead could be up to 4 paragraphes. There is space for more info if you wish.


 * Also: Lackof regulation in homeopathy in some ocuntries allows to quacks to fool patients and this is an issue  it should be included in the lead. At least when a MD or a well trained proffesional practices homeopathy hopefully has the training to comprehend the limits of homeopathy and will not let someone put his/her life in danger by avoiding the correct convetional medication.  --74.73.146.22 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this page have its own rules now?
I thought WP:Be_bold was a policy that applied to all pages, but apparently people who want to push quackery and suppress a factually correct article on the homoeopathy fraud get to create their own rules for this page only, like "don't make any edits whatsoever without posting them on the talk page to be pilloried by people who believe in magic first." Did I miss the announcement of this rule change? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * as you see here it is not a factually correct article. Please read the  sources first and comment. best  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind registering a username? It's tough to keep track of your contributions when your IP changes so frequently. Thanks, Ante  lan  talk  04:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * will do later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Let me know when you get around to it and I'll work with you on making the changes you've suggested above. Ante  lan  talk  05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Is someone going to answer my question? Is this page part of Wikipedia and subject to the stated rules of Wikipedia, or have the homeopaths seceded from Wikipedia and started running this page as a fiefdom where they make whatever rules are beneficial to their pro-magic beliefs? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any examples of what you talking about? Given most pro homeopathic changes to the article are reverted within hours if not minutes I'm not sure what you have seen to give you this opinion. David D. (Talk) 11:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The only edit Randy Blackamoor ever made to this article was |this, calling homeopathy a fraud in the lead sentence. The definition of fraud involves deliberate deception. As wrong as I believe homeopathy to be, I am also convinced that almost all of its supporters sincerely believe it to be true. An edit like that certainly requires discussion on the talk page under the rules of Wikipedia. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting edit history. David D. (Talk) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I drop in on this page every once in a while, and it's striking to me how much the anti-homeopathic crowd insist on proclaiming once and for all that their view should be accepted as objective fact. There is so much opposition to homeopathy from entirely credible sources that it should suffice to explicitly state the references, but this doesn't seem adequate. All these shrill denunciasions, and the one from "Randy Blackamoor" almost seem comical. --Leifern (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost? David D. (Talk) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

SPOV/NPOV
Sigh. --Leifern (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, there is no provision in WP:NPOV that says NPOV doesn't apply to articles related to science. The SPOV and NPOV dispute has been argued and settled. NPOV is one of only a few policies in Wikipedia and should therefore be adhered to.
 * Second, without getting into the depths of the philosophy of science, it is very difficult to decide what is science and what isn't on topics such as these. It's not up to one editor or a group of editors to define and delineate what they consider science and what falls outside of science.
 * Third, the scientific method is nothing if not aware of its own limitations in general, and real scientistics within medical and biological sciences specifically usually have as their starting point the primitive state of the art within their field. In short, there are far more questions than answers, far more that remains unexplained than explained.
 * Fourth, there are plenty of credible voices who express healthy skepticism toward homeopathy that it shouldn't be necessary to express the supposed failings of homeopathy as an objective certainty rather than a widely held position.
 * Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ Adam Cuerden talk 15:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well since the lancet in 1998 ( and other notable sources ) publish meta analyses stating that Homeopathy cannot be explained only as a placebo effect and more or less theay say about positive or promising results is not fringe anymore - like timecube ot whatever.


 * Minority yes. But since scinetists study it for a long time ( suggest more studies ) and mainly cocnclude that the results are positive but insufficient/ or not convicing ( besides the last one ) then it is not like  astrology or like time cube or flat earth. Not fringe. Thats obvious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Without taking a stand on the particular edit in question, I want to say that I concur with Leifern's reading of Wikipedia policy. There is nothing in the policy referenced by Adam that suggests that the NPOV should ever be abandoned in favor of a SPOV. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. You can't get much clearer than that. If you think that SPOV is NPOV in a particular case, then you can make your argument using the terms of NPOV. If you think it is different, then you shouldn't be using it. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lancet has (to its credit) published several contradictory articles on homeopathy through the years, and it's safe to say that there is considerable uncertainty. Skepticism is certainly warranted, and proponents of homeopathy have to answer a number of questions. It is not our job at Wikipedia to resolve the issue whether homeopathy clearly is pseudoscience, and the section you're referring to says that there has to be unanimity that this is pseudoscience. This does not exist for homeopathy, or there wouldn't be serious articles and metastudies to examine the evidence. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute has been resolved. --Leifern (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The NPOV FAQ doesn't say there must be unanimity, it says theories which have a following but are generally considered pseudoscience can be described as such. I can't see how homeopathy wouldn't fall under this description, given the sources provided and the statements by major medical organizations.  I think the article does quite a good job of including views that describe homeopathy and its tenets, that describe the current state of scientific analysis, and that describe the evolution of homeopathy as a cultural phenomenon.--Trystan (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read the Arbcom ruling. When even "questionable" science can't be considered pseudoscience, then it's pretty clear that homeopathy - which is being studied by serious scientists - does not fall into pseudoscience. As I've pointed out, it isn't for us to determine whether homeopathy has some, much, or little validity. It's our job to present the controversy where there is one. It is also considered bad form to remove NPOV tags without engaging in a serious discussion about it. I made a number of clearly good faith edits that were reverted without discussion, and rather than engage in a revert war, I am tagging it appropriately. --Leifern (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, Trystan, could you remind me which major medical organization has stated homeopathy to be pseudoscience? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point in time, there has been little progress in getting this article into a neutral article on a controversial subject. My position has been very clear. This article should not be promoting homeopathy, but it should also not present homeopathy as "inane" nonsense. There are numerous research studies that suggest that homeopathic effects are not merely attributable to placebo effects. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Trystan above. You haven't justified why this article warrants a tag. If you think it does add references to back up your argument, don't just say it has some effect or say the article calls homeopathy inane - you need evidence. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It warrants a tag for the simple reason that disputed assertions are presented as objective facts, and because editors have explicitly they are basing this on SPOV rather than NPOV standards, in clear defiance of NPOV policy.--Leifern (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clear from the article that there have been studies supportive of homeopathy. To portray the dozens or hundreds of individual study results with any sort of neutrality, rigourous meta-analysis is required.  Is there some specific way you think that the meta-analyses are being misrepresented?--Trystan (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * why dont you read the talk page? It is all there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The most recent article - that I'm aware of - in Lancet cites a metastudy of several trials involving homeopathic remedy. The conclusions of this meta-study is that higher quality studies tend to reject the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies are efficacious, thereby lending support to the null hypothesis that homeopathy is no better than a placebo. Several medical doctors fear that an overreliance on homeopathy may lead individuals to neglect conventional treatments, to their detriment. Meanwhile, homeopathic practitioners claim that a) their clinical experience certainly supports the use of homeopathy; b) they have always relied on scientifically valid "proofs" to test remedies; c) double-blind clinical trials of very high quality and beyond the means of homeopathic practitioners, as there are no intellectual property laws protecting the manufacture or marketing of homeopathic remedies; and d) those that have been performed on the whole tend to support homeopathy. To which skeptics say that it is difficult to falsify a treatment that is so dependent on individual characteristics; and that since they can't understand how homeopathy works, what with dilution and so forth, it seems implausible. All this is covered in the article, but it's worth nothing that this is not a field where research has been exhausted. --Leifern (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious Origins
This article is missing information about Hahnemann's development of homeopathic methods. Unless he drew it whole out of the ether, some further explanation is needed on this issue. What theoretical precursors helped him develop the system? Clarification here might provide a firmer footer for theoretical explanations of the system that, as stated now, seem unsupportable within known science. Naturezak (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This would inevitably be a long and complicated story; are you really sure you want this adding to the article? why is it necessary? If so, I will try and compose a short-ish paragraph. BTW it is not mysterious. thanks Peter morrell 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the present article did a nice job of summarizing the history. Now, if people are interested, we can have a daughter article that gives a more extensive history. But at least as far as I am concerned, I think the present treatment in this article is pretty good.--Filll (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I shall compose and present here later a short para detailing the path Hahnemann took between 1783 and the first provings of 1790 and show his thinking and his methods and from which the 'homeopathic system' sprang forth. Peter morrell 07:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter, that sounds like a fine idea. The article now gives short shrift to the sources and precursors Hahnemann used. The history as given here implies that he conceived of the system out of the whole cloth after responding to Cullen's treatise. He however had many sources, and was not himself the original source the theory of medical similiars. An obvious place to start would be with the sources indicated in Emmans Dean, Michael (2001). "Homeopathy and "the progress of science"". History of science; an annual review of literature, research and teaching 39 (125 Pt 3): 255–83.: Although Hahnemann’s sources are identified in everything he wrote, they have not been dealt with adequately by historians outside the homeopathic profession. For sources and precursors of the fundamental homeopathic principle, see Linn J. Boyd, A study of the simile in medicine (Philadelphia, 1936). For Hahnemann’s system as a whole, see: Harris Coulter, Divided legacy (II): The origins of modern Western medicine: J. B. Van Helmont to Claude Bernard (Washington, DC, 1977), 304–430. For an examination of the origins of Hahnemann’s research methods, pharmacology and disease theories, see: Michael E. Dean, “Homeopathy and alchemy: (1) A pharmacological gold standard”, The homeopath, no. 79 (2000), 22–27, and “Homeopathy and alchemy: (2) Contagion from miasms”, ibid., no. 80 (2001), 26–33. For subsequent influence on medicine, see: Harris Coulter, “Homoeopathic influences in nineteenth century allopathic therapeutics: A historical and philosophical study”, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, lxv (1972), 139–81, 207–44; Phillip A. Nicholls, Homoeopathy and the medical profession (London, 1988); John S. Haller, “Aconite: A case study in doctrinal conflict and the meaning of scientific medicine”, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, lx (1984), 888–904; W. B. Fye, “Vasodilator therapy for angina pectoris: The intersection of homeopathy and scientific medicine”, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, xlv (1990), 317–40. For Hahnemann’s use of within-patient placebo controls, see: Michael E. Dean, “A homeopathic origin for placebo controls: ‘An invaluable gift of God’”, Alternative therapies in health and medicine, vi (2000), 58–66, and subsequent debate: Michael E. Dean and Ted J. Kaptchuk, “Debate over the history of placebos in medicine”, Alternative therapies in health and medicine, vi (2000), 18–20. The omission of these sources contributes to a non-NPOV perception that Hahnemann 'made it all up'. For that reason, I think a bit of information about his theoretical precursors would be helpful to the end of ensuring readers are not misled. Naturezak (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Hold on there, Bald Eagle! Yes it would all be fine and good to include all that stuff, but do you realise how long that would be? It would be a whole article in itself. I have so far written about 5 paragraphs about the origins of homeopathy, with little about his alleged precursors. It is not yet sourced and it only goes up to 1790. There is much left to add and then it needs sourcing. Perhaps you ask for too much. BTW some of those sources you mention are not ones I would use. I do not buy all that is written about his alleged precursors. Much of it is invented; dots joined up eagerly by non-historians on flimsy or non-existent evidence are hardly dots worth joining. If you follow. Hahnemann truly was a pioneer; there was little he had to go on. If he had so many so-called leads, then why did it take him about 20 years (c.1783-1801) to put it all together? Such a view simply doesn't stack up. More later on this forsure. Peter morrell 13:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's please no more with the "bald eagle" business.
 * It is my estimate that no more than 100 words would be needed to properly situate Hahnemann's system in relation to its theoretical precursors. I'll work on one myself, if you prefer not to. Naturezak (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Neutrality tag needs to be up until this article is NPOV
I just put back the NPOV tag indicating that this article has a problem with neutrality. Within minutes, this was reverted with a comment "please engage in specific, constructive discussion instead of tagging". The problem is that I have been attempting to engage on this talk page since 6 December 2007 in specific, constructive discussion. I have given specific, constructive suggestions only to have homeopathy insulted as "inane" and specific research studies that I pointed to be mis-characterized as having conclusions that were not the very consclusions of the research that I quoted from the studies. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The addition of the proposed articles was considered by other editors and the prevailing opinion was not to include them. Reading the discussion, I see no reason to think they were acting improperly or violating NPOV.  The article addresses studies through meta-analyses.  Specifically highlighting favourable ones would give them undue weight.
 * The article does present scientific consensus as fact, but this is done in many articles, and isn't elsewhere considered to be a violation of NPOV.--Trystan (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The article currently specifically highlights unfavourable studies, thus giving them undue weight. The neutrality tag specifically states not to remove it until consensus has been reached.

As I pointed out before, the article states: "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible" as a statement of fact. I and other editors contend that NPOV standards require the statement to state: "Most scientists currently believe that the ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible". That is one example that I have pointed to that could easily be changed from POV to NPOV. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The current studies are offered as representative examples of the conclusions of the meta-analysis that leads the "Research on medical effectiveness" section, or otherwise generally have notable qualities to add to the discussion. What specifically about the studies you mentioned warrant their inclusion?
 * Representing a scientific consensus as "Most scientists believe..." is not neutral. The article accurately reflects the views of homeopaths as well as the views of the scientific community.--Trystan (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that "Most scientists believe..." is not neutral. Look at any other encyclopedia for examples how articles are written from a NPOV, with no indication in those articles what the personal opinions or beliefs of the editors of those articles are. That is how Wikipedia articles should be written, according to WP:NPOV.

