Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 25

Constructive ideas
Instead of squabbling and bickering, and excessive use of uncivil words, might I suggest that editors return to the main point? and begin to offer new positive suggestions on how the article might be improved? if we have some new versions of sentences we can begin to comment and vote on them. Surely this would be time better spent than on arguments and venting hot air? thank you Peter morrell 09:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The article can be improved by writing thoroughly about facts (aka science, aka homeopathy being a fraud) and completely disregarding incorrect views (homeopathy being true or plausible) as well as the charlatans and zealots who insist on wasting any time or space on lies. If you do not wish to see the article improve but instead want to try to argue with irrational people, then the article will inevitably not be improved. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, we are currently waiting on homeopathy proponents to suggest another change. I think some people here (those who believe that homeopathy is ineffective) are relatively satisfied with the POV of the current article although there is some mention that the Nature controversy about water memory should be included. I mention this because I think that these people are unlikely to propose any substantial. Some other peopele, however, have been relatively vocal about POV concerns with the article eg Arion 3x3, Art Carlson, Guido den broeder. Could some of these people please comment and their feelings about this phrasing, proposed by Naturezak.

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]

Both Peter Morell and I felt that a change similar to this would be appropriate ("authors of some meta-analyses" is a bit weasel wordy but we can fix that) but this phrasing needs comments from others. Could any of the aforementioned people (or anyone else who wishes to) please point to specific passages of the article that they think are POV so that we may discuss them (please quote). Note, this is what we have heard so far: Some people are unhappy with the Lancet meta-analysis finding that homeopathy is no more effective than placebo. We don't need to hear this again, however, we do need to hear about any specific problems with the scientific methodology of the Lancet meta-anlaysis. The discussion about the non-scientific complaints did not really go anywhere. However, it may be useful to see any RS where a homeopath states that homeopathy should not be tested by science in general. The Rey study was an interesting proposition but that discussion has devolved into ad hominen attacks. I think it is important for homeopaths to understand that many here are going to take an "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" stance and argue against any claims of water memory that have not been replicated in double blind trials. However, I do Anthon01 for providing an actual source for his water memory claim. JamesStewart7 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify that I am neither an advocate for, nor an advocate against homeopathy. As far as I know, there simply is not enough evidence to support any conclusions with regard to the validity of the theory or with regard to the merits of the treatment. At the moment, some sections are argumentative and try to convince the reader that the whole idea is nonsense. There is no scientific basis for such a claim, just as the opposite cannot be claimed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I don't really want to get into a practice of classifying people into supporters or opponents but apparently I did not structure my wording well enough to avoid that implication. I was just trying to elicit an opinion from all the people I mentioned in the hope that they may offer a differing viewpoint and I couldn't think of a better way to word it. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * JS7: I appreciate you thanks, but would like to clarify that although I did bring it up on this talk page, it is not my "water memory claim." It is a significant part of the homeopathy discussion and I believe merits inclusion in the article considering the highly regarded RS. It is a topic I find interesting, am open-minded about and yet unconvinced. Anthon01 (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The abstract of the article in The Lancet says: "Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions." I think that this may well be an accurate meta-result. Note, especially, that the outcome does not imply that homeopathy has no merit, nor that there is no evidence for any effects. The abstract continues with: "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." While true, this is a suggestive statement, because the finding is also consistent with the notion that homeopathy has a small, but genuine effect. There is no way to tell which of the two is the case. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Has anyone done a study of possible biases in the Lancet article? Friarslantern (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They councluded that they found weak evidence for any effect. They did not say that they found reliable evidence for a small effect. Small effects should still demonstrate statistically significant differences on large trials. If the effect is so small that the trial has to become ridiculously large for the effect to become significant then it is pretty safe to say the effect has no practical implications and could just as easily be due to error. I fail to see any evidence for even a small effect in the Lancet results and the authors seem to agree "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." There are even tools to determine what is the minimum effect size that will be found significant if it exists: statistical power so if you want to establish that there could have been a small effect at least find a RS that did a power analysis on the Lancet data. Or if you want to do one for you own knowledge only, do one yourself (I assure you, you'll find the minimum effect size is quite small) JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Placebo effect = no effect, so since the study showed an improvement consistent with the placebo effect, then the placebo effect is the probable cause. Also notice that the effect was small - in the majority of cases it didn't help. Homeopathy is therefore shown to be ineffective in this study, and does not give the improvements claimed by homeopaths. Your trying to spin this study into some kind of support for homeopathy, when it is at least indifferent (saying homeopathy is as good as a sugar pill), shows that despite your claims you are not as unbiased as you may think you are. The mainstream scientific view of homeopathy is that homeopathy has no effect, and no mechanism by which an effect can be caused. There have been many good studies, and it now rests with homeopaths to prove their statements true. Homeopathy is a multi-billion pound industry, so there is plenty of money to spend on producing good, doubled-blinded, individualised, etc, studies. The fact that Borion (sp?) et al do not do this speaks volumes for their confidence in the efficacy of their treatments. I'm sure the authors of the study are pleased that you feel it is accurate, but your interpretation of their results leaves a lot to be desired. The current state of homeopathy is that there is a lot of good evidence suggesting that it has no effect (beyond placebo), no plausible notion of how it could have an effect, and only very poor evidence that it has any effect. Why are you trying to imply that there is some kind of evenly matched science on each side, or that there still remains a lot of doubt in the scientific community? This is simply not the case. The article as it is now is mostly good, with a discussion of homeopathy as homeopaths see it, and then a scholarly discussion of the scientific view. It could do with improvements, but is generally good as it is. If anything, the scientific view should be made more prominent 90.197.168.195 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Logic does not work that way. The outcome is consistent with many things. Without further evidence, picking one of them as the truth is pov. Now, please discuss the topic, not the users. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The authors concluded that the current evidence is insufficient to conclude the existance of any effect. Note the default position in any scientific inquiry is the null hypothesis (all inferential statistics operate by rejecting the null hypothesis if there is an effect). The article even states this "When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise". So, scientifically speaking, homeopathy is assumed to be ineffective until there is sufficient evidence to conclude otherwise. The researchers concluded that there was not sufficient evidence so the null hypothesis was accepted. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the null hypothesis is that there is no difference within an experiment. That is not quite the same. One can do a larger experiment. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One can always do a bigger experiment. Just how big would the experiment have to be before you'd accept that there is no homeopathc effect? Your understanding of the scientific method is floored I'm afraid. The comments below still apply too. Also, putting comments halfway through a long thread is very confusing. Please reply at the bottom or make it clear that you are replying out of turn 86.146.119.116 (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In principle, a scientist never 'accepts' that something does or doesn't exist based on statistics alone. That said, expanding the meta-experiment as published in the Lancet would, if the measurement of 0,88 remained the same, only provide evidence that supports the notion of an effect. The value would have to increase, i.e. the measured effect in new studies would have to be weaker than in the published review, to make it otherwise. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah good old cherry picking again. Most of what I wrote was a discussion of the issue. Where is the hole in the "logic" of what I wrote? I am interested to why you think that there is some kind of parity between the evidence for an against homeopathy? I think we could work together if you answer these two questions clearly and concisely. If I am wrong about the second please explain what your view is. Thanks 90.197.168.195 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I broadly agree with what James says; however, where it says in the above passage "...positive results from the use of homeopathy," [add refs here] we could then discuss WHAT refs to add there. A few days back someone posted some examples of these so-called 'positive studies.' Well, if there is some level of agreement (as opposed to ad hominem attacks) then we can add 1 or 2 of those items at that specific point in that passage, as references, choosing them carefully as the BEST. Does this sound a reasonable idea? Then as also suggested, folks can pin-point any specific sentences they wish to change, hopefully accompanied with a suggestion of versions for voting on or some mechanism for making a decision. thanks Peter morrell 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds reasonable but I think we are still at the "assessing the level of agreement" stage. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stating that, according to the Lancet article, there is insufficient evidence to claim homeopathy to be effective would be OK with me. Any suggestion that we (therefore) know for certain that it is ineffective, would not. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You realise that, in scientific terms, whenever there is insufficient evidence for something it it is assumed that that thing is not real ie if there is insufficient evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, it is assumed that homeopathy is ineffective. The current article doesn't actually imply we know anything "for certain". It does not use the words "prove", "disprove" or "impossible". "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible[6] and directly opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge". Note the term implausible as opposed to impossible. So I can only assume you are objecting to statements like this (btw this whole process would go so much easier if people could quote passages they object to - then I wouldn't have to make these assumptions) "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". Note the usage of the term "unlikely". The study concluded that its findings were compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects." Note the term "compatible". These statements are perfectly acceptable as the null hypothesis is always assumed in the absence of evidence. So can we please stop the strawman arguments and actually refer to what the current article says. The article uses scientific terminology throughout (suggested, compatible, statistically significant effect, no evidence) so it is completely unfounded to suggest that anyone is suggesting that anything can be known "for certain". It should be noted, however, that the pragmatic position that nothing can be known for certain does not forbid reasonable conclusions like this "homeopathy's effects are unlikely to be different from those of a placebo". JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, at the moment we seem to have two suggestions. First, is the addition of 2 or 3 refs listed above of allegedly good studies (?), which have been interpreted by some as showing some effect of homeopathic intervention. Those refs, when their selection is agreed, could simply be added as cites to the wording-unchanged sentence already identified about 'positive studies.' Second, we have to put in some mention of water memory and the work of Benveniste. If there are more ideas of changes to be added, then please mention them. thanks Peter morrell 12:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Benveniste is already mentioned in the article. Anthon01 (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We should refer to meta-analyses only as someone needs to seperate the reliable studies from the poorly conducted ones. It would be OR for any editor to perform this process themselves. Meta-analyses are almost always preferrable over original studies when they are available Primary_sources. Seeing as every meta-analysis (at least every meta-analysis I am aware of) on homeopathy is already included in the article I highly doubt that there is any study on the efficacy of homeopathic interventions to add. No one is going to agree on an original study to add because everyone is aware that people can just cherry-pick whatever studies reach conclusions they agree with, with complete disregard for the scienitific quality of the study. So I guess the only way consensus could possibly be reached is if the wikipedia community agreed on a selection criteria beforehand. Of course people like me are going to push for this selection criteria "large, double-blind, randomised controlled trials only" and it just so happens these were basically the selection criteria used in the Lancet analysis so I highly doubt any consensus will be reached here either. The only trials that have shown homeopathy is effective are small and/or of lower quality so undoubtably anyone who disagrees with the conclusion that homeopathy effects are placebo effects will want such trials included. Others will maintain that the results of such trial are completely unreliable and should not be included. Of course, it is never ending debates (and believe me, it will be never ending) like these that are the reason meta-analyses are preferred in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is, deciding what constintutes an "allegedly good study" is OR. The only reason wikipedians should allow original studies is that there is not always a recent enough meta-analysis. Shang et al., however, is a 2005 analysis. JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the idea of water memory is essential to the theory, and should therefore be mentioned, with sources for research and arguments, but again without claiming proof or refutation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There is no proof of long term water memory, and it is a thoroughly discredited idea. See the water memory page. Your claim to be unbiased is as strong as the homeopathic effect. You are right that it should be mentioned, but to leave out the criticism is a disgraceful suggestion 86.146.119.116 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that water memory is essential to homeopathy and should be mentioned. We have an entire water memory page that is somewhat orphaned because water memory does not receive a mention in the main homeopathy article. However, I also agree that water memory is a thoroughly discredited idea. I think the main homeopathy article should offer a brief (perhpas only one or two sentence) discussion of water memory and link to the main water memory page. JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How have you determined that it is completely discredited? Anthon01 (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of evidence that water has a memory in the femtoseconds, but that timescale is not relevant to homeopathy. Ante  lan  talk  03:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So provide the sources for this evidence. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Constructive ideas - break
There are serious issues ahead which are unresolved because of a coflict both in theoretical assumptions and in observations between so-called scientists converging on this topic and those of practising homeopaths. People who use homeopathy will never accept crude statistical globalising of data using meta-analyses, not principally because they regard it is statistical sleight-of-hand (which they do), which predictably deletes the positive results from many studies (which it does), but primarily because homeopathy as an empirical medical practice, as opposed to a so-called mathematical problem on paper, individualises treatment for every case and acts according to its own principles of sickness cause and cure for each case without any regard for the pooling of data that is possible in allopathic studies. There simply is a gulf between the two methodologically and in terms of how it is practiced on the ground. You don't even have accepted disease labels in homeopathy, so how can you rig up a double blinded study? you treat each case as a separate entity with its own unique twists and turns of treatment as the discourse between patient and practitioner evolves. Nor can that be predicted in advance as a comparative study demands. No homeopath can give one remedy for a whole crowd of folks allegedly with the same 'disease' and expect anything other than a zero outcome no better than placebo. They must give different remedies to each and a differing pattern of sequential remedies according to the properties of each case. The two situations are entirely different. Therefore, double blinding and standardised procedures are not possible. Even patients with closely similar 'conditions' are not going to receive from a good homeopath the same remedies in the same doses or in the same sequence because of the unique differences in each case and in each family history. This is one issue that anyone who has seeen good homeopathy in practice is going to despair about how this can be satisfactorily converted into a sound statistical analysis acceptable to all sides on a totally neutral basis. How can it be done? The secondary issue about potentisation and water memory is a big side-issue, a damp squib; until you have proof that homeopathy works according to the principles it follows, then there is little point in even venting hot air about a possible mechanism. At the moment the issue is stalled at the first hurdle due to these methodological issues over good trials that satisfy all criteria. Lancet and other meta-analyses certainly do NOT meet these criteria and until good large studies that address these complex issues are tackled and resolved then no homeopath in the world will respect the alleged outcomes of such studies. I hope this clarifies some issues. thanks Peter morrell 09:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any evidence to suggest that homeopaths actually individualize the treatments ie some form of evidence (not just what homeopaths say) that suggests that homeopaths actually offer different treatments depending on different variables? Do you have any evidence which indicates that homeopaths actually agree on what is the best "individualized" treatment for a particular patient? I completely and totally dispute this idea that homeopaths actually individualize anything. I think they collect a whole bunch of patient data and proceed to ignore it and base their decision on a stereotype or heuristic. Heuristics btw are pretty falliable, see for example, the availability heuristic . How could they possibly take every single variable into consideration and weight them all accordingly? Humans simply aren't capable of that level of statistical analysis necessary to do this. To say that homeopaths actually individualize treatments in the way they say they do goes against pretty much all the evidence on psychology. If you want to include a sentence such as "Homeopaths state that they individualize their treatments for the patient" (it has to be state because they don't really) then fine, but then in order to balance it we should review the evidence about "individualized treatments" specifically, the journal articles which suggest they give the same treatment for the same condition (I have read some, I'm sure I can find them if necessary). Then we can point out that even we can still construct a double blind, randomized placebo controlled trial while allowing for individulaisation by just swapping out the treatments at the lab. We can go in, let the homeopath talk to the patient, let them prescribe whatever they want and if they are in the placebo group we can swap out the treatment and just not tell the homeopath prescribing it. Otherwise we give them whatever they prescribed. After that we can point out that many of these individualised trials, like the aforementioned one, still demonstrate that homeopathy is ineffective. Then we can point out all the psychological evidence that suggests that homeopaths do not individualize their treatments in a rational, logical way. Turns out there is even a review in this area [individualised homeopathy], "http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/acm.1998.4.371", which points out that "The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies". So hey, I guess it turns out that Shang et al. were right to exclude such studies as they are not very well conducted. Also the better conducted trials of individualised homeopathy also seem to be more likely to conclude that it is ineffective. "The pooled rate ratio of the methodologically best studies, however, was clearly smaller and not statistically significant" If you want to add that meta-analysis into the homeopathy article with those two quotes, then fine by me. Also Linde goes over various issues with these studies eg can't really be replicated which are the reason they are not preferred. This should also receive mention. JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you finally reveal the obfuscating fact of your disbelief. If you want your long-winded views to attract an atom of respect then I would suggest you study homeopathy and its practitioners directly for yourself, as I have done for the last 29 years. Then you will find them to do just as they say. That is evidence derived from observation in the real world (AKA science) and does not derive from statistical textbooks or paper articles or dodgy websites that endlessly recycle the unconfrmed views of theoretical objectors. As I previously stated, the issues concerning trials are real issues. I would add that there is not a homeopath in this world who does not want to see proper trials set up to the satisfaction of everyone. They have nothing to lose from proving that homeopathy works in a neutral setting. And nor is it true as stated above that homeopathy is a billion dollar industry that avoids paying for trials. It is actually strapped for cash and most homeopaths make a very modest living! Compare the fortunes of Boiron (a French homeopathy pharmacy) and GlaxoSmithKlein, for example, or any other major drug company (who fund allopathic trials) and you will see that homeopathy as a 'financial outfit' on world terms has a fraction of the wealth of such drug companies who could fund good trials into homeopathy, or indeed any other alt. med system, but who very seem hesitant to do so. The views I have expressed are accurate and if you check the archives of this talk page you will see this type of argument has been circular for a VERY long time. Take it or leave it; there is not much more I can say to you. cheers Peter morrell 11:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From your reply you would get the impression that the entire content of my comment was about some sort of financial incentive for practicing homeopathy. I made no mention of this. The issue at hand here is whether this reference should be included "Linde, K., Melchart, D. (1998) Randomized Controlled Trials of Individualized Homeopathy: A State-of-the-Art Review. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 4(4), 371-388" This should be the ideal article really. Your concern was that trials on homeopathy are not individualized. Here is an meta-analysis of individualized homeopathy trials. Is this supposed to be evidence "derive(d) from statistical textbooks or paper articles or dodgy websites that endlessly recycle the unconfrmed views of theoretical objectors" If you have an objection to the article I would expect you to detail your objection to the scientific methodology used instead reverting to such ad hominem attacks (I guess the article is worthless becaues they are "theoretical objectors" right?), not to mention the ad hominem attack against me. I am aware that this type of argument has been circular for a long time and it basically boils down to two things. Homeopaths want to admit anecdotal evidence as support for homeopathy "I would suggest you study homeopathy and its practitioners directly for yourself, as I have done for the last 29 years. Then you will find them to do just as they say" Scientists and skeptics will never let let that happen. The long list of cognitive biases prevents anecdotal evidence from being anything other than worthless. There is very strong scientific evidence for the existance for some of them. Homeopaths also say that homeopathy is open to scientific investigation but often say randomized controlled trials are not a suitable research tool without saying why. In the case that they do give a reason, the reason is always (that I have seen anyway) individualization. When an analysis of individualized trials (which should meet all their criteria) is presented which finds the best studies find non-significant effects apparently that review isn't good enough because the researchers are biased or something. It is pretty hard to satisfy anyone who keeps moving the goal posts. So tell me, how could someone prove that homeopathy is ineffective, if homeopathy, in fact, does not work? How would they design the study so that it both achieves a reasonable level scientific rigor and satisfies the criteria set by homeopaths. If it is simply a matter of individualization, it has already been done. If no one can answer this question then we are forced to assume that homeopathy is not open to scientific investigation. Then the next step will be to look for a RS that states that this. JamesStewart7 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a good deal that could be said to refute Peter Morrell. James Stewart has said some of it. The fact is that there are issues that Peter thinks are important which are not mentioned in the article, and there are many homeopaths that feel as he does. The article should make an effort to handle these issues. The POV that most negative studies are inadequate because the treatments were not individualized is prominent among homeopaths and should therefore be represented, naturally together with the scientific counter arguments. I endorse, for starters, two suggestions made by James: --Art Carlson (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Include information from a reliable source on the real-world practice of homeopathy. I believe that James is right and I have read that homeopathy is seldom as "individualized" as much as is claimed, and that therefore the existing studies address the bulk of the practice of homeopathy. Of course we need a RS before we can add anything like this (or its opposite) to the article.
 * The meta-analysis of individualzed trials by Linde and Melchart (1998) should be added to the article. The journal and authors are reputable. It is a secondary source, sufficiently recent to be up-to-date but also old enough to have drawn critical commentary. Highly relevant because claims like Peter's pop up continually. Ideal.

