Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 55

Quantum
Hi all,

I added a specific refutation of quantum physics as an explanation for homeopathy. It doesn't really fit in my mind, too much detail in an odd place. Any suggestions on where it could go instead, or should it simply be removed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems appropriate to me to discuss this in detail if we have also discussed the QM explanation in detail first. With only a brief mention in the article, I don't know if a full refutation is warranted. The addition seems a little out of place, I believe for that reason. So, to my mind, the question becomes whether the QM explanation is due more weight in the article. I've heard it enough that it seems intuitive that it should, but we'd need good sourcing to afford it that weight. If we don't explain the QM thing, then I would prefer to replace the full refutation with something shorter, perhaps beginning with "For instance...", to more directly link it to the sentences before. What do you think?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 12:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The "quantum" explanations are really just speculative, at best. Brunton (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct. But are they "notable" enough an explanation to include in the article?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's also my concern. I've encountered "quantum" in skeptical websites, it seems to be at least one of the explanations du jour among homeopaths, but perhaps my experience is skewed.  Is there another page that goes into more detail?  Another option could be to simply reduce it from "quantum doesn't explain homeopathy because..." to merely a note that quantum mechanichs doesn't explain homeopathy, period.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hit a Restricted Page on the source, but to be clear - does the source say that QM doesn't apply to homeopathy, or just that it isn't macroscopic? If you are taking a general source that QM doesn't apply to macroscopic scales and using it to make an argument here, that's probably impermissible original synthesis, even if it happens to be right.  (More or less - I think QM does affect macro scales in some important ways, but it's kind of a matter of semantics) Wnt (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is specifically about homeopathy. It's explicit, WP:OR is not an issue.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The quantum explanation is not speculative, it's delusional. Seriously. Have you read the source paper that proposed "patient - practitioner - remedy entanglement"? It displays a total lack of understanding of physics, quantum or otherwise. It is a perfect example of pseudoscience in that it looks like science only as long as you know absolutely nothing about the supposed subject. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Quackery or fraud?
I think the biggest question in many people's mind about homeopathy is whether the practitioners really believe in it. For example, a company like this offers 150 products starting with an A, available in concentrations ranging from 3X to 30X, 3C to 30C, also five others - and each of these also in a liquid dropper bottle form. Assuming A is average, that's 26 x (28+28+5) x 2 x 150 = 475800 products! That's a lot of shelf space, a lot of hazardous material shipping fees for the original compounds used. I know nothing about that particular company I mention --- it would, however, be most convenient to run a business of that general description using a water tap, a big bin of sugar pills, and a custom label printer. It is, after all, frequently argued by opponents of homeopathy that every possible homeopathic remedy must already be present diluted in tap water... isn't it?

On the other hand, there was a case of in which Hyland's Teething Tablets turned out to contain dangerous amounts of real belladonna. This might be taken to indicate that some practitioners believe in the practice after all (though for this, a single product, the advantages of cheating would be much less). On the other hand, a person might wonder if something like this could be a different kind of fraud, namely, providing an effective but unapproved medicine under the guise of it being safe tap water; if it works, after all, there is repeat business. But again, I don't know anything about that manufacturer.

Do any editors here have more news references about other-than-standard homeopathy preparation methods of either type? Wnt (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what your point for the article is here? Cjwilky (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the word "quackery" has been the object of much discussion above. More to the point, I was hoping someone would have more refs that we could do something with.  I should stick the Hylands Teething Tablets bit in somewhere but if I had more maybe it could be a section, etc. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with Cjwilky. Hell has frozen over.  Perhaps the Hylands material can be used, but I don't understand the relevance to the article of Wnt's other suggestions.   Skinwalker (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aye. Although: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/08/fda-raises-serious-concerns-about-uks-nelsons-homeopathics.html Guy (Help!) 16:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of FDA warning letters for non-compliant homeopathic products. See and take your pick. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that is a good set of keywords - thanks! Wnt (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hormesis
Hormesis is mentioned in the article but should not be a "see also" as it is a temporary inflexion on the dose-response curve, below which the normal tailing off is observed. Homeopathy posits an inverse dose-response relationship which, if it is true, applies only to some property of the remedy which cannot be measured, as X potencies have detectable quantities of active principle and these measurable quantities obey, as far as can be ascertained, the normal dose-response relationship in respect of their known effects (which homeopaths would claim are the opposite of their homeopathic effects). I know that sounds confused, but that's what you get for trying to combine scientific concepts with witchcraft :-) Guy (Help!) 22:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Where is it mentioned ? I do no see such word in the article, this is why I added it as see-also trying not to mess with main text. pwjbbb (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see it there either. JzG, what bit were you thinking of? - David Gerard (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Why my edits to add see-also section are getting deleted, and even called vandalism... I find that funny as you look at history what someone after me has done. The links in see-also doesn't have to be 100% relevant. I interpret this as people being over paranoid with this topic and see every edit as a effort to vandalize the article from pro-homeopaty people. pwjbbb (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't interpret your edit as vandalism. The following two edits by another user were indisputable vandalism, however.  Perhaps I should have reverted in stages.  Skinwalker (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Arrrghhh.The dreaded Wiki EC strikes again. When you reverted I had just got rid of the vandalism and rant a few seconds before you. Moriori (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hormesis might have a place in the article, but I'm not sure we should be linking it within See Also without a summary. By providing a link, we're saying the concepts intersect or are very similar, and without mention of an intersection in either article, readers may assume that Hormesis supports Homeopathy in some sort of scientific capacity. Do we have a source which discusses both of these concepts together? If so, perhaps we could include a summary in the body.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You at least needs a citation for this if it's to be included. (The article it links to doesn't contain a citation for this statement, either.)    Joel Why? (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ughhh, and the article it links to has only two citations, and the only one that directly relates to homeopathy is a "How it Works" article. I think this See Also either needs to be removed, or the linked article needs to be vastly improved.    Joel Why? (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And, while it's being discussed here, User:Pwjb reinserted the disputed text into the article. I thought the recommended approach to be BRD, not BRRRRRRRRRRRR. Were I you, Pwjb, I'd be careful on pages with Discretionary Sanctions attached to them. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 21:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Unless there are far better citations for this, it has business being included in this already bloated article. (For that matter, I'm not convinced the article it links to should exist at all, given it's complete lack of notability, as far as I can tell.)    Joel Why? (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on the proposed mechanism of action of homeopathy and what the Arndt–Schulz rule says, it seems reasonable that homeopathy might carry a mention of it with a Wikilink. I found this mention in a book, chapter is by Edward J. Calabrese, a university Ph.D., but he seems to support the proposed mechanism of action of homeopathy, and that's controversial.  This is not my area of expertise or interest but I bet with a little digging the proposed content can be formed into a well-sourced sentence with a wikilink to Arndt–Schulz rule.    13:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Adding: When doing searches for sources, be aware that there does not seem to be agreement on the spelling of this law.  It can appear as "Schutz", "Schulz" or "Schultz".  Different spellings give different but positive hits.    13:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a great find, Zad, thanks!    Joel Why? (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Homeopaths claim the Arndt-Schulz rule supports homeopathy. It doesn't. It is also considered superseded by the concept of hormesis, which also does not support homeopathy. We should have a list of genuine and historical concepts that homeopaths falsely claim support homeopathy, but I suspect the servers would implode under the strain. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A list of proposed mechanisms from reasonably noteworthy sources would actually be a great thing. (It's also relevant that Hahnemann never proposed a mechanism.) - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Only if it can be done neutrally. For example, Milgrom's "patient practitioner remedy entanglement" can be documented form any number of homeopathic sources, none of which will point out that it displays a complete ignorance of any part of the scientific concepts it apes. Guy (Help!) 15:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathic remedies have been the subject of numerous clinical trials.
Your article is not only misleading, but grossly inaccurate, specially pointing to the paragraph below*. There are several studies PROVING that homeopathy works. A brief search on the internet would suffice in debunking your claims. Here are just a few of the links to studies performed by NIH, Harvard, the

Study 1: Homeopathy proven results in Vertigo http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9708713 Concerning the main efficacy variable, therapeutic equivalence between the homeopathic remedy and betahistine could be shown with statistical significance (confirmative analysis). Both remedies reduced the frequency, duration, and intensity of vertigo attacks during a 6-week treatment period. Also, vertigo-specific complaints were significantly reduced in both treatment groups.

Study 2: Homeopathy proven results in Allergies SEATTLE, Jan. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- A Harvard clinical study just published in the ophthalmic publication "Contact Lens Spectrum" confirmed clinical efficacy for the homeopathic ocular allergy medication "Similasan Eye Drops #2," the Similasan Corp. announced. The study was conducted by the internationally renowned ophthalmologist and researcher Mark B. Abelson, MD, CM, F.R.C.S. Associate Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology at Harvard Medical School. You can download the study here: http://www.similasanusa.com.php5-4.dfw1-2.websitetestlink.com/healthcare-pros

Study 3: Homeopathy proven results in PMS http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23290881 Homeopathic treatment was well tolerated and seemed to have a positive impact on PMS symptoms. Folliculinum was the most frequent homeopathic medicine prescribed. There appears to be scope for a properly designed, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of individual homeopathic medicines in PMS.

Study 4: Homeopathy proven results in Arthritis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22818234 The 1M, 10M and CM homeopathic dilutions of Rhus tox reduced primary and secondary arthritic lesions, improved body weight gain and protected rats against CFA-induced hematological and radiological perturbations. A significant reduction in the serum levels of CRP and an improvement in pain threshold of injected paws was observed in the groups treated with the Rhus tox dilutions

"Homeopathic remedies have been the subject of numerous clinical trials. Taken together, these trials showed at best no effect beyond placebo, at worst that homeopathy could be actively harmful.[16] Although some trials produced positive results,[17][18] systematic reviews revealed that this was because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.51.234.74 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Text taken from the biased and inaccurate Wikipedia article on Homeopathy:


 * We do indeed note the existence of positive in the article. We also note that systematic review of these trials shows no effect beyond placebo, and that poor quality studies are more positive, while better designed studies are much less likely to be positive. This is not bias, it's called science. Science has a habit of failing to support incorrect ideas. This is a feature, not a bug. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2010 House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report cited by the article commented on this type of approach: "We regret that advocates of homeopathy [...] choose to rely on, and promulgate, selective approaches to the treatment of the evidence base as this risks confusing or misleading the public, the media and policy-makers."
 * The article uses the results of systematic reviews of all trials, not cherry-picked individual studies. See WP:MEDRS.  Brunton (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Lead (again)
Hi guys A while ago, I wrote about a few impartialities and discrepancies I found on the lead. And later, I didn't have time to further evaluate my point or keep the conversation up. But now what I see, the topic has been completely changed and prolongated to such an extent that I've had hard time to read all of it!!! I'm writing the same subject now in a new section as the topic has been changed completely in the previous section I'd opened. So, first I'm pasting here the same thing I'd written. But please let's not go off-topic, the homoeopathy = placebo, quackery etc. need their own research, which I haven't done.