As for the 1997 meta-analysis in Lancet, there is a very significant statement:

Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al (1997). "Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials". Lancet 350 (9081): 834–43. Linde and colleagues analysed 89 trials and found a mean odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval, 2.05–2.93), in favor of homeopathy. When considering just those trials of “high quality” and after correcting for publication bias, the findings actually remained statistically significant. The main conclusion was that the results "were not compatible with the hypothesis that the effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo." Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are confused I am afraid. First, Wikipedia is not the same as other encyclopediae. Second, neutrality of other encyclopediae is not the same as WP:NPOV. Read these policies. They state, "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly" and "articles 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." That is, in the medical and scientific fields, what fraction of the practitioners subscribe to homeopathy? A teeny tiny fraction, from my observations. I can estimate it for you if you like, but I would wager it is quite small. Now, we have to present homeopathy in proportion to the prominence of both the homeopathy supporters, and the detractors. That means, the article should be 99% against homeopathy. Instead, it is 60% for homeopathy. So please stop complaining and move on to something else.--Filll (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quote mining is a fun activity. But you failed to read carefully.  They stated in conclusion:  However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.  In other words, though the data didn't quite confirm a placebo effect (as a hypothesis), it clearly disproved the hypothesis that homeopathy was efficacious for any clinical condition.  So, unless you want to quote mine further, my job is completely done here.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * @Filll: I dispute both your numbers and their application. In Germany if I don't watch out, I am likely to be prescribed those sugar pills by my general practitioner. My perception is that at least a sizeable minority of the medical profession here thinks that homeopathy has something going for it. Every pharmacy advertizes that they provide "homeopathy and allopathy". But regardless of the numbers, I think it is wrong to add up sentences "for" and "against" homeopathy. The entire article should be neutral.
 * @Orangemarlin: Please remember that "insufficient evidence" is not the same as "clearly disproven". Even if everyone could agree (which they can't) on exactly what homeopathy is and how it can be tested, you can never prove that it has no effect. The best you can do is decide how big the effect would have to be to be clinically relevant and show that it is below this level.
 * --Art Carlson (talk) 09:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been my experience, having been involved in numerous contentious debates especially related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, that the predominant view on issues generally carry more weight when their source is clearly stated than when they are asserted as fact. Bald assertions about controversial subjects discredit the views. It's harder to write NPOV, but we so what? Homeopathy as it is practiced today relies on a conceptual foundation, a defined set of practices, and a huge compilation of literature. Clearly, all these things are disputed. But I think it would be to overstate the state of the controversy by characterizing all these controversies as finally settled. Art Carlson's quotes are telling - the journals that are examining the efficacy of homeopathy are very careful about phrasing what has been proven, disproven, etc. Why should we subscribe to a lower standard? And I agree with Arion 3x3, it is telling that the "anti" homeopathic crowd is clearly more militant than anyone else here. As a matter of personal disclosure, I don't know if homeopathy works or not, and I think the field should be subject to skeptical scrutiny, like everything else. But I have also found that medical science in general understands far less than they understand, so I prefer to maintain an open, but skeptical mind about everything I hear. --Leifern (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't just an issue of medicine. It's also an issue of physics and chemistry. When homeopathy was invented, atomic theory was still fairly controversial. Today we understand that most homeopathic remedies contain no solute and that the physical interaction of molecules is all that makes a solution (there is no magical dissolving genie or water memory). Homeopathy contradicts these basic facts of science. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Two questions are being discussed here. One is the question of scientific plausibility. I would object to saying homeopathy is "scientifically impossible", but "scientifically implausible" seems fair. Even if a few scientists believe they can identify (to them) promising potential mechanisms, and even if it turns out in the end to really be true, it just doesn't fit in with the current scientific view of the world, i.e. it is implausible. The other question is "Leaving aside the plausibility of the mechanism, what is the evidence for and against clinical efficacy?" I feel there is a tendency of the "anti's" to read more into the studies than is actually claimed there. You can legitimately argue, When the mechanism is implausible and the clinical evidence is shaky, then there is very likely nothing there. The formulations chosen by several editors is more like, Whether the mechanism is plausible or not, the clinical studies have proven that there is nothing there. I think it is more accurate to just leave it at "shaky". --Art Carlson (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are being admirably fair, Art, scrupulously fair, I would say. Maybe folks should read this new item a response to the 'homeophobes' like Ben Goldacre who never tires of disputing homeopathy at every turn on theoretical grounds. It might throw some new stuff to the surface for folks to chew at! Peter morrell 16:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave the emotionally charged and morally repugnant word "homeophobia" out of this. To compare being skeptical of and criticising alt. med. to hateful homophobia is low, disgusting, and trivialises real homophobia. Unprovoked (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever disgusting or trivial here. It has nothing to do with homophobia; if you actually read the article above you will see what homeophobes means. It is their name NOT mine. It is a perfectly valid term & etymologically correct. Peter morrell 18:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is a perfectly valid word for this phenomenon: scepticism. The use of the word "homeophobia" is intentionally designed to unfavourably compare sceptics with homophobics. That is lowering the level of the debate. I didn't mean to imply that you thought of the word, I was trying to make you aware of it's full context. It is a non-word. Unprovoked (talk)
 * After reviewing some of the Lancert articles and letters, I think Art is right on the money. One letter in particular, by the researchers of the 1997 meta-analysis cited by Arion above, says makes three interesting points:
 * They agree that homeopathy is implausible.
 * They regret that their meta-analysis has been taken by homeopaths as an endorsement of the practice, rather than an indication that more rigourous study is required.
 * They find fault with the methodology of the 2005 meta-analysis, and conclude that homeopathy has still not been rigourously proven to be no greater than placebo effect.
 * So I agree it's fair to say that the principles of homeopathy are scientifically implausible, since there does seem to be a genuine consensus on that point. But the article should indicate some debate about whether its effects have been rigourously proven to be no greater than placebo effect.  Some researchers feel the 2005 meta-analysis was sound, some feel it was flawed and that more study is required to reach a definitive conclusion.--Trystan (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, "more study required" is not the same as definitely disproven, and if serious scientists believe that homeopathy - at least theoretically - can be proven or disproven, then it can't be pseudoscience. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that homeopaths simply assert the dilution increases potency, and they posit possible (though admittedly to my mind implausible) explanations for this. There are many observable natural phenomena that we can't explain, so this shouldn't alarm us - the question remains whether the reported effects of homeopathy are real in a controlled setting, and that's what the Lancet series and other studies seek to ascertain. As I said, this article should without any question make the skeptics' case, but it shouldn't overstate it. --Leifern (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no need for a NPOV tag here. Lobojo (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is for constructive discussion, not voting. --Leifern (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting, I am merely announcing that this is now on my watchlist, and will object to NPOV tags and assorted boxen-spam from aggrieved editors. I read the article and it seems fair, it gives fair homeopathy a fair hearing, but rightly makes it clear that it is not science, not falsifiable and is indeed unproven and unprovable. It is pseudoscience by even the strictest definition of the term. Homeopaths quoted in the article even "defend" it by saying that science just isn't designed to fairly evaluate homeopathy - what more can anyone add. It is pseudoscience. Lobojo (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason we need to decide if "pseudoscience" applies is to determine whether that category is appropriate. I think it clearly meets this criterion: "subjects which a significant portion of the scientific community fault as failing to meet the norms and standards of scientific practice in one way or another (Note that some of these fields, or parts of them, may be the subject of scientific research and may not be wholly dismissed by the scientific community.)"  As you yourself point out above, homeopaths tend to reject the standard, scientific double-blind method.
 * As I said, the article should acknowledge some disagreement within the scientific community as to whether homeopathy has been rigorously proven to be no more effective than placebo. At the same time, we must be careful not to represent the results of the meta-analyses as concluding that it is efficacious, since that wasn't the conclusion of any of the researchers.--Trystan (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if this were the case, which it isn't it would still be in the category since by all scientific accounts the rationale behind it is bogus and silly. Lobojo (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if what weren't the case? Which part of my post are you referring to there?  I agreed that it is appropriately categorized as pseudoscience.--Trystan (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I was agreeing with you, but adding that ever 'twer you wrong on that point, I would still argree in general. Lobojo (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

administators please explain -The Neutrality tag needs to be up ?

 * I would like an administator to explain when the under dispute tag needs to be up. For example, now it needs to be up  since there is a dispute going about   the N point of view of the article or not? Please explain. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)
 * Well, maybe administrators are out for dinner. I know it is an annoying question. Whenever you come back please answer - I dont want to participate in the discussion -just curiosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators are supposed to avoid content disputes in their roles as admins (as editors they are of course free to engage in them). The use of the tag is very clear, and it even states clearly that it is not to be removed until and unless the dispute is resolved. Meanwhile, I've been threatened with a 3RR block for trying to keep up with policy on this. I guess there are editors who simply can't bring themselves to actually discuss matters and would rather bully those they disagree with. --Leifern (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why dont they assign an administrator who is not involved in this to moderate ? msurprised thereis no administators for this discussion available. Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Administrators aren't gods. We aren't any more objective than other editors, we just have a few extra buttons on our toolbars.  We definitely aren't in a position to adjudicate content disputes.  Have you considered a Request for Mediation, instead?


 * Speaking solely for myself, I also think it would be good for all the parties here to stop shouting at each other over whether or not there ought to be a tag on the article (or worse, edit warring over it) and get back to talking about whatever issues still need resolution. Pardon my bluntness, but fighting over a tag is just lame. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding .The question is very clear: according to wiki rules the tag should bethere or not? A neutral administrator should be able to answer this. It seems easy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that arguing over a tag is unproductive. We ought to be working on the article, so that there's no question about whether or not it needs a tag.  Focus, people!  The easy road is saying "I've made sure there's a label on the dispute" the hard road is saying "I'm going to assume that everyone here wants to improve the encyclopedia; let's work to resolve this dispute".  There's an old Chinese proverb, When a wise man points at the Moon, it is the fool who looks at his finger.


 * Quit looking at the finger, everyone; you're missing the point. Figure out exactly where the dispute – if any – lies.  Is it the lede?  Any particular section?  Individual words or phrases?  The tone of particular paragraphs?  Talk it out.  Describe clearly and specifically what points of view are being omitted or granted undue weight.  Don't fiddle with the tags on the article – at all – for a period of time.  Give it a week or two, at least.  Battling over tags is a pointless and sterile exercise and does nothing to advance any sort of dispute resolution.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion is obviously no: The tag should be not be up. Even if I agree with what you say about dialogue, the rules state that yes the tag should be up for the reasons you see below  ( explained well by  User:Leifern|Leifern). Of course, the majority of the  administrators could decide to not apply the rules or to apply them selectively.It is becoming very difficult to argue though,  that the moderation of the discussion in  this talk page is sound, according to the wikipedia rules  and it does not try to preserve the current POV.Very difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)


 * I think it's entirely possible to work out the differences on the actual text. tags are intended as a service to our readers, so that they understand when reading the article that there is controversy about the article that hasn't been resolved. These tags are supposed to be "sticky" in the sense that they should stay - as the tag clearly indicates - until the controversy is resolved or reached some level of stasis. Without the tag, readers may be misled into thinking that there is consensus about how we characterize the controversy over the topic, and that's doing our readers a disservice. I can't recall ever having removed this kind of tag until I felt comfortable the issues had been resolved, no matter how comfortable I was with one particular version. --Leifern (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I invite everyone to read from WP:NPOVD: ''Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.'' -- Levine2112 discuss 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct.Agreed. Hopefully  some administrators or supervisors ( do they exist ? I dontknow ) will decide to take a look at this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)

100% Neutrality
We have had the assertion on this page that "the article should be 99% against homeopathy" and that is absolutely wrong. It should be 100% neutral, presenting both sides of the controversy without bias. I gave an example of 3 specific studies that indicated results that could not be attributed to placebo effects. The response that I received was that the results of the studies were not as I stated. Yet I copied and pasted directly from the abstracts of those studies. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that you do not understand the rules of WP are not a good sign. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. And according to WP policy, the article can be 99% anti homeopathy. So try to learn first. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would simplify things if we steer clear of cherry picking on both sides by removing the existing references to specific clinical trial results and focus on accurately describing the meta-analyses.--Trystan (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's basically the point behind No original research. There are more than a few studies, some of them of apparently high quality in reputable journals, reporting a positive effect of homeopathy. But it is not our job here to summarize the hundreds of individual studies, i.e. the primary sources. The ideal in Wikipedia is to use secondary sources, in this case meta-analyses. There are only a handful of these, so we should endeaver to fairly present their conclusions. We probably shouldn't discuss any individual studies at all (though that is not an absolute rule). The point about being 100% neutral is one I also made above. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you apply this rule then all the negative studies showing negative they should be removed.I think that they should be included though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 100% neutral and I agree with undue weight too but i don't think the point of all this is to have it 99% negative towards homeopathy. First, any description of homeopathy itself should not judge. Second, how would it even be possible for describe what homeopaths think in 1% of the article. I interpret undue weight as purely a guide to ensuring there is not a preponderance of opinion against the conventional view, i.e. we need some balance that reflects reality, however it's not quantifiable. David D. (Talk) 21:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some proposed principles and premises to get out of the impasse
Some premises I think we should agree on: --Leifern (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Homeopathy is a controversial subject, and the article should give the reader a good introduction to the controversy. This includes a bit of writing for the enemy on both/all sides of the issue.
 * It should be clear that dominant view in the medical mainstream community ranges from skeptical to rejectionist. But we have to be careful not project on them all outright hostility.
 * Proposed explanations for the way homeopathy work defy known and established laws of physics, and it's therefore safe to say that such explanations ring implausible.
 * There are not many golden standard clinical trials available. This is partly due to the protocol for indicating homeopathic remedies; and partly due to the fact that such trials are difficult to finance unless there's intellectual property at stake.
 * Those trials that have been completed fall short of a golden standard but show mixed results.
 * Several meta studies have been conducted; the most recent ones suggest that a) more study is needed, and b) findings suggest that the effects of homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable for a placebo effect.
 * Homeopathic practitioners defend their positions by arguing that...
 * Skeptics, on the other hand, argue that...