If you keep modifying the article to address ad-hoc explanations from homeopaths for why homeopathy does not work, then the article will eventually be infinitely long and consist of nothing but bickering with a succession of new baseless rationalizations from homeopaths. They are not bound by facts or honesty and can come up with any number of "objections" from whole cloth. Just ignore them. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a legitimate question, which variants of homeopathy are tested by various experimental designs. Although it may be a minority, individualized homeopathy has a significant following. Just what are you objecting to? Do you think we should not mention various forms of homeopathy? Or should we not mention the meta-analysis of individualized homeopathy? If so, I haven't really understood your reasons for wanting to leave out one or the other of these points. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You should mention whatever is appropriate for a factually correct and properly cited article on homeopathy. Explaining what homoeopathy actually is should be part of that. Taking the assertions of homoepaths at face value regarding what homeopathy is, or responding to every one of their made-up ideas about what's wrong with science, should not be. Only people who are willing to write true and relevant things should be working on any Wikipedia articles; people who believe in homeopathy are by definition not living the realm of the true or relevant, and their ideas and words have no place here. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Randy look at the general philosophy section. It is full of made up ideas. It would also be silly to cut such a section from the article. I think it is important to say what homeopaths believe before you start ripping into it. So how about we state that homeopaths believe that they individualize their treatments in the general philosophy or treatments section with all the other untestable or thoroughly refuted ideas and then place the Linde individualized homeopathy meta-analysis into the medical analysis section. I agree with your suggestion that we can't litter the article with ad-hoc explanations as to why homeopathy does not work but I don't think the concept of individualization is either ad hoc, or an explanation as to why homeopathy does not work. Individualization is a conecept similar to "treating the whole patient" (holistic health), which appears often throughout alternative medicine so I don't really doubt that many homeopaths consider it essential to their practice. Holistic health/Individualization is not about excusing why the treatment don't work, it is about taking a shot at conventional medicine as the somewhat POV article demonstrates "Traditional medical philosophy approached patient care as simply attempting to correct physical symptoms, using standardized methods such as the prescription of drugs or the undertaking of surgery, while the patient is only passively involved" (I'll be tagging the article as POV in just a moment). So maybe there is a POV reason to not include the individualization claim but "providing an excuse that the treatments do not work" is not it. Also despite what Peter morell suggests, individualized treatment is totally testable and there are scientific studies that demonstrate individualized homeopathy is just as ineffective as ordinary homeopathy so it's not like it's a claim that scientists cannot counter. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can suscribe to most of that, but ... The criteria for including things in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. The beliefs of editors have no place in the article and are otherwise irrelevant. Only the quality of their editing matters. So. Do you care to comment on my proposals, or should we drop this discussion? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is a perfectly fine criterion. Here, it would mean finding the major publications or websites that support homeopathy and citing them to show "what homeopaths believe," then finding the responses from scientists that show why each belief is incorrect. It does not mean responding to things brought up by one anonymous person on the article's talk page; there is no way to verify that such objections are anything but one homeopath's series of back-and-forth responses to other Wikipedia editors, made up on the spot. Thus, such things are neither verifiable nor notable. My point is the same: the homeopathy fans on this talk page can and MUST be entirely ignored. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed on the verifiability point. I'm sure someone can find a reference that states homeopaths believe in individualization or holistic health or similar. A quick search turned up this "http://www.ajpe.org/legacy/pdfs/aj6002198.pdf". It is published in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical education and it states that "Hahnemann formulated the principle that medications and doses must be highly individualized for each patient following an exhaustive and lengthy examination of each patient by a homeopathic physician Because each treatment is highly individualized based on the physical, mental, and emotional status of each patient, patients who would be given identical treatment with conventional medicine are often given different treatments under homeopathy". I haven't read the whole article carefully but their may be criticisms in there too as the article is clearly not trying to legitamize homeopathy "Homeopathy and legitimate medicine are two radically different branches of medicine." Looks like there are verifiable sources that state that individulization is part of homeopathy. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anti-fan talk should be equally ignored, something that is often forgotten. It's not up to us to decide if scientists do in fact show something to be correct or incorrect. We can and need only mention that they, rather than we, come to certain conclusions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the scientists say something is equivelant to a placebo (like they did in the Lancet article) then by your own arguments, we should state that the evidence suggets that homeopathy effects are placebo effects. JamesStewart7 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know its' a difficult concept to grasp, but no, the article should not state that. The article should state that the authors say something (not this, by the way). Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it state that "in studies homeopathy has performed no better than placebo" with supporting refs. I've just reviewed your comments here Guido, and I've found your twisting of the scientific method offensive, and bending of wikipedia rule and policy to suit your bias and POV equally offensive. You are a troll and are adding nothing constructive to this talk page, and I'm asking you to please leave until after this current situation has been resolved. Your statements are not supported by science and your claims to be unbiased are laughable. I have been assuming good faith, but you have taken this too far now so please leave. I suggest you read some good books on the scientific method and how it progresses (written from the mainstream perspective), and come back in a month or two. I'd advise other people to stop feeding the troll 81.153.131.222 (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia. A warning has been placed on your talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hilarious! Some might say you aren't welcome for your twisting of the truth and wikipedia policy. 81.153.131.222 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't the article state that "in studies homeopathy has performed no better than placebo"? To begin with because it isn't strictly true. There are a lot of studies reporting better performance for homeopathy than for placebo. Even in the 21 trials of homeopathy that the Lancet meta-analysis described as "large trials of higher quality", "weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies" was found. We can report that the Lancet study concludes "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.", but this wording is considerably less decided than your paraphrase. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (Rant) I did say if it's supported by the refs. It was an example. There are not any good studies showing that homeopathic concoctions have the medicinal effects claimed. That i the crux of the matter. Homeopathy doesn't work, has been repeatedly shown not to work, and there is no remotely plausible mechanism by which it could work. The article should describe homeopathy as homeopaths practice it, but it should spare no criticism to avoid hurting these misguided charlatans feeling. Homeopathy is discredited and homeopaths are (either intentionall or because they are self-deluded) dishonest. These facts are true and verifiable. Homeopaths clinging to non-specific, statistically insignificant, weak results and their promoting of pointless customer satisfaction surveys shows the extent of their delusions. This article is currently in a pretty good state, being more than fair to homeopathy while presenting scientifically valid criticisms. If anything this article is too postive towards homeopathy and its fundamentally unethical practitioners. Doctors should not lie to their patients, and unfortunately that's all homeopaths do. I realise this is a rant, and is not directed at you Art - you arr generally a force for good here, but I'm getting sick of the misleading statements made by homeopathic supporters. They have had a lot of practice at twisting the truth I guess 81.153.131.222 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this "The study concluded that its findings were compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects" is exactly what the article states I'm not really seeing what the problem is here. "This finding" is roughly equivelant to "the study" anyway. If neither Guido den Broeder or 81.153.131.222 are suggesting we change this statement, I suggest we drop this discussion right here. My response to Guido was based on the inference that he/she was suggesting that was suggesting we change the article from the current form, which was based on the assumption that everyone here is trying to focus their comments on constructive ways in which the article may be changed. I think this is a fair inference as Guido states "The article should state that the authors..." whereas the current article uses "The study concluded". I have to voice my strong opposition against this wording. "The authors" makes it sound like it is just their opinion. It is not. No significant effects were found in the study. Not significant means that any variations between the treatment group and the placebo group may be accounted for by chance. This is the conclusion that every scientist makes when they find non-significant results. This is the only conclusion that can be made. You do not conclude the existance of a small effect on the basis of a non-significant result. You can only conclude there is a small effect when you actually find a small effect. If the authors were to say there may be a small effect they would just be speculating. So if they said this then it would be "the authors state...." because their statement would be some statement in the discussion that is not directly supported by their results. The results are non signficant, which means the null hypothesis is accepted and as the comparison group was a placebo control group the results are compatible with the notion that homeopathy effects are placebo effects. This is just a fact. It is indisputeable. Even if one day the study is found to be totally flawed and we find that that homeopathy is a miracle cure, it would still be completely correct to say, "The study concluded that its findings were compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects". This is just how inferential statistics works. JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree 81.153.131.222 (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Studies do not make conclusions, only authors (and readers) do. Others may draw different conclusions from the same study. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to define a new philosophy of science, go and do it somewhere else. The conclusions of the study are the studies conclusions. If someone else has written a paper refuting it then we could cite that. Stop trying to push POV and reduce science to opinion. 81.153.131.222 (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Authors do make interpretations based on the study (the bulk of the discussion) and other authors may make differing conclusions. However, whether or not the hypothesis was supported is often not a matter of interpretation (except in rare cases where the hypothesis is not clearly defined which should never happen but it does. The Lancet study is not one of these cases). In the Lancet study it is simply a matter of looking through the results and checking for significance. As the results of the study are a fact and not an interpretation we are going to use "the study found..." Science is not just a matter of opinion. The same arguments have been done to death on pages like this one Creation evolution controversy. They weren't accepted there. They won't be accepted here. Facts don't change because people can't accept reality. JamesStewart7 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, their conclusion seems correct to me. It is nonetheless their conclusion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In the same sense that science fans (like you and me) must be ignored/reverted when they try to make changes to the article not based on reliable sources. If Peter or you says something like "I have often heard homeopaths/scientists use such-and-such an argument", then that might be something that belongs in the article, so the rest of us can try to find reliable sources supporting or negating it. That's the sort of thing that talk pages are for. This is all pretty trivial, and I don't believe you really want to say anything else, but you keep choosing wording that is unnecessarily provocative (Peter MUST be ignored). If you'd back off on the rhetoric we could put our energies into improving the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the discussion in this section and wonder whether this discussion is based on a reading of the abstract only or the article? Has anyone actually read the article(s) being used in this discussion? Anthon01 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