Hello I noticed few discrepancies in the lead. To be more clear; (17 reviews, 11 of them independent) failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo.
 * First of all, the first paragraph in a lead should be about the article (or practice here) itself, not on others' opinions about it. The opinions of others (especially the scientific community) can be (must be) expressed in the lead. But not in the first paragraph. If not done so, it contradicts several principles such as:
 * WP:STRUCTURE - Article Structure: Care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
 * WP:WEIGHT - Undue Weight and
 * WP:IMPARTIAL - Impartial Tone: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone.
 * There is another point. I've partially read and went through the sources supposedly claiming that Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. This is stating opinions as facts. The Turkish Wikipedia article on homoeopathy, using more or less the same sources, approximately says: No scientific or clinical evidence has been found suggesting that homoeopathy has any benefit other than the placebo effect. This is also what the sources says. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy say this:
 * Now, there is a huge difference with this and saying "Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective". Please improve the lead. --Universal Life (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The available research fails to reject the null hypothesis (in this case, "homoeopathy doesn't work better than placebo"). That is pretty much equivalent to the plain English statement that we have in the article, although you will never get a scientific paper putting it in those terms because a null hypothesis can never actually be proven.  Brunton (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I agree that the lead needs work. But, we need concrete proposals to improve it, and I'm not totally sure how to do that. With respect to the ineffective and implausible bit, that isn't just an opinion (as in something attributable to only one group or source). Our sources support it broadly as the current scientific consensus; the difference between "homeopathy is ineffective" and "homeopathy has no benefit beyond placebo" isn't clear to me, beyond the first being a plain English statement of the second. Therefore, I don't see a benefit to changing from the first wording to the second, except to decrease our accessibility to a layman.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing I don't like is the repetition. For instance, the ineffective / implausible bit is explicitly repeated in the 4th paragraph. How can we avoid that? Both mentions seem important given the surrounding context, but we shouldn't be saying the same thing twice in the lead alone.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Concrete sentence as to how to improve the lead. No scientific or clinical evidence has been found suggesting that homoeopathy has any benefit other than the placebo effect. This is way better and neutral sentence than: Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. for reasons I stated above. By WP:BOLD, and rather more, as a means to improve WP, I'm going to make the necessary little change to improve the lead, some one sentences that needs to be changed, clear as water. --Universal Life (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't do that. I said why I don't agree with that change above, and you haven't addressed what I said. Please gain consensus first. I'll add something new to my objections too: your change removes content regarding the scientific plausibility, and I'm not sure why.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've already changed it and I see your comment just now. I did not deliberately intended to remove "scientific plausibility" but I haven't seen any sources citing such a thing, I might have missed. However, the sentence "Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible" is definitely violating WP:NPOV and it also comes the jurisdiction of stating opinions as facts. Do you agree? --Universal Life (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hang on... let's get something straight first. "Opinion", in this context, is a reflection of the sources. If the weight of the scientific community agrees that homeopathy's postulated mechanisms of action are implausible, then it is not a mere opinion, and per bullet 3 in YESPOV, "avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion." That part of the lead is reflecting the content found in the "Evidence" section, which is rife with sources. That Homeopathy violates fundamental principles of science is important, oft-cited, and must be included in a comprehensive summary of the subject.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective." This is an opinion or rather a biased way writing the truth. I'm a scientist and an academician myself, I went roughly through the sources, but only the ones in the lead, claiming that sentence. No source has such a claim but a similar one perhaps not so strong, saying that they couldn't find any benefit other than the placebo effect. See the quotation up in blue, other scientific articles have similar writings.
 * Putting it simply, found no effect/benefit more than placebo or couldn't find any effect/benefit more than placebo is not the same as found it ineffective. By this I meant opinion, perhaps I should have said WP:OR. We can not interpret the sources, as it's done in this article, in the sentence above.--Universal Life (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources are in the passage I cited above... as I said above.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I got that already. What I'm saying is found no effect/benefit more than placebo and found it ineffective are not the same thing. Do you see the logic? --Universal Life (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, I responded to that above already. So did Brunton. Those are the same thing, as far as I can tell. The placebo effect is not an effect due to the Homeopathy, it's an effect due to the patient receiving "treatment" in general. To say, in scientific language, that homeopathy works no better than placebo is to say, in layman's terms, that homeopathy is ineffective. We have lots of sources saying that, and it appears to be the collective weight of the scientific consensus (as discussed so much above). Like I said already, "I don't see a benefit to changing from the first wording to the second, except to decrease our accessibility to a layman."  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we should prefer lay language. Alexbrn talk 16:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no source for showing clearly that the sentence about sham in the lead is held by the whole community - sham being an emotive and strong word to use. The one there isn't enough by a long way, its just an opinion of the autors and the ref they give for this doesn't support what they say, AND they are not even scientists.

That one body has after 1847 used the word quackery, has no weight for being included in the lead - thats an historical issue to put in some other section. James Randy is as credible as a Jam Sauasage - please lets not have his irrelavent POV reference in here. Maybe Mahatma Ghandi is a nore relevant person for quoting in the lead? Cjwilky (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I share the qualms about the current lead. While there is nothing untrue in it, it seems to try too hard to debunk, rather than just reporting facts. It's almost as though we had in the lead of the Jesus article:

This would also be true and easy to source, but it would probably be considered undue weight on an article about a religious prophet. Likewise, I think the lead on this article has to take account that this too is a faith-based subject more than a scientific one. --John (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you can find good cites for "homeopathy is a faith-based subject, not a science-based one" ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you've changed my words slightly. Did you mean to do that? --John (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You were arguing for treating homoepathy as faith-based rather than scientific, so DG's minor paraphrase doesn't really change your meaning significantly; the sort of source he suggests is certainly what would be necessary to justify that approach. The article treats homoeopathy as a system of medicine, as is appropriate.  Brunton (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me what I was arguing for, that's always appreciated. In fact the change of emphasis significantly changes the meaning of my words. Don't do it again, please, with or without quote marks. Why would we call it a system of medicine, when it is (quite correctly) part of Category:Obsolete medical theories and displays Template:Pseudoscience? It very clearly isn't, in the modern age, a system of medicine.--John (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, but it is presented as a system of medicine and therefore needs to be treated as one here. Once you have persuaded these people, for example, to stop promoting and practising it as medicine and start practising it as a religion, then perhaps we can treat it as a religion here. Brunton (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How does the current lead fit with the FAQ, Q11? --John (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The lede fits with WP:NPOV and other policies. They trump agreement between editors of any individual article. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IMNSHO, No, the lede does not fit WP:NPOV, unless one bows to the interpretation that only one perspective, that of the modern "conventional" medics, is neutral. In fact it is persistently a disgrace. It may fit a one-sided view popular in certain skeptic circles, and skeptics would sometimes like to think of themselves as neutral arbiters of absolute truth, but that does not make it so. The quoted opinions of implacable opponents of homeopathy using the "quack" word, historical & contemporary (sheesh, is Randi an RS?) are nothing but biased. Clearly.
 * I'm adding an admittedly crude analysis below, "An assessment of bias in the lede (again, again)", just to get a quantitive grip on how the article is progressing.
 * Guy (Help!), I respect your advice that properly considered & applied WP policies trump editorial congruence, but please don't be perverse in claiming the "quack" word is neutral (any more than the technical use of "sham" in the lede) or that it is not explicitly covered by, and discordant with existing guideline Q11 of FAQ.
 * The second half of the first paragraph of the lede could adequately be replaced by something like:
 * "Homeopathy has throughout most of its history had vigorous opponents from competing modalities, who believe they have scientific or philosophical reasons that homeopathy cannot properly explain it's success."
 * Some of the most vocal opponents in the early days were the phlebotomists. I have a wonderful quote somewhere from a prominent blood-letter, to the effect that homeopathy could not possibly work - how could it cure anything without venting the bad blood? Nothing in common with modern opponents, of course, who would never intentionally promote ineffective or dangerous remedies. Think of the fines they might have to pay. Unthinkable.
 * One is one and one is one (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Useless anecdote
One of the key criticisms of homeopathy is that it relies on anecdotal evidence to trump up its spurious claims. This is a valid criticism. How, then, is the use of this anecdote (from the "Ethics and safety" section) to debunk homeopathy valid:

''Also, in one case in 2004, a homeopath instructed one of her patients to stop taking conventional medication for a heart condition, advising her on 22 June 2004 to "Stop ALL medications including homeopathic", advising her on or around 20 August that she no longer needed to take her heart medication, and adding on 23 August, "She just cannot take ANY drugs – I have suggested some homeopathic remedies ... I feel confident that if she follows the advice she will regain her health." The patient was admitted to hospital the next day, and died eight days later, the final diagnosis being "acute heart failure due to treatment discontinuation".''

Don't get me wrong, I think homeopathy is nuts, but using the methods of the pro-homeopathy crowd to debunk it seems problematic at best. 50.202.92.185 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * They're not the same. Homeopathy uses anecdotes to present a case that it is broadly effective. For instance, "we had a patient who said she got better, therefore homeopathy must work." One patient saying she got better doesn't mean homeopathy is effective. Your second paragraph is data showing that, in some cases, homeopathy has done real harm. It is not "a patient saying her condition changed", nor is it an implication that homeopathy is always harmful. If I say "I heard my dog talk once", it isn't evidence that dogs talk. If my doctor says "our tests indicate that your dog died of lyme disease", it is evidence that lyme disease killed a dog once. Experts presenting real data to show historical effects and trends is not "an anecdote".  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There's an excellent discussion around this at:


 * Highly recommended reading. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Highly recommended reading. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, since I'm here, yes, it's anecdote (in the sense of "not data". Not even datum). It has WP:UNDUE. It is disproportionate. I tried to gain information from the GMC, it seems they do not keep certain statistics, claiming poverty, or else would rather not release them. As I recall, I asked how many homeopathic doctors had been disciplined that year, and how many "conventional" doctors. Lets take it more than one conventional doctor, I suspect there's a steady stream; even then a percentage of those licenced would be of interest. (I don't need to explain the relevance and priciple of equity, do I?) How many in total homeopathic doctors have been disciplined in recent years? (I think it's "one", or we'd have heard more). What policy is in place regarding those sitting on panel having a special interest or dislike of certain approaches? One would hope such intendants would disqualify themselves, but there seems to be no ethical policy in place. I long to hear of one.
 * I asked if anyone with specifically homeopathic knowledge was sitting on that panel, so that this homeopath could be judged by a peer. Information not available. I have no idea how the appeal has progressed.
 * So, yes, including this anecdote at length is scurrilous. It should be pared down at the least. It is inviting the reader to extrapolate in an unreasonable way, the very essence of WP:UNDUE
 * Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC) No, you are quite wrong. This is an example of skeptics using an uncommon event to pan all homeopaths by extension. That is exactly what faulty anecdotal evidence constructs. "Homeopathy uses anecdotes to present a case that it is broadly effective", you say. No it doesn't, don't be silly . Are you really implying they say "I heard of it working in one case, so it must always work"? Not meaning to straw-man you here, but that is the nature of anecdotal reasoning.
 * What in fact the homeopaths do say is that there have been tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of cases where patients happen to have returned to health following homeopathic treatment. They will say that in many cases practising homeopaths are treating patients with chronic diseases, and according to outcomes, healing them on a regular basis. They are doing very well. Many have case-notes of extraordinary cures. In large numbers. Even serious skeptics (or at least honest sceptics with a "c") will tell you that when there are huge numbers of incidental observations, you can't just dismiss them as anecdote. You cannot just dismiss thousands of observations because it doesn't fit your philosophy. That's an element of skepticism and close examination of reality, is it not? What's the French EBM quote, again?
 * So, yes, this is opponents of homeopathy mis-using anecdote. And giving it undue weight. Behaving like bullies.
 * This is presumably an opponent of homeopathy (am I right?) putting up a straw homeopath who depends on unconfirmed stories as evidence for efficacy. Not the average homeopath.
 * Similarly, there are tragic cases in most fields of medicine, it happens. You might cite a hundred or so examples of conventional intervention directly causing death, just for balance. It would be easy to find and about as relevant. There is not even logical certainty that this patient would have survived different treatment. That thought of a proper doctor arriving on a white horse and saving the day may appeal to you, but strikingly it isn't in evidence.


 * One is one and one is one (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ( Apologies if I was a little carried away there; I've struck through a couple of effusive comments that were arguably excessive reaction. Not good form. One is one and one is one (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC) )

Homeopathy is nonsense, says new chief scientist
Homeopathy is nonsense, says new chief scientist. The Telegraph, Nick Collins, Science Correspondent, 18 Apr 2013


 * "The NHS is spending millions of pounds every year on "nonsense" homoeopathic treatments which are not supported by a shred of evidence, the government's new chief scientist has said."

Brangifer (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that this should be added to the over-long paragraph citing the conclusion of the 2010 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee? Some sort of "scientific authority", maybe? His personal opinion would chime well with the personal opinions of the mere three members of that committee that supported its conclusions, if not the one who opposed. (12-strong committee was it?) Moreso with the one of those three who had actually attended the hearings and wasn't drafted in afterwards.