 * I think that those sounds good on the whole. The only qualifications I would add are that any discussion about the quality of clinical trials, their findings, or the reasons for the lack of them should be dealt with by reference to the meta-analyses that have been done.  Trying to synthesize conclusions about the research field ventures into original research, and is beyond our capacity here anyway.--Trystan (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Scientific research supporting homeopathy
By ignoring studies, some of them of apparently of high quality in reputable journals, reporting a positive effect of homeopathy, we are simply perpetuating the wrong impression that "science" has not found anything positive about homeopathy. Here is just one example of a scientific research study supporting homeopathy :


 * A study of the effect of decimal and centesimal dilutions of arsenic on the retention and mobilisation of arsenic in the rat Cazin, M., Gaborit, J., Chaoui, A., Boiron, J., Belon, P., Cherruault, Y., Papapanayotou, C. Human Toxicology. 1987; 6: 315-320


 * Abstract: Having developed a pharmacokinetic method for studying the fate of orally administered arsenious anhydride by a radioactive tracer method, the influence of Hahnemannian dilutions of arsenicum album on the elimination and retention of this toxin in the rat was then investigated. The effects of centesimal (cH) and decimal (dH) dilutions were studied.All the dilutions studied were found to be active. The strongest effects were observed after the administration of dilutions corresponding to a concentration of 10-14 (14dH and 7cH). Overall, the decimal dilutions augmented the elimination of arsenic more than the centesimals.The observed results were submitted to mathematical analysis. A mathematical model, which confirms that Hahnemannian dilutions have biological effects which are a direct function of the degree of dilution, was developed.

It's about time to stop claiming that there are no scientific research studies supporting homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Restarting the same discussion every time it shows signs of progress isn't helping. The article doesn't say that there are no studies supporting homeopathy.  It says just the opposite: "Various publications using meta-analysis... reported positive results from the use of homeopathy."--Trystan (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Life Science foundation seems to conduct and publish research for and about homeopathic treatments. For example, they are investigating spin coupling of electrons. We laugh now, but breakthroughs may result. Sounds like voodoo science to me, but if I were alive at the time of Darwin, who would have thunk my cousin's a monkey? If they are part of the Life Science Research Foundation, they are doing peer reviewed research.. Ra2007 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And, while this stuff is beyond my little brain, it looks like the University of Minnesota has a bunch of Ph.D.s and others working on homeopathy. I hope this helps make the article better by providing additional sources and/or leads.  Ra2007 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What sources do you propose including from this institution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturezak (talk • contribs)

Here are 5 more research studies suggesting that homeopathy is not simply a "placebo effect":

Gibson and colleagues in Glasgow performed a double blind controlled trial of homeopathic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients with careful assessment of progress. There were only 23 patients in each group, both had full homeopathic interviews but one treated group received placebo instead of remedy. 19 showed improvement in the treatment group compared to 5 in the placebo group. p=0.001.
 * Rheumatoid Arthritis study 1980. Gibson et al. J. Clin. Pharm. 1980. 9. p 453

This problem was reduced using homeopathic Caulophyllum compared with placebo. Veterinary experiments carry much dramatic effect as the placebo effect is considered less operative. A QED BBC TV Documentary program showed one half of a herd of cows being protected against mastitis by the addition of a few drops of Phytolacca 30c to their drinking trough while the other half of the herd using a non-treated trough continued to have the problem.
 * Stillbirth in Pigs. Day C. Veterinary Recorder. 1984. 9114. p 216

A study by David Reilly and colleagues in Glasgow set out to determine whether they could find any evidence to support the hypothesis that placebo response fully explains the clinical response to homeopathy. They couldn't. The study was a double blind controlled trial of 30c homeopathic potencies of mixed grasses and pollens compared to placebo. The improvement was significant for the treated group who even exhibited an initial aggravation of symptoms as might be expected for a homeopathic response. The trial was well conducted and to a high standard.
 * Hay-fever study 1986. Reilly et al. Lancet. 1986. p 365

Fisher and colleagues found a significant improvement in fibrositis cases in a rheumatology clinic using 6c potencies of Rhus tox. when those patients had the well known modalities of being worse when cold and better with continued movement. Previous studies had failed to show any difference but hadn't taken care to use the homeopathic indications for Rhus tox.
 * Fibrositis study 1989. Fisher et al. B M J. 1989. p 365

A follow-up study by David Reilly and colleagues in Glasgow to the hayfever study of 1986. The study was a double blind controlled trial of a 30c homeopathic potency of house dust mite compared to placebo. Of the 28 patients used 77% showed an improvement compared to only 33% showing an improvement with placebo. p=0.08. The trial was very well conducted and to a very high standard. The study was supervised by a consultant respiratory physician who recruited the patients for the study.
 * Asthma study using house dust mite 1994. Reilly et al. Lancet. 1994. p 1601

If you think I just happened to find these, and there are no others, I will be happy to provide you with dozens more. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A meta-analysis looks at the clinical studies that have been done in an area, evaluates their methodology, and compiles their findings. It aims to determine what conclusions can be drawn from the body of research as a whole by applying rigorous scientific analysis.  Individual studies showing positive results, regardless of how many you provide, are not conclusive.  The number of studies showing negative results must also be considered.  Their methodology must be examined.  Selecting only the positive results is called "cherry picking."
 * Synthesizing and evaluating the complete body of research into homeopathy is both original research and far beyond the capability of a wikipedia article. The only approach that we can use to deal with the results of the research in a neutral manner is to accurately report the results of the meta-analyses.--Trystan (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why some editors feel that this article is not NPOV
I will try and help organize people's thoughts into one concise play. If you think this article doesn't meet the rigors of WP:NPOV, please state why below in succinct, clear language and - if at all possible - please provide a suggestion as to how we can improve the article to meet the NPOV guidelines. In all statements, please be a specific as possible, providing quotes and references whenever possible. If we keep our thoughts organized and clear, I am sure we can work our way through removing the NPOV tag. Remember, per WP:NPOVD, the tag should remain in tact until there is a consensus here to remove it. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The rules state that yes the tag should be up for the reasons you see below ( explained well by User:Leifern|Leifern). Of course, the administrators could decide to not apply the rules

.It is becoming very difficult to argue though, that the moderation of the discussion in this talk page is sound, according to the wikipedia rules and it does not try to preserve the current POV.Very difficult. Administrator Kurykh shouldn't you protect the under dispute tag as well?

Otherwhise you could be considered that you are taking the side of the current POV on Homeopathy. Justify please --74.73.146.241 (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My protection was based on a request on Requests for page protection. My sentiments, or lack thereof, are indicated by the protection notice tag itself: "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." My protection of any version will be The Wrong Version, and hence you would be better off trying to resolve the dispute at hand rather than erroneously speculate about my nonexistent inclinations. — Kurykh  01:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No speculation was intended. I might miss something and you might be right. If more than 2 editors think that the article is not neutral the under dispute  tag -according to rules- should be there or not ? Just asking.I masking this all day but there is no responce.


 * thanks--74.73.146.241 (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As was explained above, administrators don't fill the adjudicative role you are requesting of them. You could file a request for comment on whether the tag should be included, but as has been mentioned by both admins, dropping the issue and actually discussing underlying concern would be far more productive.--Trystan (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * agreed . yes. discussion.

Just I had a quastion on why a wiki rule is not applied and wanted a clear answer. I thought administrators would be able to explain why but I was wrong. Or the rule has changed and I m not aware of it. Well. Whoever follows the discsussion can come to his/her own conclusion.

So do you think that the controversy ( appeared in major sourses ) in the 2005 lancet metanalyses should be presented in the article? yes or no? thanks

And for the actual reasons please
Okay, I don't care which version is protected. What I do want is for editors who think there is a need for the tag to please list specific examples from the existing article where they feel NPOV is being violated. If no specific and reasonable examples can be given, then I too agree that there is no need for the NPOV tag. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The controversy which the lancet 2005 studies have caused is not presented. All the sourses and references are in the talk page.


 * Is it an off-wiki controversy or are you talking about a controversy here at talk? If it is off-wiki and you have a reliable source describing said controversy please provide it here with how and where you would like to see it used in this article. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

2. There are metanalyses published showing positive for homeopathy which are not included and individual studies as well. Individual studies are included in the article but only these showing negative. Positive individual studies have been excluded since they are not ............metanalyses.( For the negatives this excuse does not apply.)


 * Please describe how and where you would like to include this material. Phrase the text for us and tell us where in the current article you believe it should go. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking through the article, I find only one individual study specifically mentioned, the mustard gas study, and that is only briefly referred to for historical reasons. All the rest seem to be meta-analyses. I may have overlooked the ones you are referring to. Could you remind me where "Individual studies are included in the article but only these showing negative."? Thanks. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs under "Research on medical effectiveness" are examples of cherry picking to make homeopathy appear ineffective. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Proposals for edits in bold, questions for Arion in italics. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 5 ("Since homeopathic remedies ...") seems to be moving from direct studies of the effect on the course of an illness to in vivo studies of effects that are objectively quantifiable. This should be made clearer in the text. Both positive and negative individual studies are cited. Reviews and meta-analyses do not seem to be available. I think this might be a case where it is acceptable to use primary sources. Do you (Arion) agree? The last sentence seems to be an individual study of effects on an illness and thus should probably be deleted. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 6 ("Systematic reviews ...") cites several (negative) reviews. For the structure of the article, paragraphs 5 and 6 should be exchanged. Do you (Arion) know of any systematic reviews of the use of homeopathy for specific conditions that report positive results? --Art Carlson (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Paragraph 7 ("In 1987, ...") covers Benveniste. This is a complex story that is hard to do justice to in the short space available in an overview of homeopathy. I think it might be better to shorten this section and link to the details in the article on Benveniste. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Paragraphs 5, 6, & 7 contain specific references to research that had results that were negative. If this is to be allowed, then specific references to research that had results that were positive toward homeopathy should be included. I listed eight research studies that specifically confirm homeopathic remedy activity just in the last several days. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ??? 5 already cites both positive and negative studies. 6 deals only with systematic reviews of efficacy for specific conditions, and as far as we know, there are no such studies with positive results. 7 does not cite any studies at all (although it obviously should cite Benveniste's Nature paper), but only opinions about Benveniste's work. I don't know what you want to change. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One more point. I think the material in the lead makes it adequately clear that the results of individual studies are mixed, e.g. "Claims for the efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies." (Emphasis added.) The material in the main text, however, is rather more dogmatic: "Homeopathy is unsupported by modern scientific research.", suggesting that no studies have reported results in favor of homeopathy. I propose, at a minimum, to add the phrase "by the collected weight ..." to the second spot. Actually I find the formulation a bit strange and would prefer something along the lines of "Scientific and clinical studies, taken as a whole, do not provide any clear support for the claims of homeopathy." --Art Carlson (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that better wording would be: "Skeptics maintain that the majority of scientific and clinical studies have not provided any clear support for the claims of homeopathy."

Since there is a considerable amount of homeopathic research that has been carried out in France and Germany, and most has not been translated into English, the facts may actually be quite different than this article currently portrays. There may actually be a majority of scientific and clinical studies that provide clear support for the claims of homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is false that only skeptics claim that the majority of studies have not provided evidentiary support for homeopathy. Are you asserting that some other party to the discussion claims that it is untrue that the majority of scientific and clinical studies have failed to provided support for the claims of homeopathy? Naturezak (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Resaerch on the memory of water not even mentioned ( besides beneviste) - again from reliable sources.Look above.


 * Please describe how and where you would like to include this material. Phrase the text for us and tell us where in the current article you believe it should go. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is in fact mentioned near the beginning of the section on Medical and scientific analysis, although only very briefly. I don't know if this article needs to go into more detail (Make a suggestion!), but in any case there should be a link to Water memory. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Basic Homeopathic opinions about metanalyses have been excluded.