RCT trials the take into account individualization
Are there RCTs that take into account individualize treatments. If anyone can provide citations, that would be greatly appreciated. I'm not sure that homeopathy has been proven to be only placebo. NCCAM states Previous studies modeled after drug trials that support the "homeopathy is placebo" claim don't disprove homeopathy, but disprove the application of a specific remedy, taken over a specific amount of time, for a specific condition. This is one way the homeopathic remedies are used, but it is not the only way. More to come. Anthon01 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

NCCAM also states As with any other health practitioner, the first attempt at diagnosis and treatment often "misses the mark." Changes in dosages and medicines are often needed to 'individualize' treatment. According to homeopathy the issue of individualization is central to success. Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone provide links to RCTs that took into effect, the 'individualization' of treatment. Anthon01 (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can read the Lancet meta-analysis, which cites several that you can read. Ante  lan  talk  17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Already discussed above. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What was discussed above, the details of the articles or abstracts? Are the above discussions based on abstracts or a reading of the articles? Anthon01 (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and thanks for the link Art. I had already read that discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You originally asked for citations to "RCTs that take into account individualize treatments". What better citation could you have than to a recent and reputable meta-analysis? Is it a question of links to the full text of the meta-analysis, or to the studies analyzed therein?. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I was looking for any RCT's that include the 'individualization' of homeopathic remedies. The meta-analysis is the conclusion presented by a research team. Have you read the meta-analysis or are you basing your judgement strictly on the abstract? I did read the discussion in the section above and wonder whether everyone has read the abstract or the article and abstract. I have the meta-analysis (LMA) and am looking for any studies reference in the LMA and others that may not have been. Anthon01 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the study yet, but I just now got access to a copy and will respond after I have looked through it. On the other hand, Wikipedia should not depend too much on what you or I think of the article. It remains a reliable source. Do you have an opinion about whether we should reference it? Do you know of any other secondary sources of comparable quality on scientific studies of individualized homeopathy? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I would agree that it is a RS. However, the abstract is only a small part of what is written in the source. I think it should be referenced. I am looking for quality sources that use study designs that adequately test treatment methodologies used in classical (individualized) homeopathy. A number of editors seem certain that homeopathy has been completely discredited but the available data I have seen does not support that. Anthon01 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon01 why exactly is the meta-analysis insufficient? Going to the original studies risks WP:SYN issues. I think it is impractical to include all 32 trials and objectively describe them (length issues) so I don't see that as an option either. If we're picking a particular few, there is always the risk that wikipedians exhibit their own publication bias. According to the meta-analysis of individualized homeopathy, when the best studies are considered, homeopathy is equivelant to a placebo. This is not the case when the poor trials are included but Linde notes that these trials are of poor quality and well poor quality experiments give you unreliable results? Btw I have read the full source. In my opinion (which I understand is worthless due to OR issues but I'm going to give it anyway), Linde did quite a good job on the study. A break down of all the studies are given an the comments are quite extensive. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be interesting to describe a very small number (1-3) of specific studies to give the reader an idea of how individualized homeopathy has been scientifically tested. To avoid cherry picking and general fisticuffs, the only criterion we could use is to choose the studies that the meta-analysis describes as being the best. There are 6 studies "likely to have good methodological quality", of these 3 are "rigorous" and 2 are "extremely rigorous". Of the 6 studies, 2 nearly show a significant (95% CI) positive result. The two "extremely rigorous" studies, which would be the most natural candidates for inclusion, are clearly negative. Are these the sorts of studies you would like to describe in the article, Anthon01? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, Art, but you must ensure that in such studies true individualisation WAS carried out, or the study/article in question is not of much use to show anything of worth. thanks Peter morrell 09:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is "true individualization"? Do you have a specific criticism of the method of individualization used in any of the studies classed by this meta-analysis as "likely to have good methodological quality"? --Art Carlson (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not read them so I don't know. I don't know even if I have access to them. True individualisation means a) not grouping the patients by using a disease label and b) allowing the treatment of each patient to be free of formal constraint, that is so the therapist can apply whatever remedies in whatever potency and whatever frequency they wish, when they wish and change it as required according to patient responses. In a usual (good) homeopathic treatment this is what happens. The case is taken, a suitable remedy is chosen and given; the response or lack of is noted; case -re-taken after a phone chat or note, new remedy given, response noted, wait and see...etc. This is clearly not a predictable standard format for every patient. Some will respond positively to first remedy, others don't. Much digging (into other aspects of their health or family history) is needed for some cases while in others it is not required. So what I meant was that unless all this is allowed in the trial then the study is NOT studying true homeopathic work, but some other maybe diluted approach. Does this clarify? And of course the methodological quality is important as has been suggested but if it does not allow this approach then the study (whatever else it might be doing) is not studying homeopathy for the individual patient. And therefore its conclusions reveal nothing about homeopathy as such. thanks Peter morrell 11:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking from memory here but in order to be included in the meta-analysis the study must have given the practitioners complete freedom in what remedies they may prescribe for each condition and be able to conduct their own sessions with the patient. So since the homeopaths could basically do what they like then, if homeopaths do pracice "true individualization", this was the case for every study in the meta-analysis. JamesStewart7 (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it important to (a) not group the patients by using a disease label? I can take potential subjects, run them through a conventional diagnosis, take only those that M.D.s diagnose as having disease X, and then send these to the homeopaths. Is there any reason to think that homeopaths can cure (on average) all my potential subjects, but not those diagnosed with X? If so, then I only need to take the group not diagnosed with X, and I will find an even stronger effect. You can work around (b) in a similar way. One of the "rigorous" studies was limited to 11 remedies, but "patients were included only if the similium was among those". The rules chosen in the various studies were different, but several of the best studies allowed a lot of freedom. For example the homeopathic invervention in Walach et al. (1997) was described as "completely free individualized homeopathic treatment", and in de Lange et al. (1994) as "constitutional and acute individual similium as necessary (changes possible, dosage and potency variable)". I don't see any reason that these methods should not be called "individualized homeopathy". I understand that many studies have been criticized for not being individualized. It would be very interesting if you have a notable, reliable source criticizing these studies. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just finished reading the meta-analysis. I think it is quality work that addresses a common objection to scientific studies of homeopathy and should be included in the article in some detail. It is, however, nearly ten years old, and the authors wrote at that time "Since we completed the literature search for our meta-analysis in autumn 1995, a number of new randomized trials of individualized homeopathy have been published and several are actually in the process of publication or on-going." And "In recent years there has been a considerable increase in the number and methodological quality of randomized clinical trials of individualized homeopathic prescribing." It would be very helpful to have a more recent analysis, even if it is not as thorough as this one. A final comment directed to Peter: The authors write "there is no consensus about what good quality homeopathy means". That is, we cannot (at least not in Wikipedia) talk about "true homeopathic work", but only about homeopathy as it is practised, with some attempt to account for its major divisions. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Art, it is OK to group patients in any way you wish, that is not the issue, what I meant was that homeopathy treats people, not 'conditions;' therefore, you treat the symptom totality and not just some vaguely labelled 'condition,' that is the meaning and it is the thrust of all the great textbooks of homeopathic method and all the great homeopaths since Hahnemann's day. In my study oif the subject, I would suggest there are very few people who call themslves homeopaths who not follow this approach. I mean approaching a fraction of 5% if not a fraction of 1%. However, I agree more recent studies would be preferred. Maybe you can email me the link to download the article? another factor: how were the outcomes determined, subjectively or objectively? limiting the study to the use of only 11 remedies cannot be considered good homeopathy; there must be no limit on the choice of remeies. thanks Peter morrell 14:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, some studies used subjective outcomes and some objective. The entries in the table under "outcome extracted" are
 * global assessment (2 entries)
 * global assessment patients (6)
 * global assessment physician (4)
 * duration of diarrhea (2)
 * preference (1)
 * response/responder (3)
 * Some of these also added the descriptor "crossover trial". --Art Carlson (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that there is likely to be a difference between what homeopathy can do and what homeopaths acomplish in practice. Limiting the choice of remedies may be a good thing, to control the effect of treatment errors, even if it is a methodological concession. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still looking for more recent work. I did find the "Habilitationsschrift" of Linde, presented on 3 Dec 2002, in which he cites his own study, the one being discussed here, and a meta-analysis by Ernst, also from 1998, which concluded that it was not possible to conclude anything because of methodological weaknesses and inconsistencies. Another paper from 2005 (Harald Walach, Wayne B. Jonas , John Ives , Roel Van Wijk , Otto Weingärtner , Dr.Phil.Nat. . 2005. Research on Homeopathy: State of the Art. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 11:5, 813-829.) also only cites these two (Linde and Ernst) as "COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES ON THE GENERAL QUESTION OF WHETHER [classical] HOMEOPATHY IS PLACEBO OR NOT". An editorial by Walach from 2003 (Harald Walach . 2003. Reinventing the Wheel Will Not Make It Rounder: Controlled Trials of Homeopathy Reconsidered. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 9:1, 7-13.) also suggests that Linde is the high water mark. My impression is that there was a surge of effort in the 90's that has since receeded (wether due to disappointment or fashion). I think this analysis will be the best we can do. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lost section

 * Yeah, obviously we're all paid by BigPharma - despite the fact that big pharma would love it if homeopathy worked. Small overheads, no side effects, no need to prove anything in a trial.... There's no agenda pushing from pro-homeopaths either, they're just trying to get the truth out. The point is the science, which is not someone's opinion, does not support homeopathy. Borion et al can pay for independent studies if they don't like the existing ones, and universities have independently funded trials of homeopathy which have shown no evidence of the claimed effects. Just who is pushing a POV, agenda, and doing a "hit piece" here? You people really make me laugh sometimes with your paranoia! Thanks! Or maybe they got to me already - what's the homeopathic sugar pill for paranoia? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What? You guys are all paid by Big Pharma and I've been editing for free? Somebody tell me what I need to do to get my piece of the action! --Art Carlson (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BigPharma has no use for un-patentable medicines. And homeopathic remedies whether they work or not would directly compete with BigPharmas profits. Anthon01 (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If homeopathy actually worked, Big Pharma (oooh...look at the scary capital letters) would have no trouble at all milking it for cash. They'd love homeopathic remedies.  The material costs are nearly zero, and the 'quality' assurance is a snap.  (Just run a sample through the HPLC/MS and make sure that it doesn't contain any non-water/filler ingredients.)  Side effects are negligible.  If homeopathic remedies actually worked, there would be a dozen different ways to patent them.  Here's a few:
 * Combine the homeopathic remedy with a real drug of some sort. Patent the combo.  (This is done all the time with real drugs.)  Repeat every time the patent comes up for expiry.
 * Use a different starting material that still produces the desired symptoms. Patent the new drug.
 * Use a different extraction process in the preparation.
 * Use a modified, recombinant protein as a starting material.
 * If there were any indication at all that homeopathic remedies performed at all, Big Pharma wouldn't fight them; instead Big Pharma would use all of their Evil PowersTM to extract money from them. (I would be entirely unsurprised to find out that Big Pharma companies already owned many of the distributors of homeopathic remedies.)  Big Pharma would love to see homeopathy work, because they'd be able to hike prices on homeopathic products and sell them to a larger market. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming any of those things would work better than what already exist, eh? And I just repeated the term that was used before. Maybe you should back off on the coffee?:-) And BTW, they are BIG. Anthon01 (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * god Forbid if you or any of you're loved onces every suffer from a disease, but if that ever happens to you you will realize how vicous and predatory and depraved these pharmaceutical companies can be. they supress homeopathic therapy becausethey dont want there to be any chance of eradicating any of the major diseases that plague the modern world -- cancer, AIDs, malaria and others. their researchers know that if homeoapthy becomes widely accepted people will be able to treat themselves in their woen homes or even open up competing clinics to care for themselves instead of relying the toxins dispendsed by their research facilities. that is why research on homeoapthy is carefully controlled and make sure that anyone who dares to speak otu agianst the current paradigm is viciously discredited and their reputations and trampled upon. if yuo look at the backgrounds of all the major firms that claim that "disporvE" homeopathic research you will find that the big pharma has its roots sunk deep into each thand every one onf them.Smith Jones (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me again why we have to "assume good faith" from illiterate conspiracy theorists? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he must be a literal straw-man! He's not actually supporting homeopathy, he wants to make them look bad... or he needs to calm down a bit! Maybe he's being paid to edit here on behalf on BigFarma. Or maybe it's a double-bluff and that's what they want us to think, and he's a BigSugar hitman! Or it's all rubbish and this section should be deleted. I'd also ask any editors to ask this guy to calm down, but I see he's been asked before --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Smith Jones - please back up your claims that the pharmaceutical industry is engaged in a conspiracy to suppress homeopathy to keep people sick and make more money by providing reliable, secondary sources that state this. Please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your opinions, and try to keep your conversation on the topic of improving the article.  --Phirazo 05:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * the pharmaceutical companies are nto engage in a "conspiracy" and nowhere have i had argued that this was the case . only my oopponents have stated sch things. my argument ist aht the pharmaceutical companies promtoe and support studies that probve their claims to be true as a ordinary part of running thierbusisinesses. they do not do this out of malice bu tout o fa  need to increase their profit margins. perhaps they are not deliberalye suppressing homeopathy but they do not want it to be seen as truebecuase if people stop buying druigs and start mkaing their own they will make substantially fewer money. there is no way for me to prove this, anymore than there is a way to prove that it is not true, but I can site credible sources that disucss such big-pharma business practices:


 * General article on Kevin trudeau, discusses his theory
 * news site that covers alternative medicine and skepticaism related to
 * FoxNews has a series involving homeoapthy, alternative medicine, and big pharma's coverup
 * discusses the charade made by drug companies to supress any interest in homeoapthic science
 * further muckraking by a presitigous news site affiliated with CNN about amthe coverup —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith_Jones (talk • contribs)


 * That info may merit its own article. This is not it. Ante  lan  talk  01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * if you think thats a good ide athat then i'll get right on creatinga new article. I think it should go as Pphramaceutical Industry Coverups or perhaps be added to the drug company or big pharma article. Smith Jones (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kevin Trudeau? Really?  The guy from the infomercials?  That is about as unreliable a source as you can get.  News Target is certainly not neutral, and I can find little information on its reliablity.  How is it "affiliated with CNN"?  The New Internationalist source is bashing homeopathy pretty hard.  The Fox News source is a transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, and isn't very useful for article writing.  This entire idea that "the pharmaceutical industry is suppressing homeopathy to make more money" is a conspiracy theory, and if the best source you have is Kevin Trudeau, than it does not belong in the article.  --Phirazo 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

we al need to grow up!

 * PERHAPS you thinkt aht you're insults and slanders will stop me from working hardto improve wikipedia. if that is your mindset, fine, but i must warn you that you are wrong. i am not a straw-man and my support fro homeopathic medicine is as sincere and honest as is your oposition to homeopathic mediine. there are some whose mindsets prevent them from beliving that any-one who disagress with them is serious, but that is again the typeo of attitude that is poison to any free editable encyclopeia. i was under the impression that this was a forum in which the body of human knowledge can be placed together and amde easily accessible to the commonf veiwr, but increasingaly have been notocing signs that a few people (not necesarily the people here, but a few editors in gerneral) consider wikipedia to be their own private fortress in which no dissenting opinion no mnater how well-sourced or how comon it might be outside their little bubble is permitted. looking back i must admits that i have been overreacting alittle bit on this talkpage and that i have failed to obersve good faith on the part of my fellow editors and that i should apologize for that. however, i am not the onyl one who has been behaving contrary to the stated goals of wikipedia and i alsmo must observe that in your zeal to make sure that the drug companies get their way in all areas of published research that you have ignored your obligation toassume good faith on my part as much as I have. i Still want to work past this and if we are able to cease the constant bckering and hostility and focus on improiving this article then i think that i can be a much better article thatn the biased slop it currently is. Smith Jones (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is edited based on it's policies - some of which contradict your interpretation of what Wikipedia is - hence your problems. I encourage you to review WP:NOT to help you with your understanding. Shot info (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow you actually managed to apologise for not assuming good faith and accuse everyone of pandering to drug companies in the same post! JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i have revewied those informaitons more times that ic an possibly counts, and i see nothing in them that specifically rejects theidea of homeopathic medicine. Smith Jones (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Automatic archiving
There is a bot that will automatically archive old threads:. Since this page sees quite a bit of discussion, I think it would be beneficial to use this bot. The howto is here, but to summarize, the main variables that can be set are how old the thread has to be to be archived, and how big the archives can be. I think archiving threads at the age of one week, and an having archive size of 200 KB would be a good place to start. I'll set it up if there is a consensus to use it. --Phirazo 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if there isn't any objections, I'll manually combine some of the old archives. A few are at 30K, which is too small this subject.  Archive list long only goes up to 36, and I'd like to stay under that for as long as possible.  --Phirazo 21:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have enabled Miszabot to archive this page. --Phirazo 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead. It's getting problematic to load this talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is running now, and I have set it to archive threads older than two weeks. --Phirazo 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

typo to clear up
editprotected Under GeneralPhilosophy, Law of similarity, could an admin please change "symptoms similar to of those disease being treated " to "symptoms similar to those of the disease being treated"? I'm trawling through WP looking for "to of" to correct! Not controversial, not urgent, except that having found it I'd like to get it fixed. Thanks PamD (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page problems
Why are comments on this page disappearing or moving around seemingly at random? Can somebody please fix this or put a stop to it. It's hard enough to follow this debate as it is. Thanks! --147.171.255.159 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I have everything sorted out. Threads older than two weeks have been archived here, and all the newer information is back. If I missed something, let me know.  --Phirazo 18:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and COPD
This study has been mentioned before, and Dana Ullman has introduced a ref to it in the Potassium dichromate article, stating that it shows homeopathy to be effective above placebo in treating COPD. If this is true then it is relevant for here, however I'm very sceptical, so could a few of us please give this journal a good review. It is from the Chest Journal (impact, rating?) and can be found here. Sorry if this has been discussed before --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strange that the standard errors on the two groups actually overlap, particularly the errors of both length of stay and extubations. Since this is a very small difference in a very small clinical trial this isn't particularly convincing evidence of anything. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a little puzzled by your reaction. What errors are you talking about? Here is info on Chest. Click on the 'Chest" link to get detailed info. It is one of the most reputable journals. The difference between the 2 groups is significant. Anthon01 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These are not standard errors, but standard deviations. The difference will become significant if the number of cases is high enough, even if the overlap is large, as long as the means do not converge. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When that happens, it may be noteworthy. Ante  lan  talk  22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has happened, as the article shows. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean when the number of cases becomes high enough (current study had 50 cases). Favorite line from the study: The effect may be best explained by cybernetics, which means that the information of the homeopathic drug acts consensually on the regulator. Ante  lan  talk  22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And 50 cases proved to be high enough. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you say it was not due to the skewed distribution of healthier patients? Fifty is not exactly a large sample. David D. (Talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the assumption of a normal distribution was incorrect? It would not be decisive, I wager. Fifty is quite large for these purposes. Oftentimes, twenty is already enough. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying with a small number of patients there might not be a normal distribution by chance. This is always the big flaw with medical trials, Pharma or homeopath alike. David D. (Talk) 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The normal distribution is assumed for the population, not the sample. The parameters of the distribution are estimated from the sample, which is always open to uncertainty, but that does not necessarily lead to an overestimation of significancy. There is a lot more to it than that, but with 50 patients it is all likely to be a very minor issue. The thing to watch out for is the occurrence of outliers, which should always be investigated (e.g., they can be misdiagnosed patients). Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cybernetics" and "consensual" drugs? I think we can safely files this one under nonsense. Jefffire (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why? Please explain. Anthon01 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you do know. Now if you'll pardon me, I need to quantum rectify my tea with a flux capacitor. Jefffire (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No I don't. Anthon01 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Gobbledygook. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please look at the definitions of those words. The study should be judge on whether it is a RS first, then study design, and not the choice of words in the discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Only 50 in the sample has been discussed. David D. (Talk) 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probability was 1 in 10,000. You comments above seem to be based on a 'belief' that homeopathy doesn't work. Is that right? Anthon01 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say the same for any trial with so few participants. It has nothing to do with homeopathy. David D. (Talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That probability is the liklihood of the set of data representing a "real" difference in in the mean and variation that derives from the treatment, and is dependent upon the assumptions that 1. there was no "real" difference between the groups prior to the treatment and 2. no "real" difference in the application of the treatment compared to the placebo. I challenged that first assumption (see my comments on the other talk page). &mdash; Scientizzle 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is your reason for challenging the first assumption? Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As the study was performed in 2005 and has not achieved a place in standard practice, has had no published follow-up research, and has received no citations that I have found, I don't see how this is noteworthy. Ante lan  talk  01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two studies currently in the works. Anthon01 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When they report results, we'll chat. For now, see Scientizzle's point, below. Ante  lan  talk  19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This has gone off the rails a bit, and really should end--it's not helping the development of this article...further discussion could be held at Talk:Potassium_dichromate, but three of us have already hashed out a lot. Shall we all just agree to disagree and wait for the future replications to better confirm or disconfirm these findings? &mdash; Scientizzle 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, discussion would be appropriate here if the article were used to provide scientific evidence for homeopathy. I can see a difference (an error in the control preparation which could plausibly make a difference in effectiveness).  But perhapsTalk:Potassium_dichromate would be better. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding the National Center for Homeopathy
I would like an admin to add an external link to the National Center for Homeopathy, the primary organization representing Homeopathy in the United States. Their website is http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org I do not believe that this warrants discussion because the organization is essential to Homeopathy, and an external link is an obvious addition. Thanks. Strubin (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not essential to homeopathy - it's an American homeopathic organization. That said, why don't you just go ahead and add the link yourself? Ante  lan  talk  06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is currently fully protected...that's why. That said, I'm not convinced the link is necessary (which is why I haven't added it). Is the organization truly a standard-bearer for American homeopathy? Per WP:EL, does it "provide a unique resource" without serving as too promotional, and is there some overwhelming reason why this organization should be the only such one listed in the external links section? &mdash; Scientizzle 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it has a store page and an advertising page it is at least a little promotional. Also a google search for "America homeopathy" brings up this, as the first link. A search for "United States homeopathy" brings up this  as its first link, a site which lists several USA homeopathy organisations. I see no reason to place the National Center for Homeopathy above all of these other organisations. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An even better question would be, why, if this organization is as important as Strubin claims it to be, has it not been added to the article until now? I think thats a better question.  But regardless, its not really a necessary link.  Just my 1.84 cents (damn American dollar).  Baegis (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly not a non-controversial edit, so I've deleted the template without editing the page. Please do not re-add it unless you have an undeniable consensus to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