 * Perhaps Sir Mark, former head of the Wellcome Trust, professor of medicine at Imperial (therefore nothing at all to do with supporting the pharmaceutical industry) has an attitude problem. His reported opinion, "Not supported by a shred of evidence" is redolent of skeptical wishful thinking (would pseudo-skeptic be too impolite?), certainly not in accord with facts, not in accord with scientific method, but very much blather and bluster. He should do his homework better. But then, I suppose he's a politician now.
 * One is one and one is one (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not there, but another place has been found. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So we skip the discussion & just pile in? Is that how it works here? One is one and one is one (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's what's preferred, check out WP:BRD. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OIOAIO, if you think that's the wrong place or poor wording, you can fix it or delete it and we can discuss. If other editors disagree and revert you, then consensus will determine whether it stays or not. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sir Mark Walport is not a politician, he is chief scientific advisor to the UK government, his role is explicitly not political but scientific. The accusation that every scientist who points out the absurdity of hoemopathy is a shill for "big pharma" is special pleading and also fallacious; if he is conflicted because he works in a field of science related to medicine then we should discount every word written by anybody who practises homeopathy on precisely the same grounds, which will be interesting since virtually nobody other than homeopaths seems to think homeopathy has any basis at all and in any case the entire field relies for its very existence on appeals to authority figures, all of whom were or are deeply vested in homeopathy both emotionally and financially (Hahnemann, Kent, Vithoulkas etc). Guy (Help!) 08:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

An article about potency
I've never used a wiki talk page before, but since I had just been researching the subject of homeopathy, I thought I'd contribute this article about the potency of homeopathics from a peer-reviewed journal. Thanks.

Sukul, N.C., Ghosh, S., Sukul, A., annd Sinhababu, S.P. (2005). Variation in Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra of Some Homeopathic Potencies and their Diluent Media. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11(5), 807-812.

20:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.3.8 (talk)

Additionally:

Oberbaum, M., Singer, S., & Samuels, N. (2010). Hormesis and homeopathy: Bridge over troubled waters. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 29(7), 567-571. doi:10.1177/0960327110369777

Moffett, J. R. (2010). Miasmas, germs, homeopathy and hormesis: Commentary on the relationship between homeopathy and hormesis. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 29(7), 539-543. doi:10.1177/0960327110369855 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.3.8 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Calabrese, E. J., & Jonas, W. B. (2010). Homeopathy: Clarifying its relationship to hormesis. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 29(7), 531-536. doi:10.1177/0960327110369857 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.3.8 (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these. The last 3 might be useful to source content about the philosophical relationship between homeopathy and hormesis and its history.  I can't figure what the first article might be useful for.  Appreciate your contribution!  Consider registering...   04:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that homeopaths try to use hormesis as a justification for homeopathy, when it absolutely is not. Hormesis is a temporary reversal of the dose-response curve over a narrow range of pharmacologically active concentration in a small number of compounds. The dose-response curve then tails off again. Both the inflexion and the tailing off are objectively measurable. Homeopaths take the fact that there is a temporary inflexion in the dose-response curve and assert that this supports increasing potency for indefinite dilution of all substances, despite the fact that their "potency" remains resolutely untainted by any objective means of detection or measurement. It's a bit like saying that carpets can curve a bit like an aerofoil, linking to the article on aerofoil, and asserting that this is evidence that magic carpets really can fly. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Abstract of the first reference, which appears in Human & Experimental Toxicology, a journal with an impact factor of 1.7, and is written by three authors from the Center for Integrative Complementary Medicine, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (i.e. three believers); the journal is out of its core area here in that it is not a journal that specialises in checking the claims of alt med proponents, which can often seem superficially convincing if you are nto familiar with them.
 * Homeopathy is an empirical method of treatment. Hormesis, while stemming from within the rationalist tradition, has yet to be explained according to current pharmacological theory. Both share in common sub-threshold doses of toxic substances and an initial semi-toxicological insult followed by a greater compensatory (or healing) response. We question whether the differences between these fields may be amenable to scientific research. We identify five cardinal differences between homeopathy and hormesis: (1) Hormesis is a universal phenomenon, while homeopathy is highly specific; (2) Hormesis uses only measurable quantities of compounds, as opposed to homeopathy, which frequently administers medicines at dilutions far beyond the material range; (3) Preparation of hormetic solutions follows standard laboratory procedure, while homeopathy requires a sequential series of dilutions, each followed by vigorous shaking ('succussion'); (4) The effects of hormesis are moderate and temporary, while homeopathy claims curative and permanent responses and (5) Hormesis is a lab phenomenon observed primarily in healthy organisms, whereas homeopathy is a mode of treatment administered primarily to ailing individuals. We believe that all five of these differences are amenable to scientific investigation, and suggest comparing succussed to non-succussed diluted solutions as an optimal first evaluation. We conclude that while certain differences exist between hormesis and homeopathy, hormesis may in fact be a subset of homeopathy
 * "Homeopathy is an empirical method of treatment". No, it's not. This is classic proof by assertion. Homeopathy is accepted by science to be simply wrong, a pre-scientific idea which has failed the tests of empirical science.
 * "Hormesis, while stemming from within the rationalist tradition, has yet to be explained according to current pharmacological theory." Hormesis can be objectively proven to exist, albeit only over a narrow range and for certain substances, it does not in any way stretch the rationalist tradition (a false dichotomy). We don't know why it happens, we have some ideas, but it can be objectively measured.
 * "Both share in common sub-threshold doses of toxic substances and an initial semi-toxicological insult followed by a greater compensatory (or healing) response." Totally misleading. "Sub-threshold" in the case of hormesis means an objectively measurable concentration below the normal pharmacological dose. Sub-threshold in homeopathy means that no measurement, however sensitive, can distinguish most common homeopathic dilutions from their solvent. A 4C dilution would be considered experimentally pure water by ISO3696.
 * "We question whether the differences between these fields may be amenable to scientific research." No they don't, they assume it. This is a classic arse-backwards homeopathy paper. We believe in homeopathy, therefore let's see how we can shoehorn it into some real science.
 * "We identify five cardinal differences between homeopathy and hormesis: (1) Hormesis is a universal phenomenon, while homeopathy is highly specific;" Rubbish. Hormesis is not generalised, homeopathy is specicif only in that you have to specifically set aside all scientific principles in order to support it.
 * "(2) Hormesis uses only measurable quantities of compounds, as opposed to homeopathy, which frequently administers medicines at dilutions far beyond the material range;" This is true anyway.
 * "(3) Preparation of hormetic solutions follows standard laboratory procedure, while homeopathy requires a sequential series of dilutions, each followed by vigorous shaking ('succussion');" They say, though this is Holy Writ, there is no objective evidence for it and no standard for the force required, the direction or amplitude of shaking, or even whether you need to keep the diluent (Korsakovian method). These issues are not resolvable by any objective method so are dealt with either by sweeping them under the carpet, or by schism.
 * (4) The effects of hormesis are moderate and temporary, while homeopathy claims curative and permanent responses" Claims, yes, but without any credible basis.
 * "and (5) Hormesis is a lab phenomenon observed primarily in healthy organisms, whereas homeopathy is a mode of treatment administered primarily to ailing individuals." This boils down to: hormesis can be shown to work in a lab, whereas homeopathy can't.
 * " We believe that all five of these differences are amenable to scientific investigation, and suggest comparing succussed to non-succussed diluted solutions as an optimal first evaluation. We conclude that while certain differences exist between hormesis and homeopathy, hormesis may in fact be a subset of homeopathy"
 * See the problem? Start by assuming hoemopathy works, compare it with hormesis, which does, find the parallels, which are vastly outweighed by the listed differences, and hey presto! You have evidence of how homeopathy might work. Simply taking out the assumption that homeopathy is anything other than inert, thus making the assumptions consistent with all other science, causes the entire house of cards to fall. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * BTW, it is historically interesting to note that when it was started, it was an empirical method of treatment - Hahnemann answered theory-based critics by noting that his patients did better than theirs ('cos they were getting just water, not poison), and that their theory therefore failed the reality test. This should be mentioned somewhere in the history - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Empirical" doesn't mean "anecdotal". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Medicine really was incredibly terrible in those days. I may try to dredge up a good reference for my claim - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * True dat. The problem is that many claims made by homeopaths are sufficiently batshit that the reality-based community simply ignores them. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Guy - when Hahnemann started he used material doses, thats where homeopathy began. Massive dilutions are a development of hoemopathy, not where it started, and not actually what homeopathy is about. The differences in that journal are from people who clearly don't know what homeopathy is. Shame that you use such language here still by the way, not conducive to a co-operative community. Cjwilky (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the term batshit is unfamiliar to you, but it is in quite common usage. See . In any case, while Hahnemann may have started with material doses, he certainly did participate in the move to absurd dilutions. Not that it matters much. The fact is that the modern preparations routinely use them, which truly is a "batshit crazy" idea.LeadSongDog come howl!  19:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cjwilky and LeadSongDog are both right - it took Hahnemann the best part of 20 years to figure out that he was poisoning his patients (see here), but he then introduced the dilutions and by the later editions of the Organon was advocating the use of 30C remedies for both treatment and provings. His use of 30C remedies is already in the article, of course.  Brunton (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But Cjwilky seems to be at odds with the homoeopathic establishment when he says that dilution "is not actually what homeopathy is about". For example, both the SoH and the BHA, on their "what is homeopathy" and "about homeopathy" pages, make very prominent mention of the dilutions in their descriptions of homoeopathy.  The SoH's page actually starts with the statement "Homeopathy is a system of medicine which involves treating the individual with highly diluted substances...", and doesn't get on to "like cures like" until the second paragraph.  Brunton (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention poisoning - something orthodox med still hasn't got past. Was there anyone else in the late 18th century who was looking at avoiding the toxicity of meds? SH began his work on a new form of medicine by noticing primary and secondary effects - eg stupor/activity in opium, tiredness/wakefulness in coffee. Ultimately its the awareness of these secondary actions which marks the difference between homeopathy and "allopathy" (which is what most of modern drug medicine functions on). It seems SH was working in this during the mid 1780's, before the cinchona proving in 1790. 20 years of poisoning?? Thats poor rhetoric, and rich language given the times and what modern meds do. SH was working with less and less toxic doses before he used 30c. He was looking for a way to bring the secondary action without having to induce the primary action so strongly. About 1798 is the time at which this began. So the 20 years part of your statement is incorrect unless you're including his whole medical career.
 * Nothing at odds, you're just looking for it - confirmation bias. Cjwilky (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I reckon 1814 is around 20 years after Hahnemann started experimenting with homoeopathic treatments; it's 24 years after the Cinchona proving you mention. Brunton (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What you are basing your 1814 date on? He first spoke of optimal doses (ie as small as possible, whilst other physicians continued with larger doses) in 1796, dilutions (of up to 1000th of a grain - 0.00006g) in 1799, and described potentising in 1801. ref Haehl, and Lesser Writings. Cjwilky (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm basing it on the article I linked to, which says in its first sentence that Hahnemann "began the systematic serial dilution and succussion of his medicines around 1814". Brunton (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A poorly researched article then. Cjwilky (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that Hahnemann adopted higher potencies based on the advice and experience of his former pupil Simon Nicolaievitch von Korsakoff, another inventor and genius. http://sueyounghistories.com/archives/2009/03/21/simon-nicolaievitch-von-korsakoff-1788-1853/ (though it is not very clear in this article that Korsakoff was the first to make the machines that made high potencies possible.) One is one and one is one (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Semen Korsakov actually made any machines. He seems to be responsible for the method of making remedies (by repeatedly rinsing out a single vessel) that the machines generally use.  Brunton (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahnemann never "adopted" potencies above 30c (which were hand made as described in the Organon), though I'm sure I read somewhere he did try them. Potencies up to 200c would have easily been made using the same hand method. Cjwilky (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And with homeopathy being a religion, appeal to sacred texts is probably considered by homeopaths to be a valid way of resolving disputes. There is no objective way of settling disputes, and no mechanism for discarding wrong ideas, so the question of precisely who adopted "potencies" at a specific level is pretty much irrelevant, all that matters is that they are insane. Guy (Help!) 07:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that an epiphany you're having Guy? ;) Cjwilky (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

An assessment of bias in the lede (again, again) at 27 April 2012
This is very crude analysis of balance (or lack of it) in the lede. I have looked for tools for investigating bias in text, but so far all I've seen are ways to manage opinion, which falls rather short of an ideal.