 * Please describe how and where you would like to include this material. Phrase the text for us and tell us where in the current article you believe it should go. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

all the sourses available to the curious editors who will look at the talk page above.
 * I understand that this may be repetitious, but if perhaps you can just say succinctly above exactly what you would like to change/add to the article to make it satisfy NPOV in your eyes, I think having it all in one place will greatly help this project along. Thanks. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding Levine2112's request for specific suggestions: Since 6 December 2007 I have given specific examples where the article, and by extensin Wikipedia, appears to be making critical POV statements against homeopathy. I have given specific examples how, by changing the language to neutral language and citing a source for a statement, this article could be much improved into an unbiased article that does not take a position for or against homeopathy.


 * For those insisting that homeopathy is "unscientific" and "implausible", read on:


 * Hormesis, epitaxy, the structure of liquid water, and the science of homeopathy. Domenico Mastrangelo Med Sci Monit. 2006 Dec 18;13 (1):SR1-8 17179919


 * According to the western medical establishment, homeopathy is both "unscientific" and "implausible". A short overview of its history and the methods it uses, however, easily reveals that homeopathy is a true science, fully grounded on the scientific method and on principles, such as, among others, the Arndt-Schultz law, hormesis, and epitaxy, whose plausibility has been clearly and definitely demonstrated in a number of scientific publications and reports. Through a review of the scientific literature, an explanation of the basic principles of homeopathy is proposed based on arguments and evidence of mainstream science to demonstrate that, in spite of the claims of conventional medicine, homeopathy is both scientific and plausible and that there is no reasonable justification for its rejection by the western medical establishment. Hopefully, this hurdle will be overcome by opening academic institutions to homeopathy to enlarge the horizons of medical practice, recover the value of the human relationship with the patient, and through all this, offer the sick a real alternative and the concrete perspective of an improved quality of life.


 * I hope what I have shared is helpful, and my very specific suggestions will be considered. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please describe how and where you would like to include this material. Phrase the text for us and tell us where in the current article you believe it should go. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Of course. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Levine2112, and second the request that Arion propose the changes he'd like to implement rather than only directing the discussion to information outside WP. Naturezak (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

First suggestion (let's go one at a time):


 * The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. 

would be better phrased:


 * Mainstream science considers the ideas of homeopathy to be scientifically implausible and directly opposed to current pharmaceutical knowledge. 

Since I've offered numerous suggestions before, let's see if doing one sentence at a time will be more productive. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than engage in circumspec editing feel free to add your thoughts here. Shot info (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth pointing out that 74.73.146.241 is User:Sm565 evading his block? The connection is quite clear per this diff. FWIW, I can't participate in any dispute resolution until 1) any and all sockpuppetry stops, and 2)  specific suggestions on fixing the article are put forth (though I think Arion's section above could be a good start). Skinwalker (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Arion 3x3, for a concrete suggestion to work with. Plausibility is by its nature a judgment call. What else could possibly be meant by "X is scientifically implausible" other than "Mainstream science considers X to be scientifically implausible"? I have no particular objection to your proposal, other than that it is wordier, but I also don't think it adds any information or clarity. I could also live with either "modern pharmaceutical knowledge" or "current pharmaceutical knowledge", but I think "modern" is better. What distinction are you trying to make? Presumably that "current" sounds like a fashion which is bound to change next year. While that is in principle possible, science generally builds on what has gone before, so I think "modern" is a better choice. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article should express notable views rather than the views of Wikipedia users, so "considers" is definitely preferable to "is". Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There are very important reasons for the choice of the words:

(1) The current wording makes it appear as an absolute statement of fact, and makes it appear as if the article, and by extensin Wikipedia, is making critical POV statements against homeopathy. By clarifying who is making the statement, that changes it from a biased POV sentence to a NPOV sentence that is merely reporting on current mainstream scientific opinion.

(2) The use of "current" rather than "modern" makes it more of a statement of what the knowledge is, rather than subtlely implying that homeopathy belongs in the realm of "outdated" (not-modern) knowledge. Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "oppose" implies agent opposition, which is not the case. "Modern" is denotationally and connotationally correct; "current" is not. I propose: "The hypothesized mechanism of homeopathy is scientifically implausible and contradicts modern pharmaceutical knowledge. " Naturezak (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Naturezak (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no single "hypothesized mechanism of homeopathy" (unless you want to explicitely single out water memory). In fact, all the ideas that have been put forth in the direction of a mechansim fall short of being falsifiable hypotheses. I prefer something like "No mechanism that has been suggested is scientifically plausible" or else the simpler original wording. I am also bothered by both "is directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" and "contradicts modern pharmaceutical knowledge". How about "is not consistent with ..." or "cannot be accomodated with the framework of ..."? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Art. The idea that homeopathic mechanisms are "hypotheses" rings like a POV-claim. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Every article on a scientific topic I've read has stated mainstream scientific opinion as fact; e.g. dogs are mammals of the Canidae family; an atom's nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons. The difference in connotation between "current" vs. "modern" also doesn't strike me as signficant.  I view the proposed wording as equivalent to the existing one, so I don't have any problem with the change.--Trystan (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about: "The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are regarded by mainstream science as implausible and are inconsistent with modern pharmaceutical knowledge. "--Trystan (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This last one by sounds good to me.  I am assuming that the sources are reliable and fairly characterized.  Ra2007 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The version by Trystan for the sentence is an improvement over that which is currently in the article. However, I suggest that the second verb ("are") in the sentence be removed:

"The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are regarded by mainstream science as implausible and inconsistent with modern pharmaceutical knowledge. "    Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Even better Arion3x3. Ra2007 (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are scientifically implausible[2] and incompatible with modern pharmaceutical knowledge.[42]" presents the scientific consesus appropriately assertively. Naturezak (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll
So let's recap some of the suggestions and everyone say which one they support. Feel free to support more than one. Let's just add supports and no opposes. If I am missing a version which you would like to add, please do so. This is not a vote, but merely a straw poll to see which versions we should be focusing our energies on. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are scientifically implausible and incompatible with modern pharmaceutical knowledge.
 * support Naturezak (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support Art Carlson (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support Unprovoked (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support Peter morrell 12:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are regarded by mainstream science as implausible and inconsistent with modern pharmaceutical knowledge.
 * support Art Carlson (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support Peter morrell 12:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The mechanisms proposed to be at work in homeopathic practice are regarded by mainstream science as implausible and are inconsistent with modern pharmaceutical knowledge.


 * The hypothesized mechanism of homeopathy is scientifically implausible and contradicts modern pharmaceutical knowledge.


 * Mainstream science considers the ideas of homeopathy to be scientifically implausible and directly opposed to current pharmaceutical knowledge.
 * support Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * By the beginning of the 21st century, most scientists considered the validity of homeopathy to be implausible.
 * support Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I'm not sure why incompatibility with pharmaceutics would be at all relevant. Such a compatibility is not claimed, after all. The first half of the statement seems sufficient. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have another suggestion for phrasing, please add it above. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99; color:#774400; font-size:x-small;">discuss 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference cited at the end of the mention of "pharmaceutical", Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? states:

(1) "The supposed implausibility of homeopathy, which is based on the argument that very dilute substances (diluted beyond Avogadro's number) cannot have biological activity, has been investigated by a number of scientists. Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed."

(2) "high quality research shows that homeopathic preparations do have measurable effects on biological systems"

(3) "In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo. However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels. Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo."

Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The second sentence of the article states "[Homeopathy] is a system of medicine that has been in widespread use for the last 200 years, the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories." which is exactly the idea being cited.--Trystan (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I concede that I missed that sentence in the "Pharmacy Practice" article, and I have moved my support to the sentence that includes that concept. I hope everyone did not miss the 3 important points that article made about homeopathy, especially the real story about that 2005 Lancet study. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The authors of the study addressed those criticisms in an addendum/letter to the editor. They provided the information as soon as it was asked for and claimed it was an unintentional mistake to leave it out Unprovoked (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

'Opposed to' doe not necessarily imply incompatibility. Pharmacology concerns itself with the medical effects of substances, while homeopathy concerns itself with the medical effects of imprints. These are opposites, but could in theory be complementary. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is an imprint? Naturezak (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A technical term for spirit-like essence. :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A technical term in what field? And how are you defining "spirit"? Naturezak (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

“In proportion to the prominence of each”
I hope we are not heading towards a completely confused, obfuscated piece of crud. It appears to me that is what is going on. Also, we are introducing more and more material claiming that homeopathy has some substantial scientific backing, when it fact it has none. No reliable studies of efficacy. No theory behind it that makes any sense. And we seem to be removing real science. This I find extremely troubling, on a GA article. I have avoiding battling infinitely here on this article, but I really find this disturbing. So many people are just here to push a POV, which is at odds with the principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia was designed to frame topics according to the mainstream. And how does mainstream science and medicine regard homeopathy? Use your heads people, or this article will be delisted, and degrade into a disaster.

Or maybe we should just revert to the version 6 or 10 months ago? Would you jokers prefer that? Or maybe just delete it completely? Good heavens...use some common sense. Wikipedia has rules. It is not here to promote your personal pet project or your personal career or business.--Filll (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite follow you, Filll. If proposed new material is not from reliable sources, then it will not be included. If there are reliable sources saying homeopathy has some scientific backing, how can you claim it has absolutely none? And what "real science" has been suggested for removal? Finally, I am not sure what you mean by "frame according to the mainstream". It sounds like you think the article should be written from a scientific point of view, but that would be against Wikipedia policy, so I'm sure it's a simple misunderstanding. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not quite understanding my point. The policy of WP is: NPOV says 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. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all''. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.''

There were reported to be 3000 homeopaths in the US in 1996. This compares with about 1,000,000 physicians, dentists, veterinarians, optometrists etc (about 900,000 of these are physicians). So by this measure, homeopaths represent about 0.3% of the medical community. There are about 2,000,000 scientists in the US., and this implies that the number of homeopaths compared to the science and the medical community is tiny. Homeopathy, which purports to be a medical technique, and have some scientific basis, is therefore a minority position. Homeopathy, by any reasonable measure, is not prominent in the scientific community or in the medical profession.

So if Homeopathy is to be represented according to its prominence, it is less than a 1% position.

And if you talk about the positive evidence for homeopathy, this is produced only by cherry picking, as near as I can tell, after having looked at dozens and dozens of these "studies". I have not seen any objective evaluation let alone a scientific evaluation demonstrating any evidence for its efficacy at all. So if you can find some, sure it might be cited. But where is it?--Filll (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You quoted from WP:NPOV. Your arguments are the reason that homeopathy is not mentioned at all in the article on medicine. The bit that is more relevant here is farther down in the same section:
 * Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
 * "great detail" for the subject of the article. "appropriate reference" for the majority view.
 * You seem to agree with me that we should not be in the business of evaluating individual studies. Let's stick to meta-analyses and reviews. These sometimes have a more positive tilt and sometimes more negative, but they are all very cautious in framing their conclusions. Not a single one uses language like "there is no evidence at all for the efficacy of homeopathy".
 * I still don't know where you think anyone is proposing to remove "real science".
 * --Art Carlson (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The number of astronauts is even smaller, from which it clearly follows that Wikipdia should not concern itself with spacefaring, let alone suggest that one can walk on the Moon. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that there was a large cadre of anti-astronauts, well-backed with government programs and money, and very prominent in the culture. I was not aware that the engineering and scientific peer-reviewed literature was full of studies and papers demonstrating that travel to the moon was impossible or unreasonable. Please direct me to this. I must have missed something.--Filll (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so these would be necessary, after all, it's not really about numbers of people in the profession, and your rant was uncalled for. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid it seems your biases will not allow you to understand the policy or to be able to address the question in a rational fashion. I would have expected nothing less, I am sorry to say. Too bad. You are just going to have to bang your head on a brick wall pointlessly I guess.--Filll (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Very impressive that you can already see people's biases from you own expectations alone. Would that not be at odds with WP:AGF, I wonder? Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not assuming anything negative about you. It is just an observation that you seem unable or unwilling to understand the policies that Wikipedia operates under currently, for your own personal reasons. And although I continue to WP:AGF, I will note that one is not required to do once someone has exhibited behavior and attitudes antithetical to this. Again, WP policy. Better learn it if you want to play here, and engage in WP:DE and argumentation in the face of policy and evidence.--Filll (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making this easy. From now on, I will consider your talk contributions as, well, fill. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Including Homeoapathic views in the homeopathy article ? + wiki policy
1.“In proportion to the prominence of each” doesn’t mean or even imply that the supporter’s views ( of the described subject for example, homeopathy ) should not be fully and accurately stated (using notable sources) This could be equal to censoship and could make the article incomplete. The example of the flat earth does not apply here.

This is an article on Homeopathy not on Medicine of which homeopathy could ( or not ) be a branch.The analogue is different.

In an article on Homeopathy the editors must state homeopaths views and then criticize them.Obvious. The editors could use even more space to include the skeptical view but they should not exclude homeopathic views (the way they do now)  using the excuse that the article should have a skeptical tone. Nobody can seriously argue that  views recorded in notable major sources should be excluded in order to give to the article a skeptical tone ( which is by definition  violates the NPOV).