tobe preferctly honest, i dont see why the foremsot site for homeoatphy is banned from beng mentioned on the article for homeoatphy. woudl you ban the CDC's website on the CDC's own page!? it is very disturbing and sems somewhat suspicious baring any actual ruels prohibitinmg its inclusion. Smith Jones (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The rule prohibiting its inclusion is the following, from WP:PROT: "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus on the discussion page." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to be ugly about this, but this isn't a good link, nor is it uncontroversial. I get the feeling this is being proposed because strubin's wife is on the board of directors. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What a delightful oversight on strubin's part. Hmm... Baegis (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there is only one Center for Disease Control and there are how many homeopathy organisations? If there was only one homeopathy organisation the link would be in there no question, but since there are several we are forced to evaluate whether or not the website is "the foremsot[sic] site for homeoatphy[sic]". JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, what is this doing here? This is clearly a violation of Wikipedia's policies. I placed the blpdispute tag on the article and now the original author is threatening to block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.203.106 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Obsolete medical theories
I don't see how a theory that is still being practiced can be called obsolete. Is there another term that could be possibly used?Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How long has it been in that category? I agree it sounds a little weird since there are medical doctors who currently prescribe such prescriptions along with a booming industry selling the stuff. Whether it works or not is irrelevant to whether it is obsolete, isn't it? David D. (Talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From Wiktionary, first definition: "(of words, equipment, etc.) no longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected (often by preference for something newer, which replaces the subject)." This is blatantly not the case with homeopathy in general. However, it gets a bit trickier when you consider it only on the basis of being a medical theory. Certainly, it's fallen out of favor among a majority of licensed doctors, but there is a notable subsect of them which uses it (and medical schools which teach it). Looking through the other articles in this category, they all seem to easily meet the standards of being obsolete, and I don't see any theories there which might be comparable to homeopathy. In the end, I think this category is best removed (once the article is unprotected, of course). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm not aware of (American) medical schools that teach this. Medical schools teach about homeopathy as a matter of awareness. There are schools that teach homeopathy, but they are not licensed medical schools. That said, the theory of homeopathy is more in contradiction to mainstream medical science than it is obsolete. There's no category for the former, of course. Ante  lan  talk  21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in this list, which includes 5, possibly 6, licensed, American schools which teach homeopathy uncritically (most likely; it's impossible to know for sure without experiencing their classes). It's certainly not commonplace, given the total number of universities in the country, but it is a presence. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 23:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. After reading over a few of those, I didn't see any that actually taught this at the med school, but I didn't read through all of them. Ante  lan  talk  23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Further down in the post, he points out 6 which specifically mention homeopathy (well, one only mentions Hahnemann). Did you get to that section? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah, yes leave it to me to read only the first few items on a page. Let me read those and get back to you. Ante  lan  talk  02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, here's my take on that list - all of those are "clinical" pages, promoting services to patients. None of those actually deal with the med school curriculum, with the possible exception of UW (which itself doesn't teach Homeopathy, but instead teaches about it). Ante  lan  talk  02:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, you could be right there. I'm just assuming that university clinics that offer it would also teach it to interns (if not necessarily offer whole courses in it). In any case, it's not particularly relevant whether it's taught or not - that it's practiced at all by places like these is enough for us to say it isn't obsolete. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly with you there! Ante  lan  talk  17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It got added last July during a flurry of edits. Filll asked "I believe that this category is appropriate and accurate and will make the article easier to find. comments?" So belatedly, I do have a comment, i don't think it is appropriate given it is still in use today. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the category is wholly inappropriate. As such, I've removed it from the article. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on why I find the category inappropriate...while it may not have broad acceptance within modern Western medicine (which is not a philosophical monolith easily pigeonholed), it's sufficiently practiced by medical and nonmedical practitioners worldwide that it's clearly not "obsolete" in the colloquial sense. And since there is legitamite acedmic study of homeopathy (if for no other reason than attempting to determine conclusively that the practice is nothing more than an elaborate placebo effect), I cannot yet comfortably agree that it's truly obsolete in the evidence-based medical sense. Discussion here makes it sufficently clear that such a category is not supported by even those obviously skeptical of the practice, so I am comfortable with my removal of the category from the page. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this standard protocol for protected pages? I was of the understanding that it was inappropriate for administrators to make contested changes, regardless of their personal opinions. Jefffire (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the objections to the removal didn't appear until after it was done. At the time Scientizzle made the change, only comments supporting removal were present, so it didn't look controversial then. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was a triffle mislead by the rather defensive tone of the justification above. Whilst I'm not convinced of the accuracy of the category, it would appear that removal was premature if the removing admin feels forced to entering into direct debate on the topic. Jefffire (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [EC w/ Jefffire] True. The point of my recent statement was to recognize that the discussion has shifted in timbre, but I am still confident that I made the right decision as I've yet to see a convincing argument that the category is warranted above what seem to be a variety of reasonable objections to said categorization. To put it another way, the onus of any categorization is on those that with to categorize the article, as the addition of a category conveys more information than the lack of a specific category. However, if I feel there is any wider dissatisfaction with my edit, I'm perfectly willing to revert and allow another admin to make a decision. Also, I will continue monitoring (and possibly participating) in this discussion, and if the status of consensus truly shifts, I'll take that into account and re-evaluate my action. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obsolete as a medical theory, because it is considered false by medical science. The existence of a large number of non-academic racists in the world does not prevent scientific racism from being an obsolete theory in anthropology, for example. The category is wholly appropriate. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Although homeopathy is still practised, it is not part of modern medical theory and is therefore currently an "obsolete medical theory". This is both true and verifiable, and to get it changed here homeopaths would first have to get it accepted as a modern medical theory. --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW homeopathy is not a medical theory, it is a practical method about preparing and using drugs. However, having said that no fact or pratice is entirely without its adherent theory; briefly, then, homeopathy is far from obsolete and it is not a theory and so it fails to conform to the term 'obsolete medical theory.' my 10 cents Peter morrell 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It may or may not be a theory now, but it was once regarded as such. I disagree with you that homeopathy isn't a medical theory (it is clearly a theory of medicine), and I'm sure we can both find refs to back up our view of its current status. However, it was once considered a medical theory, and is no longer considered part of mainstream medical theory, and is hence an "obsolete" medical theory --RDOlivaw (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is principally a method, though as a body of knowledge it does contain theories. For the convenience of your argument you seem hell-bent on totally ignoring the fact that it still exists and is widely practised, is that correct? i.e. it is far from obsolete. Whether it is what you call mainstream or not is surely a side-issue. It is not an obligatory component part of it being what you call a theory or of it being what you call obsolete, so I fail to see how you can make this defintion stick. The application of this term to homeopathy is thus pure OR, and pejorative OR at that. Peter morrell 12:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't argued for or against inclusion, I'm just pointing out that as a medical theory it is obsolete. The methods, practices, and beliefs of homeopathy constitute the homeopthic medical theory (of which there may be more than one). I haven't ignored the fact that it "still" exists. It is the case that homeopathic medical theories were once current and widely practised, however they have no place currently in mainstream medical theories, hence they are obsolete medical theories. Homeopathy itself is not obsolete, whether this is good or bad, but currently the theories fit the definition of obsolete. If you add a pejorative onto it then that has nothing to do with me; the fact that homeopathy isn't part of accepted medical practice/theory is the problem. That can be fixed by scientific study of homeopathy, which will show it works if it does work. However, as it stands now homeopathy is an obsolete medical theory. I think this is the least of this articles problems, but is very much linked to the big problems facing homeopaths--RDOlivaw (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Obsolete means no longer in use or no longer useful. There is quite a bit of ongoing research on homeopathy. Here is a recent study published in highly regarded Chest journal. and 3 listed trials are using C30 dilutions.
 * There are currently 11 open homeopathy trials. Anthon01 (talk) Anthon01 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the "medical theory" of homeopathy is obsolete hence the phrase "obsolete medical theory". As I've said about ten times already, I'm referring to the medical theory of homeopathy, and in current medical theory there is no longer a place for homeopathy - hence it is obsolete as a medical theory. Whether it exists or should be part of medical theory is different, but it is not up to wikipedia to judge --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it ever a relevant field of medicine? I was of the understanding that it was recognised as quackery from the beginning. Jefffire (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by homeopathy 'theory.' Please state the theory. Anthon01 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a currently utilized health care modality. It is not an "obsolete medical theory" by any stretch of rational logic. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * But the homeopathic theory of medicine is not a part of the modern theory of medicine. I believe it was one of many competing medical theories that were in competition with each other until the establishment of modern medicine, the theory of which is now evidence based. Hence homeopathy as a medical theory is currently obsolete Whether homeopathy is a "currently utilized modality" (lovely word) is irrelevant to its obsolescence as an accepted medical theory. The way some people here are misunderstanding a rather simple distinction is really quite odd. --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to remember that the "modern theory of medicine" as you call it isn't a single, easily-definable entity. In the US, there are many varied clinics/hospitals/schools which all of slightly varied takes on what all comprises medicine. And, as I pointed out earlier, a small number of these include homeopathy (along with other alternative therapies, often under the banner of "Integrative Medicine"). They're very small in number, true, but they do exist, and they do consider homeopathy part of medicine. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that there is no one "modern theory of medicine" - there are many theories. Among these many theories that are being promoted as accepted and proven "science" by many medical doctors:
 * the prescribing of cholesterol reducing drugs to reduce heart attacks (as yet unproven, and potentially dangerous)
 * the prescribing of Fosamax and other bisphosphonates to prevent osteoporosis (as yet unproven, and potentially dangerous) Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, if you're making generalized arguments against the validity of medical science, does that mean I no longer have to "assume good faith" on your part? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the logical connection there. I think the only time you can stop assuming good faith is when bad faith has been repeatedly demonstrated and vastly outweighs instances of good faith. I'd hardly call that the case here. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of evidence that User:Aburesz is not editing this article in good faith, but is instead advancing an anti-medicine, pro-homeopathy agenda. I don't expect the shortcomings of the AGF policy to be resolved here, I'm just pointing out that it only seems to be used as a bludgeon against editors who are concerned about factual accuracy and are fed up with mystical nonsense being inserted into Wikipedia, yet the other side can openly proclaim their hostility to science and no one cares. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i dont se the evidence that everyone is who supporting homeopathy shoudl by treated in bad faith, Randy Blackmoor. I think you shoudl continue to assume GOOD faith even itwh people who disagree with you, becuase doing other wise will lea dto an edit war when the article gets unprotected and end up with the whole thing having be to be prodected indefinitel.y. Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good God, now there are three of you, and you still make no "sesne". It's hardly in the spirit of homeopathy either :) I disagree with Randy however, I think we should treat these people kindly. It is like heaping burning hot coals upon their heads. However, I get annoyed when people move from specifics to generalities, such as Smith Jones has done here. He questioned AGF of one person, not all homeopathy supporters. However, this discussion isn't and shouldn't be about AGF. I think it has been established that this edit is slightly controversial (homeopathic theory is currently obsolete, for the one reason given about 50 times, is a verifiable view, even if some disagree or think it is pejorative). Let's not talk about AGF or the actions of rouge users here. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a balanced article
I would remind everyone, especially Randy_Blackamoor, that personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Accusing other editors of having a "hostility to science" and "an anti-medicine, pro-homeopathy agenda" is not helpful in building a consensus on creating a balanced article on homeopathy.

Neutral point of view (NPOV) involves describing the different viewpoints in a controversial article, in order to create a balanced article THAT DOES NOT TAKE SIDES. It is not about deciding which view is "neutral" or "correct". That type of subjective bias has no place in an encyclopedia article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How many times have we had this discussion? Editors are not required to be "neutral" between what is true/verifiable and what is false. Articles are not required to pretend that false ideas (e.g., homeopathy) are true. It is not a violation of NPOV to write articles about pseudoscience from a scientific perspective. This is well-trodden ground on this talk page. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i respectfully disagree with yhte above user. it makes no sense sofr and article to take sides on whetehr or not homeopathy science is valid ro not. the main goal shoudl be to compile source information ragardless of the opinions of the peopel ont he talk page. instead of screaming at eacho ther can calling each other "anti-science zealots" or whatever we shodul instead focus on gettin g as many valid sources as we can so that we can create an well-written article that contains all the verifiable information we can find so that this article can be unrpotected and finally become stalbe enough to submit to copy-editing and Smith Jones (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * NOBODY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TYPING. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a misinterpretation of NPOV here. First of all, we do not give undue weight to fringe therapies. Not all sources are equal. Not all theories are equal. NPOV does not require the article to say Some people think Homeopathy works, some do. No, it requires us to state what is Homeopathy, and the vast wealth of data in peer reviewed and reliable sources states that Homeopathy does not work. That is the neutral POV. This is exactly what our job is. This is a scientific article because "practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores both the physical and psychological state of the patient", which explicitly state that this is a medical science. As such, it is subject to all the rules of pseudoscience. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackamoor, try not doing that kind of attack.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the appropriate way to deal with someone who refuses to write in legible English? The idea of collaboration becomes a farce when, in addition to all the users who are coming in with an agenda, the most prolific writer on the talk page is producing large chunks of totally incomprehensible pseudo-language, and then demanding that others figure out what he means so we can "collaborate" with him. I feel like I'm trapped in a Samuel Beckett play on this talk page. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i am NOT sying that pro-homeopathy points of view should be given the same weight as anit-homeopathy. the VAST MARJOITY of scientific sources of homeopathy are skeptical and this article should relfect that. the only thing i take offense to is that some user want the article to objectively stat ethe homeopathy is wrong or evil, which IS a vioaltion of NPOV and possibly other rules of this encylcopedia. calling is a psuedoscience, is fine (AS LONG AS IT IS SOURCED, PREFERABLY MOLTIPLE TIMES) but any unsourced statements positive or negaitvie should be deleted. And Randy Blackamoor please stop it with the personal attakcs they are completely unhelpful and counterproductive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to state what Homeopathy is, and the vast wealth of data in peer reviewed and reliable sources that states that Homeopathy does work (as well as those studies that state that it doesn't work). That is the neutral POV. Apparently some that have expressed themselves on this page are unaware of the data in peer reviewed and reliable sources that states that Homeopathy does work Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i dont knwo about that, man. while i personaly believe that homeopathy is effectiv e in some cases, the majority of studies that i have seen so far sem to indicate that it does not always or consistently  work. i think it would be a good idea to post a list of htose peer-reviewed and relaible sources here so that the other peoeple on this talk page can have a hcance to see them and evaluate them tos ee if they match what wikipedias requirements are. Smith Jones Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are these elusive studies that prove that Homeopathy does work? I have had my eye on this page for a good coupla months and haven't seen anyone put forth any reliable source that says homeopathy works any better than the standard placebo.  It would be best if you go back and read over OrangeMarlin's comment above.  It sums up all relevant polices for this article as clearly as possible.  Baegis (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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


 * Gibson et al. Rheumatoid Arthritis study 1980. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1980. 9. p 453 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.


 * Day C. Stillbirth in Pigs. Veterinary Recorder. 1984. 9114. p 216 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.


 * Reilly et al. Hay-fever study 1986. Lancet. 1986. p 365 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.


 * Fisher et al. Fibrositis study 1989. British Medical Journal. 1989. 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.


 * Reilly et al. Asthma study using house dust mite 1994. Lancet. 1994. p 1601 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 well conducted and to a high standard. The study was supervised by a consultant respiratory physician who recruited the patients for the study.