What I've done is to chop up the lede according to my own best effort at assessing what is  pro (+) , what is  con (-) , what is arguably neutral (=), and what is a little  dubious (~) . Constituent further analysis is un-boldened.

Then I've just done a byte count of the bits.

 2855  total bytes in lede of which =1636 (<60%) is attempting to be descriptive of the actual subject of the article.

a little supporting opinion

and

 -1263  (near 44%) bytes of antithetic opinion, much of it dubiously or contentiously sourced

In any case, this ratio of descriptive fact about the subject in hand to opinions about the subject seems to me like opinion-pushing to a large degree.

It does not seem at first glance to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by what might be regarded as reliable sources on the subject.

a further breakdown of that:


 *  -206  about hi-dilutions - worthy of note as a source of contention but not strictly accurate, from a contrary viewpoint.


 *  ~140  on an inaccurate understanding of theory of health & disease, and the rôle of "miasm"

leaving =1290 (about 45%) descriptive & fairly accurate. In that I'm including the  85  on prevalence & regulation, which may not really belong in the lede.

 +42  (near 1.5%) could be seen as  supportive  "will cure similar symptoms in sick people."  -1263  (near 44%) bytes of what I'd slate as scientarian, anti-homeopathic propagandizing, oft-repeated attempts to de-bunk, emanating from particular organisations. Particular organisations which are arguably not respectable. These are antagonistic views about the subject of the article, not strictly encyclopaedic. IMO.
 * Of that, =71 is relatively uncontentious focus on there having been RCTs.
 * RCTs are given undue importance in some views of EBM. I'm sure I can cite refs if anyone really wants me to.
 * and =56 "Although some trials produced positive results,[17][18]" The "although" makes that nearer ~ than =

 ~235  on water memory, a popular theory and developing science, but as a conjecture, given undue weight for whatever reason.


 * I hope it's not held contentious to say that generally homeopaths hold the opinion they don't know the mechanism (they might add that the mechanism of some conventional pharmacy is unknown or has been misunderstood). Most would say although they don't know the "how" it works mechanism, they know "that" it works, from experience and observation of clinical results. Rather like Newton's view of gravity.
 * By contrast, anti-homeopaths would say that no, it doesn't work at all, it can't work, we have a better explanation of effects which we find more acceptable.


 * -471 antithetic
 * "..ineffective..implausible..quackery .. sham .. no scientific support"


 * of which,  -127  report insulting comments (see Q11, specifically wrt  epithet "quackery")


 * -123 patronising
 * "Pharmacological research has found ..."


 * -126 Attempts to justify oppositional views
 * "Taken together, these trials showed at best.."


 * -259 Negative opinion, and proselytising favouring competing modalities
 * "at worst that homeopathy could be actively harmful.[16]" (US reference)
 * "Patients who choose to use homeopathy .. risk..]"


 * -51 Smear
 * "flawed research methods, and reporting bias.[4][19]"


 * -102 Appeals to authority (and pomposity)
 * "The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are precluded by the laws of physics .."

I'm sure a keen eye would find a good deal of hidden assumption - shall we call it oppositional bias? - in the critical sequences.

Now, I see this as evidence of extraordinary bias - bias that may amuse some sections of the community, maybe, but unwarranted bias nontheless. Hardly encyclopaedic, and after this many years, nothing at all to be proud of.

One is one and one is one (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral doesn't mean that Wikipedia "balances" positive and negative information about a subject, it means Wikipedia accuartely summarises what reliable sources have to say about the subject. --Six words (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. The only time we balance to viewpoints is when they are treated as equally valid according to the most reliable sources. As such, this entire analysis is pointless; negative content doesn't mean biased content. Simply dismissing negative commentary as inherently biased as "one is one" did, without even looking at the sources to see their validity, is itself a sign of his/her own personal feelings, not whether the article is biased. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am still uneasy about having "The proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are precluded by the laws of physics from having any effect." in the lead. It seems to encompass a misunderstanding about what "laws" means in this context. --John (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on what you mean? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I can't see how "the laws of physics" is an ambiguous term in English - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * An interesting diversion from examining the bias on this page.
 * "Law" - It's a system of imposing order, requiring compliance, very often policemen and sanctions and so on. Systems of censorship often get into Law.
 * In the scientific sense, it's a convenient yardstick which is waiting to be knocked over by honest enquiry, but often involves appeal to authority from established interests.
 * I was amused by the impolite attempt to sideline my enquiry. Just watching for now. One is one and one is one (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your inquiry was sufficiently addressed with Six words' comment, in my opinion. Your comments don't contain any concrete suggestion for improvement, so there's little more to say. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. Scientific "laws" cannot "preclude" anything from happening in the same way that societal laws can forbid activities that are "illegal". This just isn't how science works. --John (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Laws of physics" is itself a phrase in English. You may want to argue with that phrase, but you'll need to (as you see it) fix English before your opinion on the phrase is relevant to this article - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think it would be easier to just fix this article. "Laws of physics" cannot preclude anything from happening; if that were true the laws would never change. I take it you don't have any science education yourself? It's nothing to be ashamed of, but it "precludes" your opinion from being worth anything in this area, unless or until you were to take the trouble to acquaint yourself with some basic science. --John (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "precluded by the laws of physics" means "precluded by the laws of physics, assuming the laws are correct". There's no ambiguity. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct, and only unreliable sources would claim that as yet unproven/speculative "laws" of physics can be used as proof that homeopathy is anything but non-science/nonsense. When new laws have been proven, then RS will document that fact and we can cite them. Per an old addition of mine that still stands: Hahnemann's law of similars is an ipse dixit axiom, in other words an unproven assertion made by Hahnemann, and not a true law of nature.  If and when new laws of physics are proven, then we can change that wording. So far that hasn't happened -- Brangifer (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re Walport, the interesting fact is that Professor Dame Sally Davies said exactly the same recently and the outgoing Chief Scientist said that homeopathy on the NHS is "mad" . It's almost as f there is a scientific consensus... oh, wait. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL! Hmmm....maybe you have a point. Those could also be added. In fact, one is already there, and I've just added the other now. Thanks for the good sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The accepted laws of physics are deduced from experiment. Historically if something conflicts with them, it was either 1. invalid or 2. outside the range of applicability of the experiments from which the law has been verified. Saying "precluded by the laws of physics", is clearly indicating that something would require the breaking of fundamental, but experimentally verified principles of physics. Perhaps a sociologist would put it as: it contradicts the agreed upon findings of the mainstream consensus of physicists. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, precluded by the laws of physics is readily understood and concise and to say the same thing in a longer-winded way would probably venture towards WP:WEASEL anyway: homeopathy is clearly predicated on the idea that matter is infinitely linearly divisible, whereas the laws of physics say it is not and that irreducible minimum quanta of matter exist. Similarly the idea of a form of energy that is increased by dilution and has an effect on a vital energy in the body invokes at least one and probably two forms of energy that have never been experimentally observed and do not seem to follow the normal laws of conservation of energy, or indeed thermodynamics. Unfortunately homeopaths seem to really struggle with these concepts and thus seem to find it very hard to understand just how robust their proofs would need to be in order to dent the scientific consensus; yet another poorly constructed trial whose outcomes are consistent with the null hypothesis is never going to cut it. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Some good points made above about the bias. I wonder how much the editors denying the bias contribute towards the descriptive part of the article? I know most of them are signed up Skeptics and as such have an opinion on homeopathy, some would say a mission.

I agree about the laws of physics point. The way it is in the article is playing with a statement that implies homeopathy can never be shown to work, which is simply untrue. It implies the laws of physics are set in stone, when clearly science is a progressive discipline where laws of the past are developed, modified, or usurped. But such is the world of the skeptic perspective - science is fact until its proven not to be, then that new proof is fact. There's an obvious slip up there. Tippygumba seems to believe the rhetorical semantics used there in the article are okay.

I suggest the phrase should be changed to "the current laws of physics" or similar. Being specific is helpful to the reader, leaving implications in there that can be misunderstood, is not. Cjwilky (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source for your suggest phrasing and quote directly from it. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Would that be different to the issue in the section below then?! You lot make it up as you go along. Cjwilky (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer
This ref cited in the 5th para of the lead and at the begining of the 5th para of Ethics and Safety, is about CAM not specifically homeopathy. ie the ref doesn't back up the statement. So I suggest this ref is removed and cancer is removed from that 5th para in the lead.

Its also worth mentioning that Leadsongdog "reverted" my edit in the lead though ironically acknowledged my removal of heart disease and he added in this ref in an attemtp to back up his opinion, so not strictly a revertion, more an admission of my point, and also had to have a go with being a little bit cheeky with a put down attempt in the process - not compatible with wiki as a community. Cjwilky (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone with access please confirm that the new source is correct? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems Leadsongdog has access. Cjwilky (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The first page is freely viewable at . As Cjwilky observed though, it isn't a new source, it was already used in the Ethics and Safety section. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 70% used homeopathy as their CAM, 53% delayed treatment. Good enough for me, unless we're editorializing too much. Perhaps someone will dig a bit deeper into the article for us, see if the language we're using is reflected in the citation. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good enough for you Tippy, but not good enough for wiki, as you know full well. The study is for CAM, not homeopathy. Original research isn't used on here. Cjwilky (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well Leadsong and Tippy both seem unable to find anything to back up the article. I'll meanwhile revert the cancer statement and remove the reference from wiki. The issue is as clear as day. Cjwilky (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing clear as day here is that you want to remove anything that doesn't agree with your POV, CJ. 70% used homeopathy, that is a hard fact. Are you arguing that Homeopathy is not CAM now? --Daffydavid (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even matter whether he considers homeopathy a CAM; the article specifically states the 70% homeopathy figure. Of course it should be included in this article.    Joel Why? (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The journal article is called Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer and in its abstract specifically lists homeopathy by name as one of the types of CAM reviewed. That homeopathy is a kind of CAM is well-established by reliable secondary sources, see the NCCAM's coverage for example, so in characterizing homeopathy as a kind of CAM, the journal article is not making an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that would require extraordinary sourcing.  Regardless, the Wikipedia article is on homeopathy and the review article discusses homeopathy.  Hard to see a reason to exclude it.    12:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt homeopathy is a kind of CAM, and there is no doubt that homeopathy was part of the study, yet I await a quote of this referenced study that categorically says "using homeopathy = getting cancer". So, we have the skeptic gang now reverting my edits - lets see Daffy come up with that quote or apologise for a mistaken, good faith edit. and Alexburn too I see . Cjwilky (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since nobody is proposing adding a statement that "using homeopathy = getting cancer" to the article, and the article doesn't currently make any such statement, such a reference doesn't seem necessary. The statement you are objecting to is adequately sourced.  Brunton (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The strawman evasion - the article does not say use of homeopathy risks cancer, nowhere.Either it does or it doesn't. It could do but it doesn't, and you would have to theorise to say why and thats not our place as editors. So its clear people here are making assumptions. If this was reversed you would object. So please follow the wiki guidelines and accept that it doesn't belong here.
 * No original research "(you need to) directly support the material being presented." - it doesn't, there is an assumption being made that is not stated by the authors. It could be that there is no link between homeopathy and the cancer whilst there is between homeopathy and some other ailment.
 * Verifiability"Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." It isn't.
 * I suggest you take it to Alternative medicine where it does belong. Cjwilky (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cjwilky, we've discussed the proposal, and currently there's no support for the proposed article change. Myself, TippyGoomba, LeadSongDog, Brunton, JoelWhy and Daffydavid have all indicated that there's no WP:RS problem with the source and there's no WP:V problem with the article's use of the source. At this point, if you're still unwilling to drop it, the options would be for you to start an RFC to get more input or start a WP:DRN discussion.   14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No indication going on as its against what wiki guidelines suggest. You have given your opinion on the matter, that is all. I'll take it to dispute then. Cjwilky (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Very good, please drop a note here when the DRN discussion is set up.   17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Cjwilky (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * uninvolved 3rd party opinion The study linked is clear. use of CAM results in delay seeking medical advice. 70% of those using CAM used homeopathy. It specifically discusses later presentation and medical diagnosis as being associated with higher morbidity, and limited treatment options Its the same source. It is not synth. In the worst case scenario, we would have to list off claims as separate sentences from the source and not combine them, but that would be pedantic overkill, the source is very plainly saying what the editors above are trying to include. Another "worst case" inclusion would be "Studies researching Breast cancer have noted that Homeopathy and other types of CAM result in [...]  . We should however be clear that CAM and other Homeopathic remedies are not causing cancer, they are merely resulting in worse outcomes for those that develop cancer and then go on to use Homeopathy instead of mainstream medical intervention. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Yet I await a quote of this referenced study that categorically says "using homeopathy = getting cancer".' If the article actually said that I would apologize, but since it doesn't I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that apology CJ. Clearly the other editors and I don't understand the illogical leap you are making. If you can clarify this for me I would appreciate it. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Daffy, I think you'll find what I said originally stands and is made all the more clear at the DRN.Cjwilky (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Research about homeopathy vs. placebo
While on WebMD, looking at homeopathy, there was a reference to a research project that showed there was a difference between the placebo and how homeopathy works. I believe the article that they referenced is here: http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7259/471.full.