'''Arguing all the time that homeopathic views recorded on notable sources should be excluded in an article on Homeopathy weakens and discredits the skeptical view which is needed in order to make the article balanced, complete. and finally interesting'''. Sceptics have many good points -so work on fully presenting  and even expanding them in the article. Nobody will disagree with with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)

 2. I thought Art Carlson's comment was helpful in clarifying Wiki policies: 'Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. "great detail" for the subject of the article. "appropriate reference" for the majority view'--74.73.146.241 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Since you want to change Wikipedia policy, as near as I can determine, you are clearly on the wrong talk page.--Filll (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable studies of efficacy
(1) A great example of how an article about homeopathy can present both sides of the controversy without taking sides is the excellent NPOV article "Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?"

(2) There was an inaccurate claim made by Filll that there were no reliable studies of efficacy for homeopathy.

He asked for "objective evaluation" and "a scientific evaluation demonstrating any evidence for its efficacy" - so here it is.


 * Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.


 * Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633.


 * Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.


 * Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005. http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/936

These are positive results confirming the efficacy of homeopathy. As the saying goes: "Nobody is as blind as the one who does not want to see." Arion 3x3 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * and more


 * This study which was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the 'Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)’ Peter F. Matthiessen, (Chair of Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine, University Witten/Herdecke (Germany).
 * 
 * Forsch Komplement Med (2006). 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29. Epub 2006 Jun 26.ealth technology assessment. Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF.
 * Chair in Medical Theory and Complementary Medicine, University of Witten/Herdecke, Germany


 * CONCLUSION: Taking internal and external validity criteria into account, effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe. Reliable statements of cost-effectiveness are not available at the moment. External and model validity will have to be taken more strongly into consideration in future studies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Except for the fact that the most recent, best-controlled trials are not in agreement, this makes sense. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Which "recent, best-controlled trials"? Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The definition(s) of a "good" study -let alone the "best"- has been controversial. I don't suggest that the Lancet 2005 Metanalyses should not be mentioned. I see though that they are the only ones which clearly state that homeopathy effect = placebo.Furhtermore they have been critisized for being biased and generally were regarded as controversial. This critisism and controversy -as I read- can be found in mainstream sources (BBC etc ). Its critics say that the writers did not mentioned what studies were included in the final analysis and other things but I m not really qualified to say if they have a point. Critisism and the study itself should be included though since they are so notable. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would certainly be tough to evaluate which trials are "the best." Fortunately, I don't have to perform any WP:OR to try to figure this out. Authors published in The Lancet have already done this for us. It's been referenced, repeatedly, above. If we want to mention that there is pop cultural criticism of this study, fine, but you would have to produce some scientific criticism for it to be particularly meritorious. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lancet has a specific weight as a source thats why it should be mentioned. Its critisism should also be mentioned since it also has some weight and notable sources refer to it. Do you agree? BTW it is not a "pop cultural criticism" look below.

  The last one is a very interesting dialogue.--74.73.146.241 (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the article Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? clearly states:


 * "In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo. However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels. Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo." Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, these authors left out those 102 studies because they were methodologically flawed. However, if you keep the flawed studies in the mix, things look better for homeopathy. Why is this surprising? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (because it was claimed in the press that the meta-analyses "proved" that Homeopathy = placebo based on 110 trials not just 8. I suppose. There are points made by Dr. Fisher as well who argues why he thinks the whole study was biased.)

My main point is though that editor's job here is not to judge the meta analyses themselves but to report what notable sources say about them. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly the bbc and any other news source is completely unauthorative on science topics so they should stay out but lets take a look at that Johnson article shall we. From the article: "A second, extremely rigorous, meta-analysis was conducted in 1997 by Linde et al in an attempt to ascertain whether or not the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo effects...After controlling for publication bias, and quality of evidence, their results showed that homeopathy performed significantly better (combined odds ratio was 2.45 in favour of homeopathy) than placebo, with a confidence interval of 95%." Now for the sake of comparison lets see what Linde et al. actually concluded "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition." I think they are being at least a tiny bit selective in what they choose to report. Don't you?


 * Lets keep going. From the article "Additional scrutiny, including methodological revisions by the authors themselves in a subsequent paper, confirmed these findings." Again they cited another paper by Linde et al. Lets see what Linde et al said in one of those cited papers "We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results." Honestly, if I was Linde, I would not be happy about my research being used in this way. Linde et al clearly makes the case that study quality is an important factor and the inclusion of lower quality studies may lead to more positive (and less accurate) results, yet the author uses Linde et al's research to make the point that all 110 studies should have been kept in the Lancet analysis. When an author pretends that all their sources agree with them when they clearly don't that is a pretty good indication that the author is POV pushing. If this source is to be included in the homeopathy article some mention must be made of the fact that many of her sources actually seem to disagree with her statments. Also, it should be noted that pretty much everyone who has done a meta-analysis of homeopathy has excluded the majority of trials for poor methodology so the consenus within the scientific community seems to be that most homeopathy trials are of poor quality and warrant exclusion.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is pretty simple: The editor's job here is not to judge the meta analyses themselves but to report them and also report what any notable sources say about them in case of a controversy.

To accomplish this we use the authors conclusions not ours conclusions for what they could have meant ( since this would be original research) To avoid interpetaions influced by our personal bias, we try to use their wording as much as we can. It is simple, effective, NOPV and it simplifies our digital life ( leaving more time for other healthy activities ).Right? --74.73.146.241 (talk) 06:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you want to do it like that why don't we report the critical article and then juxtapose them with quotes from all the articles that they cited. That way the readers themselves can see that the claims are completely baseless as the authors statements don't even correspond to the claims of their sources. By your own arguments there is no POV issue here as we would simply be listing both sets of authors POVs.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV consists of different POVs presented using notable sources. This applies to critisim no to the facts which are indisputable. Special reference to majority view should be made.


 * BBC is a good source - it falls into Wiki criteria thats why it is used in the current article. Of course, so far,  it is used only when it reports something against homeopathy.  --74.73.146.241 (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what BBC was cited for: "Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination,[15][16][17] and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs" It's fine to use them to support a quote that is of the form "Such and such says". The BBC, however, are not a scientific source and should not be treated as such. They therefore cannot offer scientific criticism. If you want to say that there is a political controversy over the efficacy of homeopathy and cite the BBC then fine but you cannot say there is a scientific controversy then cite the BBC. The BBC do not decide in matters of science. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Major press just certifies that there is notable controversy on Homeopathy. This fact is not reported in the current article - thats why is seriously biased. --74.73.146.241 (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Given all the above comments and new ideas, can we please now have a suggestion to vote on as to how the body text might be improved to accommodate these diverse views about trials and their interpretation? the wording does not have to be too radical but should ideally embrace all views. as before, can someone suggest 2 or 3 alternative wordings that we can all vote on and then we can implement the democratic changes chosen. thanks Peter morrell 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Before a vote takes place let me sum up the arguments, and the users arguing those points (apologies if I misrepresent anyone's arguments. I'll start with my arguments:

Ok admittedly I gave more time to my own arguments here but I still believe my asseessment of the opposition's arguments is accurate. To be fair though, reading this page, the opposing view only seems to be held by Arion 3x3 and Leifern and 74.73.146.241 and of course since 74.73.146.241 is not logging in we do not know his user account name. Maybe I missed someone but that's all I see.
 * 1) Articles simply criticising the Lancet article should stay out completely. All of the sources criticising the lancet are primary sources and POV. The meta-analyses, however, are secondary sources that some up a large body of research. Wikipedia should also not turn to the individual (and often low quality studies) when such meta-analyses are available. The meta-analyses already did the work of deciding which primary sources are and are not reliable. Placing any particular primary source in, especially one that did not conduct research only creates POV problems. WP:Primary sources seems to support this stance, although other's interpretations of this may differ. If another meta-analyses is to be included care should be taken to preserve the original authors opinion. Critical articles such as the one listed above do not accurately represent the opinions of the wider scientific community and the authors are often directly involved with homeopathy. As such adding them to balance the meta-analyses would be giving them undue weight. In fact, I am not aware of a single published meta-analyses of homeopoathy that did not both exclude a large number of trials and conclude that there is insufficient evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy for any particular treatment. I believe I have also covered the arguments of anyone else who is against the article inclusion
 * 2) On the other side: whether homeopathy works or not is controversial and such controversy should be reported as there is no shortage of sources that believe the Lancet meta-analyses were poorly done.

It seems to me that much of the discussion concerns whether opposing sources (to the Lancet review and other meta-analyses) should be included at all so I think no change will have to be included on the vote list. Perhaps a few possible options are:
 * 1) No change
 * 2) Add critical source that is not a meta-analysis and phrase it as that persons opinion
 * 3) I would say add another meta-analysis but all of Linde's work seems to be there as is Shang's and just about every other meta-analysis so this doesn't seem like an option
 * 4) Report a "political controversy" where we allow news sources such as the BBC to be used as support. I am ok with this provided it is phrased as a political controversy and not a scientific one.
 * 5) Go into more detail about the Lancet study and perhaps other meta-analyses eg. We could say that the authors of the Lancet study excluded 108 studies, citing methdological weakness as the reason for exclusion. We should probably also note what they consider to be a methodological weakness too (eg not double blind, poor randomisation etc). This approach seems ok as long as we can accurately represent the author's reason for excluding the studies. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I would vote for 2, 4 and 5 but not for no change. Our primary aim here is to give greater balance. A balanced view has to say that yes these are the views of meta-analyses but the matter is still unresolved because individual studies and meta-analyses are interpreted differently by both sides: there seems to be cherry-picking and selectivity operating on both sides of the fence. How much that is a political or a scientific issue is open to debate but all of this should somehow get a mention in any rewording...IMHO thanks Peter morrell 08:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I didn't formally give my vote. I'm content with 1, 4, 5 and strongly opposed to 2. 5 seems like the best option to me as it allows the study meta-analytic procedures to be detailed so readers can make up their own mind. We should probably get some more votes on different approaches and hear some ideas for other approaches not listed before we nail down a specific wording. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I vote for 2, 4 and 5 but not for no change. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph re trials that needs rewording
Just to be clear, this is the paragraph that needs rewording: ''Various publications using meta-analysis, a common approach to pooling the results of many studies, reported positive results from the use of homeopathy. Facing difficulty in controlling for publication bias and the flawed designs of the studies they analyzed, these reports were regarded as inconclusive and unconvincing.[13][14] A 2005 meta-analysis published in The Lancet comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicine demonstrated that homeopathy's effects are unlikely to be different from those of a placebo.[6]'' When a few other folks have had their say, can someone please make some versions of the above for voting purposes? thanks

While we are at it, can I also point out that this sentence that follows the above has no supporting citation and maybe ? should be removed: Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Unless it can be sourced, then this reads like a POV claim. thank you Peter morrell 13:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is a particularly vicious pov. Arrogant, too, since so often conventional treatments are ineffective or non-existent. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest:


 * (1) That both (a) extended discussion of the homeopathic criticism and (b) the homeopathic profession's position on the problems with the meta-analyses should be in the separate section on critism.


 * (2) Here is the homeopathic profession's position on one of the problems with the meta-analyses:


 * Homeopathic criticism of meta-analyses is that these face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. Only when investigators chose to limit their analysis to large-scale studies in which primarily one homeopathic medicine was prescribed to every patient without the usual need for individualization of treatment common to quality homeopathic care did the statistical significance from homeopathic treatment vanish. While it is true that a single homeopathic medicine can sometimes be effective in the treatment of specific conditions, as observed in the Oscillococcinum trials in the treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndrome or Kali bichromicum in the treatment of people with COPD, this result is an exception to the rule.