I can provide you with many more. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Acute maxillary sinusitis
Efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) in patients with acute maxillary sinusitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a demand for clinical trials that demonstrate homeopathic medications to be effective and safe in the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis (AMS). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this clinical trial was to demonstrate the efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) compared with placebo in patients with AMS confirmed by sinus radiography. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial was conducted for a treatment period of 22 days, followed by an eight-week posttreatment observational phase. SETTING: The clinical trial was conducted at six trial sites in the Ukraine. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirteen patients with radiography-confirmed AMS participated in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-seven patients received Sinfrontal and 56 patients received placebo. Additionally, patients were allowed saline inhalations, paracetamol, and over-the-counter medications, but treatment with antibiotics or other treatment for sinusitis was not permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome criterion was change of the sinusitis severity score (SSS) from day zero to day seven. Other efficacy assessments included radiographic and clinical cure, improvement in health state, ability to work or to follow usual activities, and treatment outcome. RESULTS: From day zero to day seven, Sinfrontal caused a significant reduction in the SSS total score compared with placebo (5.8 +/- 2.3 [6.0] points vs 2.3 +/- 1.8 [2.0] points; P < .0001). On day 21, 39 (68.4%) patients on active medication had a complete remission of AMS symptoms compared with five (8.9%) placebo patients. All secondary outcome criteria displayed similar trends. Eight adverse events were reported that were assessed as being mild or moderate in intensity. No recurrence of AMS symptoms occurred by the end of the eight-week posttreatment observational phase. CONCLUSION: This complex homeopathic medication is safe and appears to be an effective treatment for acute maxillary sinusitis.

Anthon01 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not reputable, not authoritative, and not important. Jefffire (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about the journal. Please clarify. This is an RCT that suggest an effect from a homeopathic preparation. Anthon01 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to have to go through every homeopathy pubmed reference now? This seems to be the direction things are heading. Folks, can we try to focus on important papers (you can get a very rough sense of this based on how many citations they have received) in archive journals that some have modicum of authority (if you don't know, impact factor can be used as a surrogate)? Ante lan  talk  20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a waste of time to bring up individual primary sources. There are plenty of secondary sources available, and these are the ones that common sense and Wikipedia policy say we should use. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

another study
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.  Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB.

Münchener Modell, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Technische Universität/Ludwig-Maximillans-Universität, München, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo. METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes. FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: 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. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. Anthon01 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is this published in? Does it have a pubmed index? Adam Cuerdentalk 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just added it above. Published in the Lancet. Impact factor 99.7. Anthon01 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthon01, please see my suggestion above (that we don't just go through all primary papers referencing homeopathy, but instead be much more selective about what we choose to bring up on this talk page). Ante  lan  talk  21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i disage e with the prolbme. the main point of the talk page is to bring up as many rlevent sources as we can. then we can look through them and decide whithch ones that are good enought o be included in the article. after all isnt wikiepdias policy to Be BOldBold text? Smith Jones (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the point of a talk page is to be conducive to forming a good article. If this were a subject that had only a dozen relevant papers, this may be an acceptable approach. Homeopathy is a vast topic, making this approach inappropriate. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i see your point but how we oudl we decide which ones were aprporiate enough to be brough up for the talk page? Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave you a metric above; essentially, look at the journal's impact factor, then look at the # of times the article in question has been cited. Even if someone knows nothing about the journal or the topic, this will help them discover if it is considered important by others in the field. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks you a lot for yourls help. sorry for not noticing the metrric above before i asked my quesiton. Smith Jones (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from above:
 * Regarding "It's not relevant to the Wikipedia article anyway, since it's a primary source," can you please explain the policy to me? Anthon01 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy says "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." (my emphasis) I said it already here, and JamesStewart7 did a good good of explaining it in the second paragraph of this edit. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, what is it that you don't understand about the problem with primary sources? --Art Carlson (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Arions arguemtn makes perfect sense to me. if everoyne else agrees to include those articles if necesary and posibel, then i see ::now reason why we cant askfor the raticle to be unlocked form editing. Smith Jones (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)::


 * This is from Lancet. Art: Not everyone agrees with you. Primary sources can be used in certain occasions. BTW, this is a secondary source. Antelan: I believe your metrics have been meet. Anthon01 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I shot from the hip. Of course the Lancet article is a secondary source so this criticism does not apply here.
 * The criticism, to which you have not responded, still applies to your previous edit.
 * On the other hand, what point are you trying to make? This paper is already in the article as reference 14.
 * And concerning policy, do you not agree that "Wikipedia articles should rely [primarily] on reliable, published secondary sources."? If you propose to add a primary source to the article, then you are obligated to explain why secondary sources are not sufficient in that case, and why that particular primary source should be chosen above all the other ones available.
 * --Art Carlson (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then it's already mentioned. But also superceded by the later study. Adam Cuerden talk 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is already mentioned and where? Why should the later study supersede this one. Science is not composed of only the last study. Anthon01 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you only knew... Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now what does that cryptic message mean?:) Anthon01 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, it means "I would love it if that were true / in a better world you would be right." Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on this, but I'm tired of this pubmed dredging. This isn't how science works, and it isn't how Wikipedia works. There are primary sourcing with every concievable outcome, simply because of the manner in which statistics works and how some researchers are just crap at science. That's why it's daft to pick up every tatty piece of positive research ever done. What matter is if it was well regarded by the scientific and medical community who have judged it by their own expertise. Jefffire (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * To make another point, quantity does not make up for quality when it comes to science. A ton of poorly-designed studies do not add up to good evidence. Even if you throw in a meta-analysis of them, Garbage in garbage out still applies. In judging what's true, you have to pay more attention to quality studies. Of course, we aren't in the business here at Wikipedia of making that judgment ourselves. That's why we rely on reliable secondary which will have judged that for us. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 06:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many people make ill-informed reference to the above Lancet's article that says: "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition."  It is necessary to note that the researchers defined "efficaciousness" as having at least three high quality clinical trials each conducted by independent researchers.  At the time of the above Lancet meta-analysis (1997), there were only 2 trials testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza (or influenza-like syndrome).  In 1998, however, a third independent trial verified its efficacy.  It can now, therefore, be asserted that Oscillococcinum is more effective than placebo in treating influenza (note: it has not been found to be effective in preventing the flu).  Even the Cochrane report has asserting that these results are "promising." It should also be noted that the above meta-analysis found that when reviewing only the "high quality" clinical studies and when adjusting for publication bias, there was still a 1.78 odd ratio, suggesting a clinically relevant effect from homeopathic medicines above a placebo effect.   Dana Ullman Talk 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

List of homeopathic remedies
An excellent suggestion was just made over at Talk:potassium dichromate. We should make a list called List of homeopathic remedies. This list can be exhaustive and cited to homeopathic sources and link to the substances that homeopaths say they use in preparing the remedy. That way we don't have to have discussion of homeopathy on the dozens of mainstream plant and chemical articles (except where measured to be prominent by independent mainstream reliable sources). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * that seems like a briliant idea and maybe we can incoroprate all the individual homeoapthic remedies listed on wikpiedia into that one article, with links to the major ones that actualy have articles. Smith Jones (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea, but we'd have to say what the remedy actually is, cite everything, and choose inclusion criteria, e.g. are we using Hahnemann? Kent? Kent plus a brief list of comercially notable additional remedies? Adam Cuerden talk 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd go with what's currently used and reliably sourcable. Also, I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea to make this a category as well/instead. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The basis of the article might be User:Peter_morrell/List_of_common_homeopathic_remedies, but this will need more sources before we move it into mainspace. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very poor basis as it stands, though - it doesn't even say what things are, and is effectively a long list of easter eggs, most of them FAILED easter eggs at that. Adam Cuerden talk 05:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Also, that list contains "Water" and "sugar". While that may be the main ingredients of many homeopathic remedies, one rather suspects that Peter has just saved a copy of the corrupted list that got deleted for no context a while ago. Adam Cuerden talk 05:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This might be a good source if you are really looking for a source. Homeopathic Pharmacopœia. Anthon01 (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a separate list of homeopathic medicines would not and should not negate the possibility to inclusion of a reference to fact in an article in wikipedia on that plant, mineral, or animal substance as a homeopathic medicine, as long as there is some special notability of the substance as a homeopathic medicine. Dana Ullman Talk 05:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That could be a huge article! I think notability should be a factor, with a listing of the most popular ones. (For example, see Chiropractic treatment techniques.) Listing all possibilities would get us into promoting the special and weird preparations by individual homeopaths, and we don't do advertising here.


 * Here's a skeptical description of one of the most popular ones:


 * "Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."


 * -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Fyslee, are you next going to say that the atomic bomb was a placebo because the actual size of an atom is so so small that it couldn't possibly cause any problems. But the real problem with your silly math is that you are ignoring three large (over 300 patients) independently conducted double-blind and placebo controlled trials.  Stop the theorizing about what you think are placeboes. Theorizing isn't science.  Look at the results...or show me results where Oscillococcinum didn't work in the treatment of the flu.  Wiki is not a place for theorizing; it is a place for results.  Dana Ullman Talk 06:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really think that comment is at all useful, Mr. Ullman. Adam Cuerden talk 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course such a comment isn't worth a reply. Dana Ullman has just disappointed me. I would have expected something better. I guess this incivility can be added to the evidence against him. It's sure piling up! -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Theorising isn't science?? I've been doing it wrong then... but then I am a theoretician. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record:
 * Vickers AJ, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes., Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. - not enough evidence to recommend its general use


 * van der Wouden JC, Bueving HJ, Poole P. Preventing influenza: an overview of systematic reviews. Respir Med. 2005 Nov;99(11):1341-9. Epub 2005 Aug 19. - its popularity is not justified by the evidence. 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that I want to get involved in this, but DU's example not really effective: Mainly as there are all these reactors that kind of prove the theory while a Japanese city or two wishes it was a placebo. BTW Wikipedia isn't about results it's about verifiable information from reliable sources.  FWIW the article should be on the subject (ie/ homoepathy) with elements from all sides - including the rather large amount of evidence saying it doesn't work and a smaller section on the evidence which says it works, just like any other WP:FRINGE subject.  We may not like it, but thats why Wikipedia has it's policies :-/  Shot info (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Potassium dichromate, we would include citations to substances, their homeopathic names, and the symptoms they purportedly cure. Yes, I realize that many remedies don't contain a single molecule of "active ingredient," but such a list would be 200C better than Category:Homeopathic remedies, as we now have. With a list we can explain upfront that many remedies have been diluted to nil. Categorizing things like sodium chloride as a homeopathic remedy would be absurd, and creating an homeopathic content fork for Natrum muriaticum (like Ferrum Phosphoricum) is a sickening proposition to me.

With all but the most notable homeopathic remedies, it would be undue weight to note their homeopathic use on the main article, but this list will solve the problem. We don't have to mar coffea by writing about how coffee is diluted in homeopathic sleeping pills. We just list it on the table of homeopathic remedies, where it's not undue weight, and be done with it. We should limit listed remedies to commercially-available mass-produced preparations.

I think it has the potential to be one of the most illuminating and useful articles about homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On sources: we should be able to find some homeopathic treatises that list common remedies. For example, this book picks 60 "common" remedies out of "literally thousands," and this book names 15 remedies which the author says conventional pharmacies should stock. We can combine several such lists of "common remedies" and source them, listing each source as a reference on each substance and purported symptoms on a table. It would look like:
 * Natrum muriaticum[1][3][4][5] | sodium chloride | dehydration[1][4][5], headache[1][3][5], ect.
 * I think that would be easy for readers to parse. If we only use secondary sources listing "common" remedies we'll avoid OR, and we'll also keep the list manageable. The real challenge will be selecting the most authoritative secondary sources. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should have common dilution information too, in both homeopathic and scientific notation. Perhaps a not on dilutions beyond 12C that there is none of the substance remaining, and a link to the appropriate section of the homeopathy page. --RDOlivaw (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see such an article becoming very long, unmanageable and pointless. But then again, it's not been tried yet. Jefffire (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If we have rules for keeping it concise (so no discussion of individual remedies, just a table of info with wikilinks and refs) plus some footnotes for things like dilutions, then it shouldn't be too bad. We might have to be strict about the notability (specifically that it's in common use) though. I think it's worth trying, and will remove some heat from this and other articles. Kept in one place it's easier for all parties to keep tabs on, and rules for inclusion should be reviewed every now and then, and additions discussed on it's talk page with a justification. Maybe it won't work, but it sounds a bit more positive than some things that have been happening. It will also still be under wiki policies of undue weight and fringe too. I think it could be a disaster, or it could just tidy things up a lot --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on the proposal. I understood it to mean that there would be a link from List of homeopathic remedies to (for example) Potassium dichromate, but (normally) not a link in the other direction (or indeed any mention in the main article of the application in homeopathy). Is this correct? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the links to the substance would be one way. A link from the substance to homeopathy would remain as rare as it is now (in some cases rarer, as stubs can be replaced by the list). So there would be no link from Potassium dichromate --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, there is a rationale developed for this. I actually came up with it in discussing whether redshift quantization should be linked at redshift. Remember the good ol' days, Art? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that the current article omits information as to how particular substances come to be identified with a particular therapeutic property. Such explanation would need to be provided preliminary to the compilation of list under discussion, lest WP become a repository for lists of merely arbitrary character. Such an explanation can be theoretical, and need not engage that point that there is no evidence for the efficacy of any of the claimed effects. Naturezak (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the section on provings not clear enough? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this be a good source? Homeopathic Pharmacopœia. 


 * I think a published copy could be a good source for purported symptoms cured, but as a list it's much too long. We should confine the list to the most common remedies. Cool Hand Luke 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting we use the whole list, just highlights. Anthon01 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A good reputable source is though oibviously it has a few more remedies than is planned for here! It can be used as a good source for the common ones. Peter morrell 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Remedies that are on the shelves of normal high-street pharmacies or have significant, independent press coverage should certainly be included in the list. Perhaps a another good general test would be if the remedy has been discussed in the journal Homeopathy? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources and Notable + NPOV
I think this would be helpful. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation ... Examples of primary sources include ... written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research;

Copied from Anthon01 (talk) (User talk:Danaullman15:25), 22 January 2008

--David2008 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You beat me to it. I was about to post that here. Anthon01 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned. Those currently in the article are used to blatantly editorialize that homeopathy is worthless, except for possible placebo effects. The actual facts of the research found in hundreds of primary sources - that has been extensively performed world-wide - which is supportive of homeopathy has been deliberately not allowed into this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A frequent argument for or against inclusion is notability. From my reading of WP:Notable it appears that notability is being misused. Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's the problem with using scientific papers as primary sources: Even though you can easily report what the study says, what you can't judge is what it means. Scientific studies are done and come out by the barrelfull. By chance alone, 1 in 20 studies will show a statistically significant effect even when there is none (and another 1 in the 20 will show a significant effect in the other direction). Publication bias then leads to these significant studies being significantly more likely to appear in journals. Add on top of that that for subjects like this, the proponents are notoriously sloppy with design, and in the end you end up with a number of studies that show positive effects rivaling those that show no effect (the exact ratio depends on many factors, including what quality of journal you look at).