This meets the criteria of being of a more reputable source. (Other references tie back to BMJ as well.) This also meets the criteria mentioned above for being a non-negligent source. Of course, this isn't an outright proof that homeopathy works, but I can't find any experiments that show different results for the same experiment, so it appears to me that this should be referenced in the article. What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.225.171 (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The source dates to April 2000 and has been discussed before several times:, I suggest you read the archived discussions. You should also familiarise yourself with Identifying reliable sources (medicine) if you've not yet done so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this: http://xkcd.com/882/ which is of direct relevance. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

a new link
http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/stories/homeopathic_drugs.html --nvpfrcp@uk 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachiket Vijay Potdar (talk • contribs)

Clarification of Public Opposition section
I have attempted to edit this section a few times and my edits have been undone. I think it is important to clarify that the experiment was carried out by a chemist who is not a faculty member of the University of Toronto's Chemistry Department. As the text is worded now, the implication is that this experiment was carried out by a member of the Chemistry faculty. Dizzybee (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that the person carrying out the experiment was not qualified to do so? If so, please explain why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am stating that the experiment was not carried out by a faculty member of the University of Toronto. The text implies that the experiment was carried out by a faculty member of the department. It was not. Why would wikipedia not want this point clarified?Dizzybee (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, does the source say about the experiment? Brunton (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a transcript of the U of T chemistry dept section: "Marketplace heads to the University of Toronto and orders up a test - the first of its kind in Canada. 'So this is the lab where we analyzed the homeopathic remedies'. We asked chemist Matthew Forbes to analyze two of the most popular over the counter homeopathic medicines - Belladonna and Ipeca - both at the common 30C dilution factor. In each product Forbes is looking for any trace of the active ingredient and, what does he find? 'It's below a level we can accurately or precisely measure. It's roughly equivalent to 5 billion times less than the amount of aspirin that you would take in a single pellet.' 'THe active ingredient is 5 billion times less than what you would find in aspirin?' 'That's right' '5 billion times less?' ' That's right' So, if there is no actual medicine, what is in these pills? 'We can say that they are primarily sucrose and lactose. Any active ingredients that is left is such a small concentration in comparison to the sugar, well it's virtually mind-boggling.' Yep, they're basically sugar pills. 'In fact, if you were to compare Ipeca and Belladonna, how different are these two pills' Both are below the limit of detection using our instrumentation and so we would be unable to distinguish them in a blind test.' That's right, there is no way he could tell them apart."

There is a link to the lab results: http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2011/cureorcon/test.html It is clear that the experiment was conducted at the University of Toronto, that it was conducted by Matthew Forbes and there is no evidence of faculty oversight. There is evidence that this experiment was commissioned by CBC News: Marketplace (it is listed as the "client").Dizzybee (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to me to be specific where being vague or inaccurate is not necessary, and especially if there is a potential for misconceptions to arise with the vague/inaccurate statement. Cjwilky (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's totally immaterial whether Forbes is a faculty member or not. Being a faculty member or not means absolutely jack shit in terms of scientific qualifications or credibility. Nor is "faculty oversight" of any significance. He is a qualified chemist and the director of the university laboratory, with plenty of articles published in peer-reviewed journals []. To suggest that he is unqualified to do the testing or that his qualification are insufficient is absurd and POV. Nor does it have to be "clarified" in the article that he is not a faculty member. It's just plain irrelevant. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see why anyone would assume he is a PI -- with the exception of new faculty, the vast majority of experiments are carried out by graduate students, postdocs, and technical staff. a13ean (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And a lot of science is done by scientists who are not affiliated with universities at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Being the director of the lab completely invalidates the "no faculty oversight" argument imo. I think the burden of proof would be to show that he is not qualified or did not follow a valid process in order to impeach this source. (That being said, it is a primary study, so additional sources should be found to confirm/reinforce) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand the rationale of this proposal anyway. It's not like the MS should have shown something besides sucrose and lactose; even homeopaths wouldn't expect to find material doses of "active ingredient" in a 30C "potency". Regarding qualification: if anyone can find trace amounts of something it's usually the technical staff rather than the head of department - after all they spend so much time with the equipment they know it by heart. --Six words (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Was it "University of Toronto's chemistry department" or not is the point. If it wasn't, then it shouldn't say so. Other arguments are immatierial ;) Cjwilky (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The video is linked to in the footnotes and yes, they say "University of Toronto 's chemistry department ". I find it quite nit-picky, but if you prefer we can drop the chemistry department (even though the individual clearly is part of this department) and just say "University of Toronto". --Six words (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Forbes is on the staff of the chemistry department of the university. Check the letterhead and signature on his report: []. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think many of you are misinterpreting my proposed changes. I have no problem with keeping this study and the research in the article. What I think would be more accurate is to clarify who carried out the experiment and their relationship to the institution. By leaving the text as the "University of Toronto's chemistry department found", the implication is that the research was performed by a faculty member. Full stop. As I have shown, the scientist was not a faculty member. As it stands, the article obfuscates the scientist's relationship with the University making him seem like he is a faculty member when he is not. And believe it or not, there is a big difference between a faculty member and a staff member at a Canadian university. Thus this edit should go ahead for the sake of clarity.Sorry, forgot to Dizzybee (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. There is no such implication, and no "clarification" is required. The text as it is now is completely accurate and sufficient. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I wholeheatedly and respectfully disagree with your conclusion. You have not attempted to defend your point except to say no.Dizzybee (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a study, it was a test ordered by Marketplace and the sentence is part of a paragraph on the Marketplace episode. The distinction between faculty member and staff member might be relevant if the test results were surprising. They are not, so I don't see the point in specifying who did the test. --Six words (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of specifying who did the test is to accurately reflect the degree to which the University of Toronto and their chemistry department is a part of the research. The implication as I have stated before is that, as it stands, someone reading this text would imply that it was a faculty member who conducted the test. If a reader would like to discover the truth they would have to watch 22 minutes of video. Why not be clear and precise with the addition of 3 or 4 words to the text?Dizzybee (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Or you could just stop being pedantic. What's next Dizzybee? Will your next demand be that we specify what specific brand of sleeping pills Randi takes before his lectures? --Daffydavid (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to consider the guidelines above - in particular "be polite" and "avoid personal attacks".Dizzybee (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be easier to be polite if you stopped wasting everyone's time with non-issues. It doesn't matter a damn whether the research was conducted by a faculty member or not. Any qualified scientist competent in the relevant techniques would have go exactly the same result. We don't clutter articles with irrelevances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think of this as a non-issue. I think it is important to have clarification of referencing and the article as it stands seems inaccurate to me since I assumed this work was done by a member of the faculty.Dizzybee (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the world of the homeo Skeptics Dizzybee. I see what you are saying and IMO you are clearly correct. To claim it as nit picking is a zero argument, in effect thats an agreement with you :) Cjwilky (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Dizzybee here, sort of - I have yet to see an academic department reach any definitive conclusion acting as a scholarly unit. It's like herding (very egotistical) cats most of the time (bagels vs. donuts for morning seminar can be a months-long dispute). In reading the sentence, I am left with the impression that this was a conclusion reached by the department, when at the department is a more accurate portrayal.  Perhaps "Analysis performed at the University of Toronto's chemistry department found . . ." or something of the sort. Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable suggestion and I'm in favour of it - my point was that it doesn't matter whether the person who did the analysis is a faculty member or "merely" a staff member - which is what Dizzybee seems to suggest. To restate my point: nobody, even the head of department, would have had a different result had they done the analysis, so naming the individual is not necessary. --Six words (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This I agree with. As long as appropriate standards were maintained, it bears the imprimatur of the facility whether it was a faculty member or a lab hourly who injected the sample.  In fact, a faculty member is about the last person you want playing around with the sensitive equipment, except maybe the janitorial staff. If, as I read above, the person who did the analysis was the head of the department's analytical lab I would expect him to be more expert than any faculty member. If it was a published paper we might name the first author (also not likely to be a faculty member) but an analytical report is foremost the product of the facility. If the lab facility has an official name, we could credit that - otherwise I prefer 'at' language. Agricolae (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am happy with the proposed statement "Analysis performed at the University of Toronto's chemistry department found". Do you want me to make the change? Do we have consensus?Dizzybee (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Agricolae (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Problem in the High Dilutions section
The statement "Practitioners of homeopathy contend that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects" is inaccurate. I suggest we change this to "Homeopathic theory contends that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects". The implication of the first statement is that all (or nearly all) practitioners of homeopathy have this contention. In my experience and reading this is simply not true. The following study (Deroukakis M. Selection of potencies by medical and non-medical homeopaths: a survey. Homeopathy. 2002 Jul;91(3):150-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12322868)This study outlines many aspects of remedy potency selection. There is no reference to high dilutions producing stronger medicinal effects. The consensus of the group in the study can be summarized by the statement "(d)ifferent potencies have different actions."Dizzybee (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the abstract, the paper seems to reach another conclusion entirely: "Despite the differences in education of medical and non-medical homeopaths, there appears to be general agreement on the philosophical aspects of potency prescription". Then again, it is a single paper, and as such of limited relevance - we don't base article content on single primary studies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire paper - the "general agreement on the philosophical aspects of potency prescription" is summarized by what I have said above. How many papers are required? Unfortunately this question has not been well examined in the literature so I'm not sure how many references I can come up with.Dizzybee (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with OP. It is relatively uncontroversial that this is a premise of homeopathic theory. Attributing that opinion to practitioners raises issues of  etc, and possibly even BLP concerns since we are not attributing those views to particular people that may cause civil/legal liabilities etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it's generally believed that higher potencies act deeper or more intensely in most instances, not that they produce stronger medicianal effects. There is a difference - for the potency to be more intense than the ailment tends to mean it's weaker in effect. In many cases a lower potency will act stronger. Higher potencies work better when the intensity of an illness is high. Eg. in a high fever, a 200c potency will work quicker than a 30c potency. In very recent shock, a 1m will work more efficiently than a 6x. On the other hand, in say long standing osteoarthritis, or a mild cough, a lower potency will be more efficient - a higher one often missing the mark. The point is the remedy acts stronger when the potency is matched to the intensity of the ailment. This is homeopathy, matching both the remedy AND the potency to the illness.