 * Both sides of the issues on homeopathy need to be clearly stated. Otherwise this is simply a synthesis of published material (WP:SYN) serving to advance a position - in this case that homeopathy is a worthless placebo effect. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, no one said that homeopathy's placebo effect is worthless. That's a straw man, but correct insofar as the mainstream scientific consensus is hat homeopathy is indeed a placebo. Secondly, and more to my point, there aren't two sides to this discussion. Unless I missed something, homeopaths claim that as as-yet-unknown mechanism, explicable by natural law, allows a solvent to retain properties of a solute even at infinitesimal dilutions. Since this is a claim made within the domain of science -- i.e., no one is suggesting magic is afoot -- then scientific standards are evaluating evidence are to be used. The efficacy of homeopathy as placebo has been demonstrated in clinical trials; the preponderance of evidence is amassed against claims of further efficacy. The purported mechanisms of homeopathy are either ad hoc or incompatible with science. These are facts that cannot reasonably be disputed. These, therefore, are the facts that must be relayed here under our encyclopedic rubric. Any other perspectives on the matter of homeopathy must be attributed to sources as ancillary to the central, factual nature of this pseudoscientific methodology. Further claims that one side or another is not being given due time on this article should be considered against this basic statement of fact. There is a lot of POV pushing on this talk page -- mainly manifest as evading direct questions of fact; misrepresentation of published research; and largely effective 'dogpiling' on discussions, taxing the patience of neutral editors who would otherwise have long ago rectified the weaknesses in the article if not for the vocal minority which seeks to avoid intellgent consensus. I hope other editors will continue to work here, in opposition to those who are seeking to defend their mistaken understanding of science and medicine by corrupting the standards of this Wikipedia, for so many readers a standard starting point in their own search for answers. Naturezak (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok Arion, I'll explain why there is no way those criticisms, as they stand are going to be placed in the homeopathy article (btw I consider Naturezak's proposal below acceptable but maybe the exact ways those studies are flawed should be stated). Here are the problems with those criticisms. The investigators choose to limit their analysis to large-scale studies for a reason. Those were the only well designed studies. It would be very misleading to state this crticism without going over the principles of a meta-analysis and what makes a good science experiment. Clearly going into extensive detail about randomization procedures and double blinding is off topic so this doesn't really represent a satisfactory conclusion. If you want any comments about how the studies are "flawed in design" to get into the article please explain what these scientific flaws are with respect to the principles of science. Did blinding fail? Was the group allocation non-random? I will let any reliably sourced information detailing scientific flaws of the Lancet trials into the main article. I'll even place it there myself. All the homeopaths I have heard are just pointing to "flawed design" without ever specifiying with this means. Please point to one well designed study that the Lancet analysis excluded. I will reconsider my position if you can show me that the Lancet researchers were wrong to exclude any particular study. Please be specific. Consider all of the study's strengths, its sample size, p value, inclusion of intent-to-treat analysis, reporting of blinding success, details of randomization procedures, presence of placebo control group etc. Studies that allow for individualisation are also fine as long as they follow these above noted scientific procedures. Please present this information here so that the wikipedia community can review your finidngs. If you are unable or unwilling to complete this task, I will be forced to assume your criticisms are baseless and do not warrant inclusion in the article.JamesStewart7 (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My suggested rewording, in response to Peter Morrell's request for rewrites: The authors of some meta-analyses report positive results from the use of homeopathy, but critics maintain that many of these studies are methodologically flawed.[13][14] A 2005 meta-analysis published in The Lancet, of clinical trials comparing homeopathic remedies to conventional treatment, indicates that homeopathy's effects are unlikely to be different from those of a placebo.[6] Of course, this is the sort of rewrite that should be happening in sandbox. Or shall we begin voting on even the smallest changes? Naturezak (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that seems fine to me. If you read further up, yes I know its a drag to do so, then you will see that small changes were requested for voting as a means to reach agreement. It seems a fine alternative to edit warring, don't you agree? Also, the idea was to split paragraphs down to sentences and reword them to the agreement of all. I can't see any big problem with such a genuinely democratic proposal. Regarding your comment about meta-analyses, again if you read above you will see that some studies were excluded from the meta-analyses so that it becomes a 'garbage in garbage out' scenario. Allegedly. Therefore, what was said is that the outcome of your meta-analysis is entirely dependent on what trials you put into it and the dispute concerns the trial ranges used by the two sides. One side claims that homeopathy shows above placebo responses and the other side shows no difference. For the sake of balance the proposal is to improve the wording of the paragraph to reflect these concerns. The proposal is NOT POV pushing or saying anything radical. It is designed to improve the text. I hope this clarifies. thank you Peter morrell 18:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not necessarily agree that voting is the best way to get things done. In fact, other does wikipedia policy: Consensus and a lot of the community voting is evil. As the situation stands, I feel the homeopathy proponents have failed to accurately state their complaints such as what specific problems there are with the Lancet analysis (something beyond it excluded a lot of studies without any mention of why they did this). Maybe one of the homeopathy proponents ie anyone who wants a large change can propose a specific wording of a change and the community can be given time to discuss it before we start any voting. Lets not forget about the perils of voting eg sockpuppetsJamesStewart7 (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea Peter Morrell. This a good suggestion.I agree. I will post more later on. --Radames1 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk page readability
I'm having quite a bit of trouble following this talk page. Given the rather heated and fast moving discussion, it makes it especially difficult to participate in a constructive way, as a lot of good points are getting lost and productive discussions getting muddled by later edits.--Trystan (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments are being inserted above earlier comments - even when replying to the same post.
 * Comments are being edited to say something completely different after having been replied to.
 * 74.73.146.241 hasn't been signing any of his posts since he stopped logging in.
 * since you went through the talk page looking for comments and good points and others things I think you will make it. Please feel free to make suggestions for the lead below - since it has to be a bit more neutral.  This is an opportunity for a constructive suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk • contribs)


 * People who refuse to sign their posts and just attack each other willy-nilly with no thought, turn this talk page into a nightmare. Look people, you will not get your way by doing this. You will just irritate everyone and possibly end up getting in trouble.--Filll (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment, there is only one person here who is irritating everyone: you, by repeatedly assuming bad faith with everyone who disagrees with you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Guido, do you feel better admitting that you're the only one irritating everyone. Ooops.  You were engaging in an personal attack on Filll.  Sorry that I misconstrued your rant.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:74.73.146.241 has been blocked as an obvious reincarnation of User:Sm565/akaUser:Orion4 evading his indef block. Hopefully the signal-to-noise ratio will rise as a result. I agree with Trystan, the methods that pro-homeopathy editors are using to present their case is very difficult to follow, and isn't going to lead to a resolution. Posting walls of text is not a good way to solve a problem. Skinwalker (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Rey study published in reputable Physica A
You might consider whether this WP:RS should be added to this article. Icy claim that water has memory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see two problems. Firstly this has been done in the past. There have been previous claims that water has memory that have been debunked. I think an article was even published in nature as part of the debunking. This page goes over it: water memory. Here is an important quote "A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in tinfoil, seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. Although everyone was confident that the outcome would be the same, reportedly including the Maddox-led team, the effect immediately disappeared." The article in question states this "This is interesting work, but Rey's experiments were not blinded and although he says the work is reproducible, he doesn't say how many experiments he did,". So in light of this evidence, I do not think the article should be included. If you want to include something in water memory, the Nature fiasco probably does warrant inclusion. Just presenting that one trial you mentioned would be misleading. It would be like presenting the Benveniste trial without the nature follows.


 * So I say that if this is to be included we should do one of two things; report the Beneviste trial and the follow ups and report these things only. This makes the most sense to me as these trials were quite famous, hence the most notable and homeopathy is fairly long as is. Otherwise we can report the Beneviste trial and the nature fiasco along with this trial and relevant follow up experiments, performed under blinded conditions. If there are no follow experiments in the 4 years since this one then no one thought the results warranted furhter research and hence they do not deserve inclusion in the homeopathy article of wikipedia.JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see now that the material on Beneviste, which was summarized in this article, has been removed. Clearly, the POV warriors here have been on a course of action to destroy this article. Very interesting. I think this is spurring me to take action. Since people cannot act in a reasonable rational function and behave according to the rules of Wikipedia and WP:NPOV, then we will have to have a response. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, frankly, to destroy a nice balanced article that was more than 50% pro-homeopathy, because you felt it was not pro enough. Sad, very sad...--Filll (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic criticism of meta-analyses
Homeopathic criticism of meta-analyses is that (a) these face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and (b) that studies of homeopathy are generally flawed in design. Since JamesStewart7 has written "All the homeopaths I have heard are just pointing to "flawed design" without ever specifiying with this means." - I will again specify:

(1) Only when investigators chose to limit their analysis to large-scale studies in which primarily one homeopathic medicine was prescribed to every patient without the usual need for individualization of treatment common to quality homeopathic care did the statistical significance from homeopathic treatment vanish. While it is true that a single homeopathic medicine can sometimes be effective in the treatment of specific conditions, as observed in the Oscillococcinum trials in the treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndrome or Kali bichromicum in the treatment of people with COPD, this result is an exception to the rule.

(2) In this article's "Research on medical effectiveness" section there is the statement "'Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial" followed by links to specific studies such as "Homeopathy for chronic asthma". In that very article, there is the very significant statement: "Standardised treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised."

Unless JamesStewart7 and others understand that "common homeopathic practice, where treatment tends to be individualised" means that there usually is no one specific homeopathic remedy that is used to treat a specific condition, then they will continue to miss the point. This key feature of homeopathy cannot be ignored in such trials, and those same flawed trials obviously cannot be used as an argument against homeopathic efficacy!


 * There is the well-known principle (among homeopaths) that unless the homeopathic remedy (and the "potency" level) is specifically chosen on the basis of the totality of the patient's psychological and physical symptom presentation, then it will simply have no effect.
 * With that said, there are "polycrests" (remedies that affect more specific simple symptoms, without the need to get into psychological considerations). A simple example that I utilize many times daily is in regard to patients in my clinic with low back pain. If Rhus tox. was used for all of them, then only a certain percentage would improve. If Bryonia alba was used for all of them, then only a certain percentage would improve. But if you administer Rhus tox. to those whose symptomatology is worse when sitting and on first getting up (and better with walking), then almost all will improve. If you administer Bryonia alba to those whose symptomatology is better on resting and no movement, then almost all will improve. These are my clinical observations.
 * The skill and experience of the one administering the remedies is an extremely important factor. I would consider my skills have been much better in the last seven years than in the previous twenty years of practice. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is not here to satisfy the function you have in mind for it?--Filll (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I was asking for scientific flaws of the Lancet analysis. I am still yet to see any. Honestly, I don't care about any non-scientific complaints because all non-scientific complaints tend to boil down to "homeopathy is not testable and no one should try testing it, unless of course the results support homeopathy's effectiveness, in which case the results are excellent". Excluding the majority of trials in a meta-analysis is acceptable in scientific terms provided the trials you keep are of higher scientifc quality than those you exclude. "There is the well-known principle (among homeopaths)", by well known do you mean a principle for which no evidence exists but a lot of people this is true? "The skill and experience of the one administering the remedies is an extremely important factor." - do you have any evidence that the experience of the homoepathy has a significant effect on results or that the homoepaths in the trials were not experienced.


 * The main complaint I see is "treatment tends to be individualised" which is supposedly not refelcted in the trials. I have read several trials that have shown negative results where the treatment was individualised. In both groups they sent people to homeopaths, let homeopaths do their thing, let the homeopaths presribe whatever they want and then for the placebo group swapped this substance at the lab for another with identical colour and taste. Both groups showed a placebo effect/regression to the mean but there was no signficant difference between them. These trials, however, are more likely to show positive results for the simple fact that they are way harder to control. You have to come up with a suitable placebo for everything the homeopaths prescribe. The evidence also standards against the idea that the homeopaths individualise anything. Many of these studies have found that most homeopaths prescribe the same thing for the same problem, with maybe three different remedies being presribed. For all that talk about individualisation, homeopaths don't seem to individualise much.


 * "The skill and experience of the one administering the remedies is an extremely important factor. I would consider my skills have been much better in the last seven years than in the previous twenty years of practice" A little off topic but maybe you shold read about cognitive dissonance. It's a much more scientific and parsimonious explanation for this "improved skill" which you have observed. Btw cognitive biases like cognitive dissonance are the very reason that a therapists "clinical observations" receive zero consideration when more reliable evidence is available. Therfore, I will be standing by my assertion that homeopaths never actually improve their skill at healing till someone proves me wrongJamesStewart7 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article on homeopathy or any other subject should not be turned into a battleground of special interests seeking to have their own biased version prevail. As I have said before, this article must not be either a pro or anti homeopathy article, but a neutrally presented exposition of the subject, with opposing and supporting data presented in their own respective sections. It is also not the role of any editor here to PASS JUDGMENT on which research data passes their personal litmus test to qualify for inclusion in this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you do not understand the principles and policy of WP. WP:NPOV states that articles will be written with views in the proportion of their prominence. And therefore, as it was originally written at 60% pro-homeopathy, was more than fair.