 * What this means is that you can't look at a single study to judge whether something like Homeopathy works. Even if the study seems to have been designed perfectly, shows a large effect, and has a large sample size, you still can't judge from one alone. You have to allow other, independant scientists to attempt to replicate the results. Remember cold fusion? Seemed awesome at first, but failed replicability.


 * Over the history of homeopathy, there have been hundreds of studies performed. It would be idiotic for us to discuss all of them. What makes sense is for us to go one level up, to look at reliable summaries of these studies. So instead of relying on individual studies, we look at meta-analyses and reviews. That is, rather than discussing what every single primary source says, we go to the secondary sources and discuss what they say. When the discussion leads us to want to zoom into specifics, we cite primary sources that argue a particular point, granted, but this does not mean that every primary source is automatically deserving of a mention. There is nothing in particular about the study you're putting forward that merits it particular mention - save perhaps as a notable failure of the peer-review process (though we can't put that in until it's notable and some secondary source has reported on it). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned". I agree with this. Second option : We could also exclude all primary sources, positive and negative, and use only metanalyses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David2008 (talk • contribs)


 * Thanks for the essay. You said, "notable failure of the peer-review process" What are you talking about here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that in regards to how that potassium dichromate/COPD study made it through into Chest. There are numerous problems with the study that should have been caught by peer-review and yet weren't. Of course, as I mentioned before, this is simply personal opinion until some reliable secondary source covers this topic. If you wish for me to go into details, I could do so, but I warn you that it gets rather technical (I'm not doing it already as my analysis of the study doesn't have much place on Wikipedia). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The history of publication (preponderance of high quality evidence) part I understand, although even meta-analyses need to be reviewed also since they can include original research, poor design, etc ... I think I'll be ok since I have a extensive science background. Please understand that I am trying to nail down inclusion criteria for WP. Happy to here your opinion and would like to know how your opinion applies to the WP inclusion criteria. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Notability is about articles, not sources and citations "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Wikipedia article. The topic of an article should be notable". It has no relevance to the discussion about sources, which are covered by WP:CITE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE etc --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that. However the term notable is used sometimes by editors on WP to exclude a citation, a misuse of notable. That is the point of my quote from WP:NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Every instance of the word "notable" on Wikipedia talk pages does not mean "notable" in the hyperlinked, inclusion guideline sense. WP:N quote for you: Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles. Even if one discovers a particular study that confirms one's preconceived bias on the topic at hand, its inclusion in the article is still subject to community consensus (which can include determining whether the citation is relevant and/or appropriate) and must fit all relevant policies and guidelines in its presentation (i.e., NOR, NPOV, V, FRINGE, COATRACK, and many other all-caps shortcuts). Many have also clearly argued that the inclusion of any single study as evidence that a homeopathic remedy works is fallacious: definitive statements about the efficacy of any treatment cannot be determined from any single study (indeed, I stated as such: "Only through careful weighing of the entire scientific literature on a subject can the development of a scientific consensus occur...[a single] study, ultimately weighted by the soundness of its methodology and the ability to reproduce these results, will become a part of that literature. From it, future work can be designed, methodologies tightened, and hypotheses tested that will better determine if this is a true effect...whether this particular remedy, at this particular dilution, given at this particular dose, aiming to treat this particular ailment, in these type of people, is in fact an effective treatment").
 * I've already stated on this talk page, "Primary sources...I think are useful in sections that present the various treatments that have been scientifically explored, and noting methods for those explorations, but shouldn't (generally) be used for any definitive claim concerning the overall efficacy (positive or negative) of a specific treatment for a specific illness." I then provided a list above of every major literature review and metanalysis (these are secondary sources), in a section above, available on PubMed, published since ca. 2003. These have seemingly been lost in fog of this talk page. So, where does that leave us? I don't see many examples of primary sources being misused, and would welcome anyone to point out such an instance. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we are in agreement. Some editors say a citation can't be used because it's a primary source, others say you can't use a citation because its not notable. It both cases their justifications are wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your summary, though short, is incorrect. He said a lot more things, that are more relevant --88.172.132.94 (talk)
 * Anthon01, your summary is completely devoid of nuance, making it an incorrect paraphrase of my response. There are certainly times in which a primary source cannot be properly used, and the argument that a particular publication is not notable (not notable, just "notable" in the colloquial sense) with respect to the article's subject is a perfectly valid argument to make. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The limitations of a text only media. I agree with almost everything you have said above. My summary was not an attempt to recap or paraphrase your comments. I was recaping the points that I was making with the above quotes. The beginning of your your essay reflects my understanding of WP:Notable. My reason for raising it here was the use of lack of notability to exclude citations here. Sure notable in the colloquial sense is premissable. Perhaps I have mistaken the colloquial use of notable by some or all editors for the 'misuse of WP:Notable.' The only exception or caveat that I would offer regards meta-analyses; they are not necessarily the best way to determine effect. I will review the ones you have listed above. Anthon01 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * okay so are primary sources bads or not? i visited all the ALL-CAPS shortucts that Scietnizzle linked to and it didnt seem to me that NOR or COATRACK were relevant at all. no-one is sguesting including their OWN research in the article and this article is not obviously a cove r for a bunch of biased trash relating to something unrelated (its still up in the air whether or nto the COVERAGE of homeopathy itself is biased but id ont think that anyone in either camp has acused us of being biased one way or another against something that is unrelated to homeopathty to be certain). so all i wanted clarificd was whether or not primary sources would be dismissed automatically or not. Smith Jones (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ???
 * Then you should reread them and this discussion until you understand. They are not automatically worthy of inclusion, nor unworthy. This is decided by concensus, guided by the wikipedia policies noted above --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * thats just it. ive read and reread ths debate like 6 times and it still looks like a debate or an argument wrather than a statement of the consensus on this talk page relating to the poliycy. at first it looked like we werent supposed to use primary sources, then it looked like we were supposed to use priamry sources if they were approved by consensus, and then it switched back for a bit, then it looked like several users misinterpeted what the other users were talking about, and now User:Anthon just declared that "we are in agreement" but about what i have no clue at all. I think we should clearly state the consensus somethwere else to avoid wasting any editors times, sicne i know that im not the only one here who doesnt understnad what everyone is talking about. Smith Jones (talk) ???


 * I'm sorry if I've confused you. I agree for the most part with Scientizzle's inclusion criteria. All primary or secondary sources require consensus, especially on this page. Primary sources can be used, to describe aspect of that primary source, like topics of research, research methodolgies, even the results of a particular study, etc ... But a primary source can not be used to prove or disprove homeopathy. I know you've suggested in the past that one positive study proves it, but it takes a preponderance of evidence over time to come close to proving anything. I haven't looked at references from the text Arion 3x3 posted below. Anthon01 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of primary sources being misused in this homeopathy article to create the wrong impression that the only research that has been done on homeopathy has led to the conclusion that it is worthless (except for placebo effects):


 * Since homeopathic remedies at dilutions higher than about D23 (10-23) contain no ingredients apart from the diluent (water, alcohol or sugar), there is no chemical basis for them to have any medicinal action. While some articles have suggested that homeopathic solutions of high dilution can have statistically significant effects on organic processes including the growth of grain, histamine release by leukocytes, and enzyme reactions, such evidence is disputed since attempts to replicate them have failed.    Newer randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using highly-diluted homeopathic preparations also fail to find clinical effects of the substances.


 * Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma or dementia, or induction of labor. Other researchers found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for osteoarthritis, migraines or delayed-onset muscle soreness.

This is an obvious attempt to editorialize that homeopathy is worthless, except for possible placebo effects. The actual facts of the research, found in hundreds of primary sources and which is is supportive of homeopathy has been deliberately not allowed into this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which parts specifically do you disagree with? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Abusrezc|Arion 3x3 i agree iwth your position but i think that we should wait until consensus has approved all of your soruces before we use them in the actual article, since it was mentioned about that someone of those sources are not valid scientificaly or notable. Smith Jones (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words
"One of numerous studies that show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo was published in European Journal of Cancer in 2006." I think sentence needs to be changed. Anthon01 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence should read to the effect. --Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? It's accurate the way it was, if inadequately sourced.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What? You mean It's accurate the way it was, if adequately sourced, is that what you mean? Anthon01 (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I mean it's clearly accurate. Additional sources should should be added to support "Studies show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo[1][2][3][4][5][6]...".  (I'm not saying there aren't some studies showing effectiveness, and the vast majority of published studies are so badly designed that they show nothing.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So have to show numerous if you are going to use that language. For now the sentence is not properly sourced. The sentence I provided is supported by the citation. Anthon01 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your sentence is biased, as it implies there is only one source. Perhaps we could settle on "A study which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in C cancer (treatment) was published in the European :Journal of Cancer in 2006,", for the moment.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not bias. It is reflective of the citation that was placed at the end of the sentence. I submit that as it stands the sentence is editorializing. "One study" is stated without prejudice. Does "A study" suggests there's more? If not, I'm ok with "A study." Anthon01 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

←Let's zoom out to the original paragraph:"One of numerous studies that show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo was published in European Journal of Cancer in 2006. The study was a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio and chemotherapy done since 1985. Three of the trials were randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The author's concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer."

Why not this:"A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer." &mdash; Scientizzle 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are trying to turn one study into six. It is the result of one study, and not six trials that we are commenting on. Anthon01 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a secondary source analyzing six trials: it is the results of six trials. (In fact, there were "55 potentially relevant studies, of which six met [their] inclusion criteria") &mdash; Scientizzle 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I should note that the source quotes that "five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study". This should be fixed, for sure. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Never mind, the statement was accurate given the info in Tables 2 & 3. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is published as one study. The results are not the result of six individual trials but a compilation of extracted data from six trails. Anthon01 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No. It's published as a meta-analysis of six studies. Do you know what a meta-analysis is? (honest question, some don't) There are six citable trials that were analyzed. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I do. The data is extracted and manipulated and a conclusion is reached; the data is not a summary. Anthon01 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Scientizzle's version is improved, although the concluding sentence isn't obviously related to either version of the rest of the paragraph. I'll have to assume that it really is their conclusion. As for Anthon01, "one study" clearly implies (the false statement that) there are no more, while "a study" seems neutral to me.   &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a fair compromise. Let the reader form their own impression. Remember we are trying to be NPOV. "A study which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in cancer was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2006. The study was a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio and chemotherapy done since 1985. Three of the trials were randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The author's concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer."

or something to that effect. Anthon01 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see what was POV about my version, and I honestly think mine read better. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is one meta analysis not six trails. Six is bigger than one. Anthon01 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this.

Anthon01 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a meta-analysis of six trials. What's wrong with the wording there? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me too. -- <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, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just needed to walk away from it for awhile. It seems fine to me too. Let me see if I can improve on the text. Anthon01 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are two suggestions. Anthon01 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These misunderstand that the homeopathic treatments were for ameliorating the negative effects of chemo & radiation. &mdash; Scientizzle 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the study. Do you? THe abstract certainly isn't clear in that regard. Are you saying that the study was to treat the side-effects of cancer therapy? if that's true then the next sentence is wrong. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer. Anthon01 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't right now...and upon re-reading the abstract, I'm inclined to agree that something isn't clear. I'll check it out tomorrow when I have full access and report back, okay? &mdash; Scientizzle 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E (2006). "Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment". Eur. J. Cancer 42 (3): 282–289. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2005.09.025. .

"The main outcome measures we considered were efficacy of homeopathic remedies for treating symptoms in cancer patients and cancer survivors. Secondary outcome measures included tumour response and quality of life."

Conditions investigated: Radiation reaction, Chemotherapy-Induced stomatitis x2, Radiodermatitis, Menopausal symptoms, Estrogen withdrawl symptoms. It doesn't seem like they are treating the cancer itself.

Anyway they basically go on to say that the results are positive but many of the studies were poorly done (there are many more criticisms not quoted).

"Five out of six trials included in this systematic review yielded positive results, which suggest the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies for cancer care. Cancer patients appear to have benefited from homeopathic interventions specifically for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis, radiodermatitis and general adverse events from radiotherapy. Breast cancer survivors, suffering from menopausal symptoms, experienced a general improvement on their quality of life." ... "The main limitation of our systematic review is the lack and sometimes poor quality of the primary data. The studies we evaluated were highly heterogeneous in virtually every respect. In some studies, individualized remedies were applied. Although individualization of therapy allows homeopathy to be practiced in its traditional fashion, this increases the complexity of comparing outcomes. In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing. Further research should attempt to answer the many open questions related to homeopathy."