 * IMO, this is beyond the scope of this article, but to say stronger is a gross misunderstanding, it's inaccurate, and is not what is taught in most schools, nor what is believed by most homeopaths, though is what is mentioned in beginners books to simplify it. Cjwilky (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment above mine that begins with FWIW is probably one of the most impenetrable things I have ever read on Wikipedia. Talk about a bunch of words that convey absolutely nothing. How in the world does something act more "deeply" or "intensely" without producing a stronger medicinal effect? In the context of various medications, what in the hell does it mean to act "deeper" anyway? Needless to say, such an explanation should go nowhere near the actual entry.74.138.45.132 (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It sounds like common garden-variety hogwash. And it has no place in a WP article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

although I agree that from a scientific/medical perspective this is hogwash, if it is accepted within the homeopathic community and there is decent sourcing for it, then I think it would be valid for inclusion. Regardless of what we (or the mainstream) community think of the validity of homeopathic theory, we should at least accurately document what it purports. At a minimum documenting some of these claims are another clue that could lead people to critical thinking. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO speaking as a homeopath, Cjwilky is pretty accurate in their description of what a practitioner understands as the potential effects and uses of different potencies for different medical situations.Dizzybee (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The sourcing would have to be independent and mainstream scholarly. Quoting hogwash directly from homeopathic sources would essentially be OR unless it is to illustrate and support what reliable secondary sources say. Secondary sources are necessary to establish weight. If no substantial treatment of a particular aspect of homeopathy can be found in reliable independent secondary sources, it shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have consensus regarding the original proposal for a change - that the wording should be changed from "Practitioners of homeopathy contend that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects" to "Homeopathic theory contends that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects"? Dizzybee (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once more, in the spirit of polite discussion, please refrain from derogatory terms such as "hogwash" and "Skepto".Dizzybee (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While WP:NOTCENSORED, I'd agree that such terms only serve to inflame tempers and so should be WP:AVOIDed. Certainly they will not change the minds of those with vested interests or firm opinions on either side. Hence we avoid commenting on editors and instead focus on commenting on edits instead. The suggested use of a primary source lacks justification, which would come from a secondary source if at all. Otherwise, it is wp:UNDUE.LeadSongDog  come howl!  18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with using exclusively secondary sources that come from the accepted mainstream is that they are usually composed by people who lack understanding of the topic in hand to the degree that they are unable to accurately comment on the finer points of homeopathy - as is illustrated by some of the comments above. I suggest this is thought through so that the article is more accurately informative and not limited in areas that are not contentious. The wiki policies are guidelines to be used intelligently, not holy black and white rules. In this article, issues such as its effectiveness are clearly more contentious in a general way so being stricter re the policy guidelines is appropriate, whereas describing it is contentious only within homeopathy. As such, describing it is best done with a different weight on the aspects of the wiki policies.
 * The phrase "Homeopathic theory contends that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects" isn't great as the use of contend can mean both support an idea or dispute it. In this instance, it suggests supporting it, but not everyone will get that, and that isn't actually the case anyway - Hahnemann for one doubted it. I still suggest leaving this out of the article.
 * Your comments have sent me to my Hahnemann sources and indeed, I could not find anything to support the statement. Unless someone else can find evidence to this effect, I too suggest leaving out the entire 3 sentences. The following two sentences are only relevant if the first sentence is correct and supported.Dizzybee (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As for the derisory comments, I appologise for getting drawn into that. There is a long history of editors here using such comments, as well as personal insults, the worst culprit now keeping away from here after having his knuckles rapped. Cjwilky (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Dizzybee (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There has not been any comment on this thread for a while. The last commentary involves 2 calls to remove the 3 sentences: "Practitioners of homeopathy hold that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body.[125] This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in myriad experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes,[132] rats,[133] and humans.[134]". Do we have consensus on their removal?Dizzybee (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The statement seems correct to me. Homeopathy believes that. Conventional medicine disagrees. That each side believes this, doesn't seem controversial. (How much faith each side puts into the other's opinions however is highly controversial :) ) Gaijin42 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with your contention that "Homeopathy believes that." Throughout this thread we have been debating this very question and there has not been a single, reliable, source to reference the line "Practitioners of homeopathy hold that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects."Dizzybee (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we have no such consensus. It's relevant and cited - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. The statement "Practitioners of homeopathy hold that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects." is not cited. The two sentences following are dependent on the veracity of the first. Please find a reliable, peer reviewed citation to back up this statement. I have provided one above which shows evidence to the contrary(Deroukakis M. Selection of potencies by medical and non-medical homeopaths: a survey. Homeopathy. 2002 Jul;91(3):150-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12322868).Dizzybee (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a conclusive study on this point. I don't have access to that article, can you quote here the relevant parts or mail them to me via here, cheers :) Cjwilky (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Will Dana Ullman do? Cite added - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to googlebook in case people would want to check.--McSly (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The dilution is not mentioned. He probably mentions it elsewhere in the book but - "Homeopaths often simply prescribe one dose of one high-potency remedy, and these more powerful remedies tend to be more susceptible to being neutralized than lower-potency medicines." - as quoted from the book does not indicate if it is a high or low dilution. --Daffydavid (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I understood that "high dilution" and "high potency" were roughly synonymous - this piece from the Society of Homeopaths] treats them as synonymous (the section "Biological effects of ultrahigh dilutions") - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And I've just added a cite to that effect from the same Ullman book. The book's searchable Google Books entry is here, btw - it's a popular book, but one by an expert - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * - your rationale for not accepting Ullman is not clear. If he is not sufficient to use as a reference for the homeopathy viewpoint, should mention of him be removed from the rest of the article, which treats him as an expert source? - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not doubting him, but he is offering a simplistic point there, its not how most homeopaths see it, as Dizzy has pointed out and references (though I haven't see the source). Seems a bit wrong to have an inaccuracy in the article. But the point is whilst we're discussing the issue here, isn't it best to wait till we've reached a clear conclusion? Cjwilky (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. You seem to be evading a clear point, when there's references that say otherwise. Your comment does not in fact explain why Ullman is suddenly not good enough - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The Ullman source seems clear on this point (there is more on p.58 about "doses and potency"). I have reinstated the material in the absence of a counter-source. Alexbrn talk 09:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting discussion. Thanks all for your input. I will offer another source which I hope will clarify a bit. Please see http://www.drluc.com/lecture-three.html. About halfway down the page is a section on chronic disease. This section outlines how homeopaths make potency decisions. The decisions are based on the "reactivity of the patient". You would give a higher potency to a "stronger" patient (ie. someone who does not have strong pathology, who is not hypersensitive, etc - you would give a higher potency to someone who is relatively healthy). You would NOT give a higher potency to a patient because you think it will have a stronger medicinal effect (as the text implies IMO). The source of this text is Luc DeSchepper (one of the homeopathy proponents listed) and is repeated in his book "Achieving and Maintaining the Simillimum" which is a significant text for professional homeopaths. The Ullman text IMO is intended for a lay audience and is not nuanced enough to be a reliable source for such a complex concept. (Also, it was written 11 years ago...).Dizzybee (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I have changed "potency" to "potency (italics) to be consistent with the fact that in this context the term "potency" is synonymous with # of dilutions and not strength. This is the same as we have it in the lede.Dizzybee (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Upheld adjudication against the Society of Homeopaths
This is a noteworthy develop. There should be RS links in this report that can be used in this article:


 * Landmark decisions for homeopaths. This is a bleak day for homeopaths; but a victory for consumer choice.

Brangifer (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This could go in Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy not here. Of course it is just one point in an ongoing newstory with the situation now being able to progress to the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice). I understand that wiki isn't to be used as a newspaper, and despite the grand headline in the campaigning article by that pressure group you cite, it really is just a point on the road of processing something. Cjwilky (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't how the ASA works. Complaints don't "progress" from the ASA to the CAP.  The CAP sets the codes which the ASA bases its adjudications on.  If the case progresses anywhere it would be to the Independent Review process.  That said, I don't think this warrants being added to the article; it's more to do with regulation of advertising than adding anything to the evidence for or against homoeopathy.  Brunton (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There was this ongoing case with the ASA, now thats done, the dialogue with CAP can take place. It wasn't possible to do that till the ASA case was complete. Thats what I meant by the process of the situation re advertising :)
 * Its already added to Regulation. Cjwilky (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no process for a dialogue such as you describe. There are actually two adjudications, one on the Society of Homeopaths (http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/7/Society-of-Homeopaths/SHP_ADJ_157043.aspx) and one on the amusingly inaccurately named H:MC21 (http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/7/Homeopathy-Medicine-for-the-21st-Century/SHP_ADJ_139800.aspx), the result of an appeal to the independent reviewer. CAP guidance already exists (http://cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Therapies-Homeopathy.aspx) and the adjudications do not indicate any need to change that guiudance, which is already more comprehensive than for some other forms of quackery, e.g. live blood analysis (http://cap.org.uk/Advice-Training-on-the-rules/Advice-Online-Database/Therapies-Live-Blood-Analysis.aspx). The adjudications simply mean that future complaints can be fast tracked to Compliance and potentially referred to the Office of Fair Trading for enforcement under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. This is important because ASA is a small organisation and if it had to fully investigate every instance of every bogus claim, it would be unable to cope. By adjudicating a broad set of claims the ASA has saved itself the effort of having to reassess the same or similar claims, and has also addressed most of the classes of evidence likely to be produced in response to any variants on those claims.
 * In the Society of Homeopaths, ASA has also taken on a body which (unlike most homeopaths, e.g. http://asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/8/Steve-Scrutton-Homeopathy/SHP_ADJ_151142.aspx) actually has a pressing reason to care about the adjudication and its members' compliance with it. SOH reportedly wants to be accredited by OfQuack and it cannot do this unless it complies with the adjudication (as indeed it already has on its website, removing all claims to treat or cure) and also ensures its members comply.
 * So yes, this is quite a significant pair of adjudications, it makes it very substantially more difficult for any homeopath in the UK to get away with advertising to treat or cure any condition. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I added it today to the article, and also to the article on regulation, but if it is decided that it is too specific for the main article I will have no problems with it. --Garrondo (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine to have it in - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to say why :) I'll remove it till we've discussed it here. Cjwilky (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have boldly reverted. The ASA adjudication is seriously important for the UK - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it warrants inclusion as it's an adjudication not merely a complaint. While it's not strictly regulation it belongs there. We wouldn't exclude restrictions on advertising in an article on cigarettes. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * DG - Why boldly revert a revertion when its being discussed? Thats not the way to edit, as as been said many times here.
 * Its currently important for the UK, though its not anything that wasn't in place before. But more importantly, its a UK specific - surely thats something to put in a regional section as is available in the Regulation and Prevalence article. The R&P section is way too big in this article IMO. This article is cluttered anyway, as has been said many times, and that section is actually more fully expressed elsewhere. What we should have here is a brief summary.
 * So, if people feel that UK decision is necessary here, what can go from the Regulation section here that is included in Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy? Cjwilky (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No CJ, it's not considered regional because we are writing from a global perspective. That is we include all areas of the world despite the habit of focusing on the US which is unfortunately all too common on Wikipedia.--Daffydavid (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the findings of the adjudication, in particular the findings under rule 12.2 of the CAP code, perhaps it should be referred to in the "Ethics and safety" section. Brunton (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