 * But pro-homeopathy warriors were obviously unhappy with 60% and wanted 80% or 99% or something, and  have been throwing up walls of nonsense text, and bringing up the same topics 50 or 100 times over and over after they were already dismissed. This must stop and I think we have to do something different here. The fact that Beneviste has been removed from the article now tells me we have to do something quite different. Perhaps pro-homeopathy editors should be blocked with much greater frequency. Perhaps the article should be locked for long periods. Perhaps pro-homeopathy editors should be dealt with far more harshly and with less equanimity, since they are clearly not interested in writing an encyclopedia according to the policies of Wikipedia and seem unable or unwilling to learn. I suspect this article and its pages are infected with hordes of sock puppets, meat puppets, and assorted trolls and has been for months. Perhaps because homeopaths view this as a way to promote their professions and make money. This makes me sick, but this must stop.--Filll (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you stop this silliness of adding up "pro" and "contra" lines? Wikipedia policy and editorial common sense say the whole article should be written from a neutral point of view with "great detail" for the subject of the article and "appropriate reference" for the majority view. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean NPOV material like objective, scientific evidence? Evidence which states that homeopathy is no better than a placebo in numerous meta-analyses? I concur. The article should include much of this material. It should also phrase claims that homeopathy works in the "Homeopaths state ..." format. Maybe I should also point out that wikipedia is not a democracy, hence scientific evidence should rightly trump majority view. See ConsensusJamesStewart7 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The majority view is that homeopathy is the purest crap, the biggest load of hooey on the planet and a vile cruel ugly dangerous hoax perpetuated by cranks, charlatans, crooks, and quacks. That is the majority view. By the rules of WP:NPOV, about 99% of the article should include material that supports this viewpoint. However, we were happy with 40% or so and allowed it to go through to GA. Now I see that POV warriors were not happy with their 60% and have attacked it and continue to attack it. Ok, so be it. The situation is clear and steps will have to be taken.--Filll (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone claiming that homeopathy isn't open to scientific investigation (as has been stated in the above discussion) is woefully misinformed about the scientific method, or merely showing their bias. This article should put forward a definition of homeopathy, it's history and principles, etc, but it should also include the scientific and philosophical criticisms of the practice. Unfortunately for people pushing a homeopathic POV, the fact is that the scientific criticism is so damning it rather overshadows everything else on the page. However, in order to be a neutral article it needs to be there. We can't tone down the criticisms just to make it 50/50 or not hurt people's feelings. Merry Christmas all! 86.146.119.116 (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's OR, Filll. There is no reliable source calling homeopathy "pure crap", "load of hooey", or "vile cruel ugly". More important, you are wrong in claiming that NPOV anywhere says that the lines of an article specifically devoted to a minority view should be divvied up into pro and con. The policy on undue weight says "on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". --Art Carlson (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we're citing wikipedia policy, I thought I'd pick out this quote from the same page.
 * "Giving "equal validity"
 * I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil."
 * Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.
 * According to the evidence, homeopathy is the flat earth of medicine. The article has rightly treated it as such. Wikipedia policy does not state that if more people are pro-homeopathy the article should be more pro homeopathy. It suggests an article about homeopathy should talk about homeopathy. The article does that. Scientific evidence dictates how pro/con-homeopathy the article should be. JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason you didn't finish the quote?
 * It [Wikipedia neutrality policy] does state that we must not take a stand on them [minority views] as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.
 * I support NPOV policy 100%. It's Fill's introduction of bean counting that violates it. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I don't believe the rest of the quote changes the fundamental meaning. The pseudoscientific theory in this case is homeopathy. The concepts of homeopathy have been described and so have the scientific arguments against it. If you want to put another counter from homeopathy in WP:NPOV policy would suggest that we should then point out that homeopaths are basically arguing that homeopathy should not be testable and all untestable treatments are regarded as ineffective anyway (can't prove a negative, etc etc). JamesStewart7 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Art, you seem to be going out of your way to avoid understanding. I have more than 6 times as many edits as you do, so I think I know a bit more about Wikipedia and its policies than you do. So do not presume to lecture me about it and think you can fool me.

Let's use our heads here, shall we?
 * 1) Isn't homeopathy part of medicine? At least alternative and complementary medicine? I would say that it is.
 * 2) Given that homeopathy is part of medicine, what is the majority view in medicine? I would say that it is very clearly that of allopathic medicine. Homeopathic medicine is a teeny tiny minority view and approach by any measure; money, prestige, size, etc.
 * 3) What does WP:NPOV state? It states that the article should be written with the views in proportion to their prominence. Clearly, allopathic medicine is the majority view in this case, and the article should be written with this in mind.

Now that is pretty simple logic. If you dispute any of those, please provide peer-reviewed WP:RS sources backing up your position and claims. If you can convince me or any of the other more neutral editors that somehow homeopathy is more prominent than it appears to be, or that the allopathic view is different, then we might change our minds. Otherwise, we won't. Fair?

The crude estimates of "pro" and "con" that we went through before were because of whining of homeopaths that complained that how unfair it was to have an article that was only 60% pro-homeopathy. That is more than fair. And the whining and complaining appeared to be just pure BS. Nonsense. Ridiculous. It was not 50-50. It was more than half pro-homeopathy. And it is now headed well into the toilet, being further and further unbalanced, and more and more positive for homeopathy, and all dissent and evidence to the contrary deleted.

And the current march towards squelching all dissent and all science and all input from reason and rationality and statistics to promote the wonders of this fantastic cure known as homeopathy has to stop. This is not a commercial advertising venue. If you want to advertise homeopathy, buy a website. We will not be doing it here on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We agree on points 1 and 2. (Although I think you underestimate the number of supporters of homeopathy, especially if you look at countries like Germany and India.) Point 3 continues to misquote policy. Are you "going out of your way" to avoid addressing the difference between "articles that compare views" and "pages specifically devoted to minority views"? If I recall correctly, you are right that it was homeopathy apologists that introduced the silly idea of counting lines of pro and contra. Lately it has been only you pushing the idea. I don't know that we really disagree with each other on any particular edit. But I am afraid if we don't clear this up now, you will later try to justify a bad edit by counting lines. If we can agree to apply NPOV policy as it stands, then we can quit this discussion and go back to improving the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Filll, while you are of course correct in your points, there is one area where I would take exception. You stated: Given that homeopathy is part of medicine, what is the majority view in medicine? I would say that it is very clearly that of allopathic medicine. Homeopathic medicine is a teeny tiny minority view and approach by any measure; money, prestige, size, etc.  and that is a true statement, but it is not the point. The article is about homeopathy, pure and simple, not about "homeopathy and how it is seen within mainstream allopathic medicine" - no, that topic is a subsection of the topic "homeopathy", and as such, the article needs to reflect that better. Would you disagree? Well, of course you would :) but is the point I make amiss? docboat (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well let's consider the alternate universe where what you propose are the principles and policies under which Wikipedia operates. In that universe, an article on Holocaust denial, or even on the Holocaust itself, might not mention all the existing historical and scholarly evidence that the Holocaust occurred. An article on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory or even on the 9/11 Terrorist Attack might only discuss how this attack was an inside job, and never mention the evidence against this. An article on the Moon Landing Hoax or even the Moon Landing might only have material from conspiracy theorists, and contain no information whatsoever from regular news media or scientists. An article on Cold Fusion might include no discussion of the failures of any other laboratories to reproduce the results of Pons and Fleishman. And on and on... The problem is, although eventually we might have good evidence for homeopathic efficacy, we do not have it now. And so, to bury any of the contrary evidence that homeopathy does not work or has no reason to work and has never been unequivocally shown to work in scientific tests does our readers a disservice. It turns this article from a rational objective document, to an instrument for the promotion of homepathy and to deceive our readers. This is not the proper and appropriate policy of any encyclopedia, and in particular, Wikipedia with its special policies. And to deny these, in the face of dozens if not hundreds of patient explanations and re-explanations, is to court negative consequences.--Filll (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that is not what I said, and you know it! What I said was that a subsection of the topic should be devoted to the "how homeopathy is seen by the allopathic world" or some such approach. Not, under any circumstances to hide information, but to properly represent the topic. As for your example using Holocaust denial - not having looked at it (yet) but I strongly suggest that the start of the topic is given over to what the deniers claim, which is then followed by what the facts show. I will take a look and see if I should muddy the waters there. docboat (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's also remember that there is no such thing as "allopathic medicine"--that's a term for "real, scientific medicine" used by homeopaths, chiropractors, crystal-healers, and other charlatans, designed to equate the entirety of actual medicine with "just another opinion." Anyone who uses the term is crusading for an incorrect magical viewpoint and cannot be trusted to make good-faith or NPOV edits. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the term is used by conventional medicine. Anthon01 (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Randy, real scientific medicine exists in your imagination. It is well known that much of our current medical world is based on experiential practices, and we reckon - that is to say, we doctors of the world - understand that only about 30% of what we do is actually evidence-based. Surprising I know - it certainly surprised me when I was taught that - but it seems to be so. Now you glibly suggest that chiropracters are charlatans, and that reflects a profound ignorance and prejudice, but that is OK - don't go to them. We know, from evidence based medicine, that if you use conventional medicine to treat whiplash injury (warmth and rest) you have 6 weeks of pain, but if you use chiropractic methods (ice and mobilisation) you get 3 weeks of pain. Where, I ask you, is the charlatan in that scenario? So your biased opinions would disqualify you from being able to make NPOV edits? I ask, only because you made the original claim, and I assume you accept the consequences of your own logic being used. docboat (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * People keep tossing quotes like this around "we doctors of the world - understand that only about 30% of what we do is actually evidence-based." and it's always a different number each time. Please show me a reliable source that states this so I can avoid all these treatments that are not based in evidence like the plague. Also please note, well controlled observational studies are still evidence. They also happen to be the best evidence you can provide for something like a surgery without violating ethical standards. It would not, however, be acceptable to place a drug into common use based on the results of observational studies as it is trivial to perform a double blind, randomized controlled trial. It would also not be acceptable to promote a surgery that is not supported by the results of at least observational studies. It would also not be acceptbale to use the results of an observational trial without making an adjustment for the overt bias. I believe this is actually the current practice in modern medicine. There is a very strong push to evidence based medicine. Quotes like "only 30% of conventional medicine is evidence based" will never be allowed in any article of alternative medicine because they are not accurate and they are not relevant. The only reason anyone would want this quote included is to lower the bar for what is considered acceptable. The rule is always use the best evidence available and double-blind RCT have been conducted on homeopathy thus that evidence should be used. PS you can't support the efficacy of chiropracty or any other medicine with made up numbers. JamesStewart7 (talk)
 * I'm interested in finding out if dubious and unproven "I'M A DOCTOR" claims (by someone whose entire editing career consists of bashing doctors) are in violation of any Wikipedia policies. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In concordance with WP:AGF lets just assume he is a doctor until we see reliable evidence to the contrary. However, lets also consider that it is inappropriate to cite yourself, No original research. Really, it doesn't matter if he's a doctor or not because the opinion of any medical "expert" is worthless if their opinion is not supported by evidence. JamesStewart7 (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite so James. Evidence is key. docboat (talk) 10:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking about evidence, this link is interesting. It suggests the need for an open mind and points to some conclusions on minor efficacy. I had not come across it before. Comments? docboat (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

--Radames1 (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections
Anyone who wants a "criticism section" is not understanding the policies of Wikipedia. All this willfull fighting and arguing about the clear principles and policies of Wikipedia really is disappointing. Learn about Wikipedia before you start spilling nonsense on these talk pages. A criticism section violates WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and several other WP policies. Template:Criticism-section indicates that criticism sections are frowned upon, according to the principles of Wikipedia. This even is reflected in statements of Jimbo. So if you want that to change the principles under which Wikipedia operates, you should go to one of the policy pages and endeavor to change the policy there. This is not the place to do it if that is your goal. You are on the wrong page if that is the case.--Filll (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There should definitely be a section on scientific views on homeopathy, and these are going to be critical. They should no be removed just because they are critical, but should go in the article in appropriate places. The problem with homeopathic responses to these criticisms is that they usually do not address the points or clam (incorrectly) that homeopathy cannot be investigated by science. If we have good refs to good counter-criticisms, then please post them here for us to look at, and let's get back to improving the article (which was pretty good right now) 86.146.119.116 (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading through many homeopathic websites I have noticed that homeopaths go to great lengths to avoid stating that homeopathy cannot be investigated by science. Take this quote for example "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo....It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." --a spokeswoman from the Society of Homeopaths"[skepdic.com] This sentence actually suggests that there is some fitting research tool for homeopathy. She just doesn't say what it is. This makes the claims of homeopaths difficult to reference and difficult to counter. It is also not fitting to state the criticism as stated in the quote above. It is a grossly misleading statment as the women never states how homeopathy can be investigated despite the implication. Someone needs to either find a homeopathy quote where a homeopathic organisation states simply that homeopathy is not open to scientific investigation or find where a homeopathic organisation states what is a suitable research tool.JamesStewart7 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to add my opinion. I think that in an article about homeopathy, basic principles of homeopathy should be included and explained analytically. Not doing so is a violation of neutral point of view. (NPOV) Homeopathic doctors or supporter 's views of meta - analyses and criticisms should be included - if the sources are notable and serious. Otherwise the article will not be fair and objective.

I did not know this study about water memory. I have to look at it. But if it is published in a notable source and the article refers to the memory of water, it should be included. If there is criticism for this study it should be included it to.

I thought that critics of homeopathy want to include its views in order to expose them using scientific arguments. If homeopath' s arguments and counter criticism have no scientific basis, homeopathy will debunk itself. I suppose that will be an easy task for critics of Homeopathy. More later.--Radames1 (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, someone like Radames1 shows up, and he might be new, or might not be, but it is like starting over at zero. He believes the article is unfair to homeopaths and that there is all kinds of magical support for it, and has not read or refuses to read the pages of material that have been dredged up on this page to demonstrate that homeopathy is complete horse manure.--Filll (talk) 16:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way Radames1, if you look a little deeper, that paper and a few others came out about water memory. This was then checked carefully by others and even the authors of that paper. No one could confirm it in more careful experiments. And everyone involved had their career destroyed, more or less because they had involved themselves with what is essentially a fraud.--Filll (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In reply to this often made ridicule, I have a source that responds thus: Such strongly critical or downright sarcastic or ironic stances do not appear entirely justified: the concept of the "memory of water" is no more than a metaphor denoting the hypothesis whereby the physicochemical properties of water can be modified by a solute and remain so for a certain period of time even in the absence of the solute itself. If this were true, biology and medicine would undergo not a revolution, but certainly a significant increase in knowledge and in the related applications. It is not a matter here of postulating an "entity" (memory) which may reside in the water, but of studying the physicochemical properties of water itself. In this sense, talking about memory is not so very different from talking about temperature, dielectric constants, viscosity, and other properties.