I'll take a shot at fixing the quote to more accurately reflect the reviews. I think it should be mentioned that there were positive results but the results are perhaps questionable. By the way this is particularly suspicious, "Statistical analysis for significance was performed in all the studies, but only four provided statistical features in their result sections." as is this "This study also lacked complete information regarding patients and remedies, as well as essential methodological details, such as randomisation method." I think I'll summarise these problems with something like "the authors stated that several of the studies contained incomplete methodological details or statistical results." JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok as my edit was reverted can someone please enlighten me as to how I may "Report the conclusion of the entire thing, rather than its parts". I felt a change was necessary as the last sentence is demonstratably inaccurate but I don't really see what was wrong with my revision. I could cut it down to </i>"In a 2006 meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found that the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy in this area was "encouraging but not convincing"</i> This wording is very close to the current content with the inaccurate statment removed (see my quotes above) and the quotation is from the second last sentence of the article. Hopefully this qualifies as "the conclusion of the entire thing". JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Actually I'm going to make an edit which just corrects the inaccurate statement and we can discuss any other changes here. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted because I thought the version gave undue weight to the component parts of the study with positive results. They were the weaker parts, and entirely contradicted and overwhelmed by the stronger negative parts. To avoid confusion to reader without the relevant statistical experience (and the lead is not the right place to start explaining statistics), it is far more appropriate to simply report the overall conclusion of the study. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that the positive results are overwhelmed by the stronger negative parts. However, it should be noted that the stronger negative parts are not larger studies that found negative results. There was a positive trend found in the meta-analysis. This trend was disregraded (and rightly so) in light of the rather poor quality and poor reporting of some of the positive studies. However, it seems most of this adjustment was done post-hoc (above quotes were from the discussion) instead of just excluding the studies before any analysis (like Shang did for example). Now, I can see why they did this (only 6 studies) but from your response you would think their decision was purely based on the statistical analysis but that is not my (albeit brief) reading of the study. Don't get me wrong, I probably would have done the same thing if I was the researcher but it was not a statistical judgement so I don't see why the reader would require statistical knowledge. It was a judgement based on the rated quality of the studies.


 * Perhaps we can elect not to include "five out of six trials" but I believe it is inaccurate to ay the researchers found "no evidence" for homeopathy. This is not what they said at all. They said there was evidence but it was not convincing, "In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing." This makes this statement, "The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy for cancer care" a poor representation of the author's actual conclusions. I can see your point about the changes being confusing to someone without statistical knowledge but I think we need to amend that statement somehow. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept your correction on the post-hoc analysis, and agree that more accurate wordings are possible. It's tricky not to write something that could be misinterpreted though. Jefffire (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will do at least temporarily. Anthon01 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Paper quotes
Alright...direct from the paper itself, the authors descibed the presented findings of the six studies as The conditions studied are listed as: The authors concluded: This was summarized thusly in the abstract: Given the above information, I think this is an accurate and fair synopsis: "A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials evaluating homeopathic treatments to reduce side effects from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found 'encouraging but not convincing' evidence in support of homeopathic treatment; the meta-analysis authors concluded that variability in the methodological quality of the six studies provided 'insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.'" Any objections to adding this? &mdash; Scientizzle 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Radiation reaction"
 * "Chemotherapy Induced-Stomatitis"
 * "Radiodermati-tis"
 * "Chemotherapy-induced stomatitis"
 * "Menopausal symptoms" (post-breast cancer treatment)
 * "Estrogen withdrawal" symptoms (post-breast cancer treatment)


 * Can we shorted that? Jefffire (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I think the clause of "including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials" can be readily removed (it may be slightly misleading, too, as the studies had variable blinding, randomization & controls), plus a couple of other tweaks, producing this:"A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials evaluating homeopathic treatments to reduce cancer therapy side effects following radiotherapy and chemotherapy found 'encouraging but not convincing' evidence in support of homeopathic treatment, however variability in the methodological quality of the six studies provided 'insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.'" &mdash; Scientizzle 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good wording, but too long for the intro (it has become something of a bloated cow). Might it be a better idea to move it into the main text? Jefffire (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I never intended this for the lead, if that's what you're saying...this is merely to replace the slightly erronious main text explanation. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My error, just with everyone talking about the lead...:) Jefffire (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this was well done. My only objection isn't content but readability. I think it needs to be two sentences. It may be easy for you or I to read it, but tedious for others with less education. Anthon01 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Page unprotected and How to write a lead
The page is now unprotected; protection is only temporary and it has been more than a month in a protected state. I would hope that during the protection editors have engaged in constructive discussions on how to resolve their disputes. Any further disruption to this page may not result in further protection, but may result in editors losing temporarily their editing privileges. Let's hope that neither would be necessary. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD needs to be a summary of the main article. As it stands it is not. The lead would benefit from compliance with the guideline, that advises us (my highlights):
 * Comment:

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain which parts of the lead are causing you problems, or what you think is missing? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the lead is causing me problems... But the lead is non-compliant: (a) It is too long; (b) It does not provide a concise summary of the article; (c) it is giving undue weight to the critical viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed on length. The lead used to be shorter (and better than the present one, in my view). But I don't see how it's giving undue weight to criticism, given that the majority view (per WP:WEIGHT) is critical of homeopathy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fix the length first, and then we can address the weight issue. This is an article about Homeopathy, not about the critical view of homeopathy. As an extreme analogy, take an article on God. The scientific view is that existence of God cannot be proved, yet, the article about God and its lead does not use 1/2 of its space to deny its existence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The analogy doesn't strike me as particularly apt. Many (most?) of the proponents of homeopathy insist that the practice is scientifically valid. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we say so in the article's text. NPOV writing is not that hard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE mis-interpretation, maybe?: The "majority" vs. "minority" needs to be assessed in context. A significant majority of the scientific studies on Homeopathy, assert that it is just a placebo effect and quackery. We should say that in the article. The significant majority of Homeopathic organizations claim the contrary. We should also say that in the article. We need a balanced view of the subject so that our readers get the full picture of the dispute: as per NPOV None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Some say the earth is flat, others say it is round," eh? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no... A good summary of the excellent section "Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis" would do the trick. I look forward to see a reduced version of the lead that summarizes the article's content in a neutral manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is where I think many editors get it wrong. Policy says briefly mention notable controversies. The problem is we run the risk of turning off a potential reader if the lead is too heavily weighed towards criticism. Science is not the only view presented in WP. There are historical and cultural POV, that are at least as important as the scientific view. The majority of the scientific view is that there is insufficient evidence to support it and that no plausible mode of action has been found. In spite of that, homeopathy is still being studied by science as there exist 1) limited data on an effect and 2) researched methods are being perfected to determine whether any sufficient evidence will be uncovered. Anthon01 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well-stated. Friarslantern (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he's misstated the majority scientific view. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded, that's not the majority scientific view, which is that not only is there no evidence, but it is nearly certain that there will never be evidence and that the atomic theory of matter makes it impossible for homeopatic remedies to do anything, ever. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you read scientific articles on the subject instead of just the abstracts you might see it a little differently. Nearly certain doesn't equal never. Do you think we already know everything? Assuming I mistated the SPOV, it still doesn't deserve to take the largest part of the lead. Homeopathy isn't only about 'science' phenomenon. Anthon01 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the policy document WP:NPOV/FAQ: "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." To follow Jossi's suggestion would fail at explaining how scientists have received homeopathy. Adam Cuerden talk 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy isn't only about science. Look at the body of the article. Lots of sections need to be represented in the lead. There is more to life and Homeopathy then just Psuedoscience. Jossi's talking about the lead. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the lead has to summarise all major views - to remove the mainstream scientific view would make it unbalanced. Haven't we had this argument several dozen times?° Adam Cuerden talk 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think were in agreement. I never suggested we remove the sci view from the lead. Only that it doesn't take more space than it is due. There is too much in the lead as it stands now or at least as it was before Jossi put up this section. Anthon01 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Science is a fairly major view point, per the weighting guidelines, it should get a hefty amount of space. Jefffire (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember there is no proof. How many times and ways do you need to say that.;-) Seriously though, look at WP:LEAD. Anthon01 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the issue. The scientific view is extremely important, and so it has a prominent weighting. Jefffire (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, we are saying the same thing. My less and your more may end up being about the same. Lets look at the new version and then we'll talk Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy is scientific when it's advantageous for its practitioners to pose it as science, but it's a "social phenomenon" when it's advantageous not to be science. Hmmm, I wonder if Mitt Romney is a homeopath? Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we've got our wires crossed. What are you talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * And where do you consider homeopathy to be according to WP description? Anthon01 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * homeopathy is a science. just becfause some people deny its efficacy doesnt mean that it isnt true. after all they are still some people who deny evolution and that doesnt make ita 'social phenomenon' Smith Jones (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been trimmed from ~434 to ~291 words in these edits. I think all the major points are there and proper weight is given. Some collapsing of sources could help improve readability (i.e., moving them to the rest of the article), and word choice is always up for review, but it's in fair shape now... &mdash; Scientizzle 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Much better. Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It is possible, after all. :) well done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Organon
The words 'in wide use today' have been removed. Anyone who has visited homeopathic training colleges and studied the curriculum of such places, as I have, will know that the Organon is a core aspect of study. What that means in practical terms is that the Organon is regarded today as an invaluable resource for learning the core philosophy and methods of homeopathy and how it should be practised. It is still in wide use today as a respected text period. Removal of those few words therefore seems unjustified in the light of this hands-on knowledge. thanks Peter morrell 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You can probably find a citations that supports that. Anthon01 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * he doesnt realy need citations this is comon knowledge among people who study homeopathic medicine. Smith Jones (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not good enough for this project. Please review WP:V. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * and you can review this source. Organon is a wellrespected homeopathic canon and there is no reason why is should not be mentioned in the article Homeopathy since it is essentialyl the book that created homeopathy as a medical discipline. Smith Jones (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * VERY good. Organon is easily in the toop 5 most important medical works ever written, spawning a discpline that has pushed the frontiers of medical science even further than any other text except for Hippocrates has ever done.
 * You're being sarcastic, right? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in lead
Pseudoscience does not belong in the lead as per Pseudoscience and WP:UNDUE.

The policy states, ''"Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." ''

It could be mentioned in the body as "some consider it ... " Please do not replace it before discussion and consensus has been reached. Anthon01 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well quackery is substantially different. Why did you remove the three peer-reviewed medical journal citations...
 * Wahlberg, A. (2007) "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine 65(11) pp. 2307-2316:
 * Atwood, K.C. (2003) "Neurocranial Restructuring' and Homeopathy, Neither Complementary nor Alternative," Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 129(12) pp. 1356-1357:
 * Ndububa, V.I. (2007) "Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?" Nigerian Journal of Medicine 16(4) pp. 312-317:
 * ...that show homeopathy is quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is a very contentious page. We are trying to rewrite the lead via consensus. Your non-consensus edits, if left uncheck, will undoubtedly lead to an edit war, probable reblocking of the page, and other admin actions. I implore you to use the talk page to discuss and reach consensus on whether your proposed edits should be implemented. Anthon01 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, are there any peer-reviewed academic journal publications which state that homeopathy is not quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All your references are opinion pieces in RS. Good for inclusion in the body but not in the lead as per WP:UNDUE. If you look at peer-review research articles you will be hard pressed to find homeopathy defined as quackery. Anthon01 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Miles above and the current wording given by Poupontoast. With regards to pseudo-science, that is the view of mainstream science, as is verified by the citations and deserves to be in the lead. I'm not sure about the word quackery appearing there though, but if that's what the articles say then that's ok, but maybe just pseudo-science would work just as well. Quackery should be mentioned in the body though. Don't be hasty in deciding your opinion is correct if you're making new changes I'd like to apologise for the revert I made a moment ago, I misunderstood the situation. I think we can keep PScience, but remove quackery from the lead  --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Words like "pseudoscience" and (especially) "quackery" are a bit strong and may tend to turn people off if they're used up front despite their being suitable descriptions. They are more appropriate toward the end of the lead, once readers are drawn into the article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Pscience bit could go to the end of the third para (after quackery quote) --RDOlivaw (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Or more appropriate in the body after they have been drawn in. Anthon01 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No I think the end of the 3rd para is better. It is a notable criticism, and follows the quote well --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The goal is to get the reader to enter the body of the article. Piling it on in the lead could drive readers away. Anthon01 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the goal of the lead is to accurately summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). Homeopathy's status as pseudoscience is a fundamental point and as such must be mentioned in the lead. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree here with Raymond with one caveat. We need to attribute the opinions properly. Rather than asserting that as fact, we need to attribute the opinion to those that hold it. For example, there is a statement that reads as a fact "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge", could be rewritten for NPOV as: "Modern pharmaceutical knowledge diametrical opposes that of Homeopathy, and its premises have been found to be implausible in scientific tests", or something along these lines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with your example. This phrase has already been debated and the current form is NPOV, it expresses the facts, and is verifiable. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's good wording, though I don't care for the passive voice in the second half. On the other hand we don't say that "according to NASA" astronauts landed on the moon. This despite the fact that a nontrivial percentage of the public is unconvinced; note this is a greater percentage than those who practice homeopathy. (Just a passing remark on the general principle.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jossi. SPOV and NPOV on the issue of plausibility should read something like this. "No plausible mode of operation has been identified." The current writing says it will never be. My suggestion leaves it open to future discoveries. Anthon01 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I think that's not quite true. My understanding is that to the extent homeopathy works, the "mode of operation" is an enhanced placebo effect through the bond between the practitioner and patient. Of course physically and chemically there is no more possibility of support for homeopathy than that we'll find the core of the earth is made of bubblegum, but the psychological aspects can't be overlooked. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As if we know everything already. You think there are no revolutions left in physics? Also homeopathy even among physicians is growing astronomically. I'll try to find a better link.   Anthon01 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My experience is that any source that uses "4" to mean "for" is best considered unreliable until proven otherwise. (That goes double in the case of "4u.") Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "New York Times reported that visits of Homeopathic physicians are increasing in UK at a rate of 39% per year. Nearly half of the British physicians refer to Homeopathic doctors." Anthon01 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jossi: In Lead it says, Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, because the lead should make the reader want to read the whole article. Anthon01 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)