By all means add in info from the CAP code in Ethics and Safety - maybe we can add in such info from other countries too. However the findings here are about Regulation. Cjwilky (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The CAP code (here's the section about medicines) is about advertising, not ethics or safety, and applies equally to any form of medicine. It is this specific ASA ruling, that found that advertising by homoeopaths had the potential to discourage essential medical treatment, that is relevant to the "Ethics and safety" section.
 * The CAP has also produced Guidance for Advertisers of Homeopathic Services, which states, among other things, that they "have not seen persuasive evidence to support claims that homeopathy can treat, cure or relieve specific conditions or symptoms. We understand this position is in line with other authoritative reviews of evidence", and some other advice for advertisers of homoeopathy. I'm not sure that either of these would really add anything to the article, though.  Brunton (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This should clearly be in the article. What happened was that the ASA (an arm of the British Government) told the leading Homeopathic society to put up or shut up.  The homeopaths did as they should and pulled out all the stops - they produced every piece of evidence they could - from their best and brightest.  They completely failed to convince the ASA on even one point - so their evidence failed to show that their adverts are "legal, decent, honest and truthful" - and the failed on the "truthful" test.  If the best that Homeopathy can produce in terms of evidence failed to convince a neutral body such as the ASA - then this is an important matter.  Since it's now almost impossible to advertise homeopathy in the UK - this is well worth a mention in the article.  The sources involved are reliable - the information is on-topic and notable, there is no breach of WP:FRINGE.  Excluding this would be a serious breach of our neutrality rules...hiding pertinent and reliably sourced information is not neutral. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The ASA isn't "an arm of the British Government"; it's an independent body set up by the advertising industry itself. See About ASA.  Brunton (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (Fixed! Sorry!) SteveBaker (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - you can ignore ASA rulings per se without any penalty. However, they do carry weight - you will then have trouble placing your ads (everyone dependent on advertising knows the threat of serious regulation is never far away), and are wide-open to charges of violating laws on truth in advertising. Having the ASA rule against them this conclusively is a big thing - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - interesting. It's always surprised me that homeopathists didn't fall foul of the UK Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or the later European Union Unfair Commercial Practices Directive which will eventually supercede it. Perhaps now that the ASA has shown that the homeopathists are not advertising truthfully, they will become vulnerable to serious prosecution under these laws. SteveBaker (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with CJ here. This belongs in the regulation section. The ruling restricts advertising thus it's regulation. --Daffydavid (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually rather significant (see above). It means that no homeopath in the UK may advertise to treat or cure disease, which is a pretty profound issue for a supposed form of medicine. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * David, you can ignore them up to a point. ASA has the power to refer non-compliant advertisers to the Office of Fair Trading for potential prosecution under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, it also has authority to place search engine advertisements to appear above advertiser's own listings, to have listings removed and downgraded by search engines, and to have mail discounts removed for bulk mailers and magazines - if WDDTY keep publishing fraudulent advertisements at the current rate they may fall foul of this. Actual fraudulent trading practices are generally handled by Trading Standards, along with breaches of the Cancer Act and other offences, and as you suggest Trading Standards will take into account ASA adjudications when assessing whether the trader is knowingly trading fraudulently. The scope, firmness and identity of the advertiser are significant in this case. This is not an individual homeopath, this is their supposed professional association. Those of us who saw them take no action against members who sent people unprotected into malaria zones may be cynical about them, but they do care about their reputation and had already removed all claims to treat or cure disease from their website ahead of the ruling's publication. Over a dozen homeopaths protested outside the ASA in a mass protest orchestrated by H@MC21, and this was extensively covered in the press. For certain extremely limited values of "extensively" and "press" (something tells me William wrote his press packs in green ink, even SoH came out against his nonsense). Guy (Help!) 23:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Scare Quotes
A fair few of them in the article, so are we to remove them or are we agreeing they are okay? Note the Public Opposition section where skinwalker approves of some but not of using others. Cjwilky (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the guideline on "scare quotes". Some (used to indicate the term is used in a different manner by homeopaths than by others) may be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If a term is used in a different manner by homoeopaths, wouldn't italics (to indicate a term of art) be more appropriate? Brunton (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That works for me too. And likewise the term overdose as used in the article would have the same term of art italics. Cjwilky (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's different; quotation marks are better there to denote a mentioned term. Alexbrn talk 13:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So, having overdose in quotations, as per my original edit that was reverted. And at the same time change some of the other terms of art to italics. Cjwilky (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to put "overdose" in quotation marks. The meaning is the ordinary meaning, and the source doesn't put it in quotes. Also the spelling of "caffea" is (also) correct. It's spelled that way twice in the article, which uses the less commonly used Latin spelling. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Overdose is clearly a contender for quotes, as its not overdosing in the common sense of the word ie in the way most people will understand it. The article becomes misleading without the quotes.


 * Why use the lesser known spelling? Is obscurity a wiki virtue these days? And one that doesn't appear in the bulk of literature concerning coffea cruda and homeopathy? Its been used in the cited reference, but that doesn't validate it. Its hardly an acemdemic reference, surely better to go with the commonly used spellings in this world. 79k google results for "coffea cruda" homeopathy, 3k for "caffea cruda" homeopathy Cjwilky (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Taking more pills (or whatever) than recommended is what is commonly meant by "overdose". Brunton (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the irony here though is that there is no dose. Alexbrn talk 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And if thats what you believe, and is what the skeptics believe, and is what the thrust of this article is saying, then overdose should surely be in quotations. Cjwilky (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of belief, when you take something and dilute it 1:100 twelve times, there is no dose. That is what dose means. In fact almost all remedies contain no active dose as they are below the response threshold but 12C and above contain no dose by any objective definition. Unless, of course, you are able to provide some objective measurement that can show otherwise? One of the manufacturers told the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that the only difference is the label, so he didn't seem to be with you on this. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are studies out there that show homeopathy works in RCT terms, and heaps of studies showing how it works in other ways. When you have people who already make up their mind before studying, like Ernst, who apparently has credibility in the objective science world, then you will tend to discover their findings show their a priori assumptions. Provide me with the quote and context you're referring to re the manufacturer, and who the person is. Cjwilky (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it the Boots The Chemist guy at the House of Commons Select Ctee, just in case anybody is looking? I do wish homeopathists would stop claiming that they have RCT's showing effectiveness of their craft. They havn't. Roxy the dog (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was Kate Chatfield, "a senior lecturer in homeopathy at the University of Central Lancashire" representing the Society of Homeopaths before the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology; see the answer to Q538. The Boots guy said, "I have no evidence before me to suggest that they are efficacious".  Brunton (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cjwilky: even for perfectly conducted trials, one trial in 20 of a completely ineffective therapy will be "studies out there that show [it] works in RCT terms", because the test for significance is that there is only a 5% chance of a false positive. Once factors like the quality of the actual trials (i.e. their potential for producing a biased result) and publication bias are taken into account it is likely that far more than one in 20 published trials will produce a false positive.  That is why looking at trial quality is important, and why the article relies on systematic reviews and meta-analyses rather than cherry-picked individual studies.  Brunton (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to suggest that Ernst is in the category of "people who already make up their mind before studying" would be a violation of WP:BLP. See, for example, Why I changed my mind about homeopathy. Brunton (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The word overdose is accurate per Brunton, but ambiguous. It also raises some POV due to Randy's repeated "overdose" demonstrations. . We should elaborate the statement to say something like Bruton's suggestion, or clarifying what is meant by overdose in some other way. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The term overdose is commonly understood to be a dangerous dose. For instance, when one tea bag is advised to be used, having three is not considered an overdose. In medicine, if someone is advised to take a certain amount of painkillers and they increase the dose above that, it would only be called an overdose when it was potentially a dangerous dose. As I said above, thats not understood to be the case here. Indeed, the whole stunt is misconstrued because there is little difference in taking a whole bottle of pills or half a pill in terms of what homeopaths work by. Taking say one pill repeatedly hourly for 50 hours may be an overdose in homeopathic terms, not 50 pills in one mouthful. Now if the skeptics really wanted to try and pull the stunt... :) Cjwilky (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Im confused, you seem to be implying that taking one pill per hour for 50 hours is more dangerous than taking 50 pills all at once? Randy has repeatedly done demonstrations of taking an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills simultaneously. However, I do admit that such demonstrations could be dangeros, because some homepoathic remedies are started with straight up poison, and either by design, or manufacturing error my have more of the original poison that expected. (as discussed in our article already) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm telling you that is how it works, no doubt about it whatsoever, see anything written by homeopaths on the topic eg see here. There is sometimes a tiny difference between taking 500 and 1 pill in a dose, depending on how they are made. Thats why homeopaths laugh at Randhi and his Skepto initiates ;) Its a stunt that has nothing to do with how potentised remedies work and everything to do with the irony of Skeptics doing psuedo-experiments, without having a clue what they're doing, apart from the stunt publicity. Cjwilky (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The faq certainly says You can't overdose by taking 100 at a time. This is consistent with the medical criticism of homeopathy - you cant overdose on nothing. The faq says nothing about taking 1 pill every hour for X hours being dangerous. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the difference between taking 50 pills all at once vs. 50 pills on the hour for 50 hours, it is true (IMO) that homeopaths would consider the latter as more "dangerous". They would definitely consider it as having a greater potential of producing symptoms. This stems from the fact that when homeopaths conduct provings now, the common method is to give the remedy 3 or 4 times per day until the prover (person taking the substance) begins to feel as if they are eliciting symptoms at which point they stop. In the apocrypha of homeopathic provings literature are stories of individuals who took proving remedies too long and ended up with symptoms for the rest of their life. Buried in this paper by Iris Bell - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23290882 - is a hypothesis that dosing after there is a "negative" turn away from any positive response to dosing is an example of time-dependent sensitization (TDS)(progressive endogenous response amplification over time, including cross-sensitized oscillation in the direction of responses at physiological limits). Very theoretical and "not ready for prime-time" however may provide a scientific underpinning to the observations and methods of homeopathic provings and homeopathic prescribing.Dizzybee (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead edit
Hi folks. I understand this subject has "very vocal proponents and opponents" quote - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/147778/dh_117811.pdf.pdf

The lead should summarize the main article and should include the criticism off course. I haven't added any citations only simply put the repetitive summery of all the respectable and authoritative sources :

The postulated mechanisms of action for homeopathy are scientifically implausible due to the low concentration of homeopathic remedies, which often lack even a single molecule of the diluted substance,[5][6]

Medical scientific research has concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition and that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects.[7][8][9] Therefore homeopathic remedies have also been criticized as unethical.[10]

Actually the former Lead gives Homeopathy way way to much undue weight. The former lead Bashing style achieves nothing and will not deter people from homeopathy. It just makes the whole lead look quite hysterical. and once you read the citation it looks quite ridiculous and a work of cherry picking quote mining by Anti Homeopathy crusaders.

The body of the article goes into all the small details as it should.109.65.173.253 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have made this controversial edit, to the lede section of a controversial article, three times without prior discussion. The material in the lede has been subject to much discussion and in my view your edit deletes a lot of worthy summary. To take one example, you have excised the scientific consensus view which is a notable criticism that should be in the lede. Alexbrn talk 10:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Alexbrn. this is exactly what I was referring to :
 * "The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham;[9".
 * This is a profound general statement
 * This is coming from http://www.aacijournal.com/content/7/1/14
 * "Within the non-CAM scientific community, homeopathy has long been viewed as a sham [7]." and do you know what is the source [7] ? here it is :
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jun/29/ban-homeopathy-from-nhs-doctors/print. quite ridiculous no ?. this is not serious. I'm sorry109.65.173.253 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Any way " this sums up everything - "Medical scientific research has concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition and that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects". and a summery should be in the Lead109.65.173.253 (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the Guardian article delivers numerous direct quotes from members of the BMA - who are a pretty decent primary source for this kind of fact. It's possible that the guardian was misquoting them - but that's unlikely, I think the Guardian is an acceptable WP:RS for that kind of direct quotation.  It might be possible that they were deliberately quoting people out of context - but it's hard to imagine a mitigating context for a directly attributable quote such as: "Tom Dolphin, a member of the BMA's junior doctors' committee ...(said)..."Homeopathy is not witchcraft, it is nonsense on stilts. It is pernicious nonsense that feeds into a rising wave of irrationality which threatens to overwhelm the hard-won gains of the enlightenment and the scientific method,"...".  If the guardian can be trusted to quote people from the BMA, then the AACI Journal isn't wrong to use the guardian article that to back up this claim...and we may safely quote that journal as a 3rd party reference to a 2nd person report of a primary source.  That's exactly the kind of thing that WP:RS directs us to do. SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur with Alexbrn - although I don't question your good faith in this edit, this would need resolving here first - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the original post, some of the emotive language usage in the article represents a minority campaigning viewpoint. Cjwilky (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The primary point is that repeated deletions of established, sourced content against objections while a discussion is ongoing is not an acceptable behavior pattern and must change. wp:BRD is not wp:BRRRDRRDRRDR. Beyond that, massive changes to a lede rarely gain acceptance: discussion should address the merits of edits to individual statements if they are going to be productive. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The latest edit to the lead is rather good. I hope it remains Roxy the dog (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As I expected, it has been reverted. The edit was very bold, and improved the lead immensely.  In reverting, Cjwilky suggested that Talk page discussion should happen first.  I would be interested in a justification for the reversion.  Roxy the dog (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Cjwilky's revert here. Saying Homeopathy is psuedoscience, while okay in itself, is starting the article at at too-high a level of abstraction. Alexbrn talk 06:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Should be in the first para, though (in the inverted-pyramid structure per Manual of Style/Lead section), as one of the most important and widely-noted things about homeopathy - added at end - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Still not sure about this in the lede. If you check back a few weeks in the Talk archive you'll see it was found to be surprisingly hard to source solidly the statement that homeopathy is widely considered to be pseudoscience: which is why the lede has the tripartite shame/quackery/unethical description it does (these can be solidly sourced). Let's see what others say ... Alexbrn talk 09:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * List of topics characterized as pseudoscience has a pile - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, five minutes with Google Scholar and the obvious search turns up a ton of peer-reviewed papers supporting the claim of wide regard. Just adding - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The sticking point was finding a source which stated "widely regarded", "the consensus is" or somesuch. We can't analyze a bunch of papers and make that assessment ourselves, it would be original research. See WP:RS/AC. Alexbrn talk 10:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they might say that "it's" pseudoscience, but they don't say it's "widely" whatever. Or they say similar things with other wordings. For example:
 * "Most complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is not science because the vast majority of it is not based on empirical evidence. Homeopathy, for example, has barely changed since the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is much more like religion than science. (...) Many scientists and advocates of evidence based medicine say that giving scientific status to homoeopathy is unjustified. " "UK universities offer degrees in “pseudoscience,” Nature article says" British Medical Journal
 * "The notion that homeopathic preparations could have any biological effects represents a fringe viewpoint, one not entertained by serious scientists nor supported by reason and evidence.""Homeopathy is unscientific and unethical"
 * "The statement that homeopathy is "discriminated by an "official science" cannot be supported by the results of the present review. The quantity and quality of the current research in this area indicates that, actually, the rejection of homeopathy as a valid scientific endeavor comes from the fact that the more recent research has thoroughly disconfirmed the main homeopathic hypotheses.""A critical review of the possible benefits associated with homeopathic medicine"
 * Enric Naval 12:26, July 14, 2013‎ (UTC)