An example may serve to clarify the concept here: if we take a little water and put it in the freezer, after a certain period of time it will freeze. On removing the water from the freezer, it will be observed that the block of ice, though now exposed to room temperature, will remain a block of ice for some time. Thus, there exists in water a property which enables it to "remember" for a certain amount of time that it has been kept in the freezer. For those who find this example self-evident, we can give another: if we take a tape coated with ferric hydroxide and subject it, as it is running, to a series of differences in potential in precise succession, changes in charge occur on the magnetic substrate; the tape will remember those changes for hundreds of years. It is not the memory of water, in this case, but the memory of iron, which consists in a particular form that the magnetic substrate assumes on the tape. &mdash;Whig (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * All very well and good. Except two problems (1) water memory has never been shown to exist. NEVER . There is no evidence. Sorry. (2) Its existence would violate about 200 years of physics and chemistry, that would have to be discarded or severely modified.


 * In fact, if you showed water memory existed, you would win the Nobel Prize. Hands down. No question. And then, we have the deeper question. What about sugar memory?--Filll (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They are inappropriate analogies in either case. For you see, ice doesn't have a memory of being water at one stage, does it not?  Also, there is no "memory of iron" it is iron oxide, which is a different entity than iron, otherwise you would be needing to discuss the "memory of hydrogen" - because water is only what you get when you burn hydrogen.  And why isn't there a discussion on how hydrogen remembers a time when it was floating thru space?  Shot info (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote from Drs. Bellavite and Signorini is a good reminder that thermodynamics applies to water, though most people don't need this reminder. Their analogy is not very good with regards to homeopathic principles, however, and fails to convince me at all. If this requires explanation, I'll gladly spell it out. Also, for what it's worth, I fail to see how this long quotation in any way responds to Filll's initial point. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thermodynamics applies to water, and as such water has a thermodynamic history as does all matter since nothing is in perfect equilibrium with everything. Calling it water memory is just a metaphor, this is Bellavite and Signorini's point here. This is observable in B&eacute;nard cells as well which demonstrate hysteresis. Whether and how such a thermodynamic history (to use this model) has a biophysical effect is a separate question which is further addressed in their book and by a number of physicists. Thermodynamics poses an interesting problem in that dilution and shaking cannot cause a solute to vanish no matter how far it is carried out. I would in any case ask whether selected quotations from this book ought to be considered as a source for the article as well. The purpose of our conversation is not to convince you at all, nor for any of us to be convinced of the correctness of the arguments of those we may presently disagree with, but to document the debate for our readers so they can make up their own minds. &mdash;Whig (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Pure garbage. There is no such thing as "thermodynamic history" that can magically separate the entropy of mixing from dilution. While it is fine to present legitimate arguments, when unreliable sources try to talk about science as Whig is doing above and basically state falsities, there is no obligation for us to publish such drivel in the article space. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a history, as a mathematical necessity. The question is: does it quickly become irrelevant as entropy takes over, or does something structural remain. Mathematically, this is well possible, but that doesn't imply that it really happens. Has science advanced far enough to draw conclusions? Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, there is no such thing as "thermodynamic history" that somehow magically allows homeopathy to work. And yes, science has advanced far enough to draw conclusions. See statistical mechanics for how such questions are answered. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The probability theory is there, yes, I've aided in its development myself. But that's just a tool, and only one of the tools that are needed, too. You cannot draw conclusions from a tool. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you are having a problem reading/writing English or if you just don't understand the point that the idea of a "thermodynamic history" as outlined by Whig and the homeopathic fanatics is flatly contradicted by theory. Saying you "cannot draw conclusions from a tool" is a strawman argument that is, ironically, incorrect. Measuring tools are used to draw conclusions from all the time. I suggest you stick to articles more in your fields of expertise as your current advocacy of pseudoscientific nonsense really doesn't help matters here. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you try and acquaint yourself with the difference between 'from' and 'with' and stop behaving like a moron. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How droll! Completely avoided the point, insulted my dialect, and gave me a personal attack. I can see you're going to be a joy to have around. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is quite obvious that you are not interested in improving the article so nothing is lost if you simply stay away. We're done talking. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're a peach! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC) This user is on my ignore list since 20071227. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool! Can I go on Guido den Broeder's ignore list too - it sounds like the place where cool people hang out. I'm impressed by how mature everyone is being, and that no one is trying to pull it down to name calling. 90.197.168.195 (talk)
 * Guido den Broeder you really have two choices. Collaborate with everyone who contributes to this article, including those who disagree with you, however, distasteful you may find them or do not contribute at all. No one takes well to the whole user is on my ignore list thing either including admins "but added is repeated disruption of talk page dialogue with "This user is on my ignore list..." Users blocked.[David Ruben] so please do not do it. Now although ScienceApologist phrased his concerns in a rather abrasive way (btw ScienceApologist did you have to do it like that?) he did make a legitimate scientific complaint ie thermodynamic history is completely made up and cannot be used in support of anything. Now regardless of what you think of ScienceApologist, you are required to supply the wikipedia community with reliable supporting evidence of thermodynamic history before it can be considered for inclusion in the article. Whig you also need to supply evidence to support your ideas. All scientific claims need to be supported by evidence. There is really little point in posting any claim here that is not supported by evidence as it will not be included by the article except perhaps in as opinion only in another section. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not required to do anything of the kind, nor does anyone else, for that would be a violation of WP:OR. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you admit that "thermodynamic history" should not be included as it violates WP policies. Perhaps you can move on to being constructive now? 90.197.168.195 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that Carlson's suggestion is the most balanced: "The policy on undue weight says "on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". @Filll: what you say or what  I could say about the memory of water do not count. Only what notable sources state count about the  memory of water. So Rey study published in the reputable Physica A should be included.If you have any notable sources which  criticize it please let us know ( Try to be more friendly next time -  thanks )--Radames1 (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Rey article concerns itself with emission spectra. I just read the brief article in its entirety. It's far too many degrees removed from Homeopathy to be relevant. For what it's worth, I've just removed less outlandish claims from a Wiki cancer article about conventional medical research that hinted at some effect of ginger on cancer. Wikipedia is not the place for synthesis. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because "water memory" is a key concept in homeopathy. The emissions spectra reflect the 'hydrogen bond' structure of water.


 * My point was that I'm not sure how this would feature into the article. It seems the only way to use this would involve WP:SYN. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  11:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the Rey article gets in then the nature article debunking the Beneviste article should be in there too "J. Maddox; J. Randi, W. W. Stewart (28 July 1988). ""High-dilution" experiments a delusion". Nature 334: 287-290" along with a note of cautioning that the Rey results cannot really be trusted as the study was not blinded.JamesStewart7 (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rey article shouldn't get in, and I still think the Nature article should be featured. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pure nonsense. I am shocked the Beneviste affair was edited out of the article. I will continue to preach the value of science and reason, no matter what. And those of you who oppose science and reason will have to deal with the consenquences. There is no place for you here on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Filll settle down, have a glass or two of Laphraoig or (believe me!) Old Pultney - excellent whisky. Science told us in the 1950's that if you have a heart problem, exercise should stop. Now we know that that piece of scientific advice killed people. Things change. But a curious mind, an open mind, a mind fixed - yes on evidence and reason - on exploring the unexplored, these attitudes lead to expanded knowledge. What we "know" now, is tomorrows nonsense. So have a wonderful day, and a bountiful NEw Year, and may you be blessed in all you do. Peace! docboat (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly please do not use the term "open mind" ever again. I have never heard the term open mind being used in a context where someone was not telling me or someone else to accept a dubious piece of information eg homeopathy works without question. Secondly What_Wikipedia_is_not. None of you have a crystal ball either so I do not want to hear anyone suggest that water memory will one day be found. The homeopathy article must be written based on todays evidence. Today's evidence states that Beneviste was wrong and water memory does not exist. Although Filll, I have to agree with docboat when he says calm down a bit. The article in its current state is still very damning of the concept of water memory.JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Beneviste affair, written from a NPOV, should be in the article as it is a significant event in the history of science and homeopathy. Anthon01 (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can somebody cue me in what this is about? The article currently contains information on Benveniste that hasn't been substantially changed in months! Filll, just what are you shocked about? All I can imagine is that you searched for "Beneviste" and found nothing because that's not his name. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No place for people who oppose science and reason on Wikipedia? But Wikipedia isn't about facts, it's about who can make up the most rules to benefit their side and who has the most time during the day to sit on a talk page screaming about their magical beliefs. When you start a project dedicated to proving that autistic teenage anime fans know more about any given topic than professors in the field, of course you're going to attract mostly crazy people who believe mostly crazy things. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please lighten up, Filll, the Benveniste stuff went months ago after a disagreement I think instigated by one of your science buddies so it has nothing to do with so-called 'pro-homeopaths' as you have implied. It's months back; I suggested it should go back and I think Adam said no. So that was that; check the records and it is all there. There was disagrreement and it just never got put back in. It's no bigdeal; just put it back. Nobody is trying to chuck science or crit out of the article, please be a bit more reasonable. The atmosphere here has got very unpleasant of late. merry Xmas! Peter morrell 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New Times article
Readers maybe interested in this new article published today in the UK showing the UK government's plans to regulate Alt med. It also contains some interesting current data about alt med in the UK. Peter morrell 08:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another! Peter morrell 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm having some trouble figuring out what is meant by "proper qualification" and "best practice" in the case of homeopathy. Who decides this and on what basis? As we have seen in our discussions here, it has proven difficult/impossible to prove that any form of homeopathy has any effect at all, so how is anybody supposed to decide with any objectivity at all what constitutes "improper practice"? Call me cynical, but it sounds like homeopaths are trying to use sexual assaults by some of their number to create a framework that makes it easier to sell their beliefs as being scientific. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias - Please ignore this
I'm new to homeopathy and haven't done all my research yet. But the main article is clearly bias and should be re-written objectively. Another thing to think about is that there's lots of money in the phramaceutical industry, so whether homeopathic methods work or not they are going to try to supress it. Half of the negative comments on here are probably from people affiated with the pharm industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.145.185 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to back up any of this rubbish with any references or proof? This is the kind of comment that isn't helpful. Can people stick to suggesting improvements. I agree it's biased, mostly in favour of homeopathy right now. Damn now I'm sinking to the level of these trolls .... Sorry everyone. Can we delete this unhelpful comment and it's parent please? That would go some way to improving things 90.197.168.195 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Could you please tell us which statements are biased and how you (clearly) recognize that they are (despite being new to the subject)? Also, unless you some have concrete evidence that a particular editor has a conflict of interest, please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. (@90.197.168.195: I know it can be hard, but please do not bite the newcomers.) --Art Carlson (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you plan to stick around for awhile, why not register an account? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again, sorry about that above I got a bit overheated. Ah well, I might have a glass of water pills to calm down! (That was just a joke, no offence intended) 90.197.168.195 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * please, this article is a classic drug company hit piece. it provides ONLY negative infomatiaon regarding thei subject and anyattempt at proving the effectivneess of homeopathy is crushed and suppressed. wikipedpias and the main-stream meedia treatment of parapsychology and alterntive scientific research is practilically Stalinist in the amoutn of thought control and bias that pervades its coverage. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I forget, does Godwin's Law have a Stalin clause? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * no it doesn't, and my comparison is valid. stalin Used mass propaganda such as the parpasycology related articles on wikipedia to brainswash Russans citiznens into beleiving whatever he told them. he controlled all the media and crushed any attempt at dissident views with overwhelming force.this is the same behavior that is being used against me and the people working to improve articles cuh as Uri Geller and Kevin trudeau. i myself was recently just run out of the Sylvia Browne criticisms talk pag eby a barage of insults, threats, and edit warring designed to subjugate my opinion and prevent me form disagreeing with the mainstream establishment. that in and of itself is the very epitome of totalitariainsm. Smith Jones (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Giving predominant weight to the mainstream is Wikipedia policy. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

'''which does NOT justify the tactics used by Big Pharma to contorl and abuse dissidents. Smith Jones (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)'Italic text'' Smith Jones (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're implicitly accusing all of us who have shaped the article in its present form of working for Big Pharma. That's just plain rude, and it violates a half-dozen or so Wikipedia policies. If you continue in this vein things are apt not to end well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i am no arccuisng you of anything i am simply poiting out that a majroity of the soruces on ther ientenrt are baised in favor of drug companies and the feds. it has not hing to do with anything anyone here has done and everyhhthing to do with the way they indriectly influecne wikipedia into promoting the vigorously biased ans alndsated assaults on reason or freedom of speech. Smith Jones (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)