 * 3 examples out of how many thousands? Cjwilky (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget the National Science Foundation, which approvingly lists homeopathy as an example of pseudoscience. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 4... though no, its back to 3. The NSF says "According to one group studying such phenomena,..." and then refers to CSI, hardly an unbiased credible organisation. Cjwilky (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no need for it to be unbiased. We use biased sources here all the time. Without them we would have little content, and we'd fail in our mission to document the sum total of human knowledge. We use pro- and con- sources, which are obviously biased, and Wikipedia's policies have a bias in favor of verifiability, a fundamental pillar of the scientific method, so Wikipedia also has a bias in favor of science. We're a mainstream encyclopedia, not a fringe one.


 * Although CSI is an independently RS on the subject of pseudoscience, the NSF validates what CSI says because what CSI says is true. That's why they quote CSI and skeptics (Stephen Hawking, Michael Shermer, Robert L. Park, Emily Rosa, Phil Plait) as sources whose opinions are in line with NSF's own POV on the subject of pseudoscience, and they list homeopathy as one of many forms of pseudoscience. BTW, NSF and CSI are independently RS on the subject of pseudoscience, and we can use them to document such opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite. And in fact homeopathy is not only widely considered pseudoscience, it is one of the most widely cited examples of pseudoscience, because basic high school science concepts such as the atomic nature of matter and Avogadro's number are sufficient to establish, for the lay reader, the fact that its claims are nonsensical, so a lay reader can easily be talked through the things that make homeopathy pseudo- rather than real science. Few other pseudosciences have such widespread name recognition - cold fusion does, for people of a certain age, but then you have to get into the pseudoscience vs. pathological science debate, which is complex, and you also require some domain knowledge. Homeopathy is a good study of "things that just ain't so". Guy (Help!) 10:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Homeopathy
This is clearly a hostile approach to homeopathy. It's worthy of discussion, but it's not worthy of a representative article under the heading "Homeopathy." I certainly hope that the Wikipedia decision makers know better than to allow this foment against Homeopathy to stand as the definitive article on the subject.

Ron Pronk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.195.169 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is people like you and me that are the decision makers here. We have to follow the guidelines though, and achieve consensus.  This article is a good example of that Roxy the dog (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is reality-based. Reality is, ultimately, hostile to homeopathy: there is no reason to suppose it should work, no way it can work and no proof it does work. I have noticed a distinct hardening of attitudes towards homeopathy over the last few years; as homeopathists have increasingly asserted ridiculous and irrelevant rationales as "proof", so the exposure of these has reduced the already small remaining areas of doubt and uncertainty to the point that it can by now be said with very great confidence that homeopathy is disproven, rather than simply unproven (which is the case for most SCAM treatments). So every time a homeopathist claims that yet another study that can't, by its very nature, refute the null hypothesis somehow "proves" homeopathy, the reality-based community get just a little bit firmer in their response, to the point that senior scientific figures have begun to use words like "mad", "rubbish", "witchcraft" and the like. As Edzard Ernst put it, by now a belief in homeopathy exceeds the capacity of a reasonably open mind; it is a religion not a form of medicine and in the period until homeopathists admit that and stop pretending otherwise, any article founded on reality will necessarily cause them massive cognitive dissonance. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reality based ? Of course : If you edit out from the reality all the articles in the mainstream jourals which present some evidence supporting homeopathy as the editors of this article have done-  then yes I would agree with you. The aricle is "reality" based -  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayR1977 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC) --JayR1977 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources conforming to WP:MEDRS, please. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure:

'''Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 4;138(5):393-9. A critical overview of homeopathy.''' [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092 Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.]--JayR1977 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Violates WP:MEDDATE. Alexbrn talk 13:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup - and it has been discussed previously several times: see . AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why?--JayR1977 (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain what? WP:MEDRS should be self-explanatory, and I've provided a link to previous discussions. I suggest you read them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You should be able to explain why the paper I cited violates WP:MEDDATE--JayR1977 (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The paper you cite is ten years old. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * according to the WP:MEDDATE almost ALL studies they are currently cited in the article do not qualify.They are older than 2 - 5 years--JayR1977 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Which studies are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All studies which support this for instance - but there are more in the article ---Scientific research has repeatedly found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible.[10][11][12][13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayR1977 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We would have no problem whatsoever finding more recent sources which say the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The most recent review is from 2012; there may be a case for rationalizing some of the others - but some are important commentary on experimental method (and so not strictly biomedical) or specific in their focus and representative of the most recent research in that area, so usefully backing-up the mainstream consensus with extra detail. In general I think it is good to present these kinds of "lists of reviews" in reverse chronological order, so the best source comes first. Alexbrn talk 15:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the criteria you used to reject this paper I cited you should take out the majority of the papers cited here.  This is what I said before- you just edit out  ( do not take it personally - whatever reports positive results for homeopathy. This is the "reality " on which the article is based. --JayR1977 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup, this article represents reality - that "Scientific research has repeatedly found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you edit out all the important evidence reporting positive results for homeopathy  it is easy to create an article like that. Congrats.  --JayR1977 (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia represents the scientific consensus, by policy. This is not up for negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. You suppose to report all the sides in a topic as long as they appear in highly reliable sources if you read the guidelines - censoring the opinion of researchers who are published in reputable journals violates the NPOV principle and creates a polemic article inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  --JayR1977 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wrong. See WP:FRINGE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not say "feel free to censor whatever evidence does not concur with your preconceived idea of consensus even if this evidence appears in reputable mainstream journals--JayR1977 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)"
 * No, it doesn't. It explains why this article is the way it is. If you want to see the article changed, you will have to convince the scientific community that they are wrong about chemistry, physics, pharmacology, and all the other grounds which explain why homoeopathy cannot work. And then convince the medical community that it does work. When the consensus changes, so will our article... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well ..The available evidence includes different views which are censored - even if they are published in high impact journals - There is no scientific agreement  in these topics . If there were such a thing there would be no different opinions published in such a high impact journal like the one I cited and there are more. The only way to present consensus is to edit out all the above pro homeopathy evidence - which is what is happening here : finding silly excuses like it is too old - while most of other sources are older etc.....--JayR1977 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "High-impact journals"? :lol  Furthermore, at this point, there are so many (nearly) respectable studies, that only a meta-analysis will provide useful results.  Remember that, if there are 20 correctly-done studies, the expected number of studies with significant results (p<0.05) is 1.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 4;138(5):393-9 is not high impact journal? Is that you are suggesting? --JayR1977 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The review in Ann Intern Med is by no means an endorsement of homeopathy, nor does it say that there is any form evidence for it. Far from it. At best it is saying that there are suggestive preliminary data that warrant further study. Actually, not even that. It states that homeopathy should have the opportunity to prove itself under the rules of evidence-based medicine, and that scientists should be open-minded. Hardly anything new or unusual. The authors put the burden of proof firmly on the shoulders of the proponents of homeopathy. They don't seem to be advocating taht medical research dollars be spent to investigate. When that further study is performed, replicated, confirmed and discussed in the secondary literature, then we can use it. In the ten years since that review, nothing of the sort has happened. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jay - stick around. There are a few people here that see how one sided the article is and want to change it to better reflect the world and not just one side of "science". In many ways, leaving the article to the skeptics here is beneficial to homeopathy as people read it and can see how stupidly biased it is. The article is written by not by consensus of science or of wiki policy, but of those editors who are here, so that means the skeptics have the pen of consensus. Its a joke that its called consensus because usually its about majority rule here. Anyway, will get on the track of discussing what you've raised here when I can. I just wanted to encourage you to contribute. Feel free to mail me from my wiki page. Cjwilky (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks (talk). I think that writing the "The review in Ann Intern Med is by no means an endorsement ofhomeopathy, nor does it say that there is any form evidence for it." is kind of funny. Really? The article uses sources which state homeopathy is no better than placebo and it is quackery etc and the review states There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies -and you are saying that this is the same thing? An encyclopedia should present all opinions in a fringe topic if they are appear in high impact journal like the one I cited. --JayR1977 (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the article shoule be checked and revised - it far away from being neutral. --JayR1977 (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've already been told that the review is too old. What do more recent reviews say? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Almot all the studies they are used in the article are old - according to the guidelines- read above - however they are used - using double standards shows a ridiculus bias and I would like more people to comment. --JayR1977 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Create a new topic with a source you think is out of date. Let's knock these off one by one. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read above - the majotiry of the sorces used are ot of date. --JayR1977 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're referring to. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * if you read the curren talk page you will see it--JayR1977 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Amazing - The editors of this page do not believe in the dialogue - or applying the wikipedia guidelines if they want to promote a specific point of view. Correction some of them they do not even participate in the discussion - they just undo the other editor 's changes who do participate. Is this allowed?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=566250853&oldid=566249409 --JayR1977 (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that your revert of TippyGoomba wasn't justified: yes they are. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. --Six words (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? So I m not allowed to request the article to be reviewed ? This is the meaning of the tag. The last editor who reverted me did not even bother to discuss the matter. It seems you guys want to suppress the discussion -  besides the censorship of the evidence from reliable sources which do not conform with your views. This is I said when I started the thread  --JayR1977 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what "request the article to be reviewed" means but adding a POV tag doesn't accomplish that. The reason for the rejection of your sources has been repeatedly stated to you, it also been explained to you the mechanism by which you can addressed alleged double standards. You're firmly in WP:IDONTHEARYOU land now. Time to move on. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So far I have been told 1. that http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092 is NOT a reliable source. 2. It is OK to use old reviews as long as provide evidence againt homeopathy - but not when they provide evidence for homeopathy - then the "too old" criterion applies. 3.It is ok to for editors to revert one changes - tags without any discussion in the talk page. And if you complaine then you are threaten to be blocked from edting. --JayR1977 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * On WP, sources are not reliable or unreliable. They are reliable or unreliable for the particular material they are used to support. So yes, a real peer reviewed review in a very reputable journal can be unreliable for certain kinds of material. In this case, the source you wish to use is not reliable for the current state of affairs in medicine, per WP:MEDRS, especially as it has not been supported by more recent sources. Also, WP:REDFLAG, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE apply. Extraordinary claims require solid sources. Suggestive and preliminary studies are not solid.


 * Minority views are assigned weight based on their coverage in the current mainstream secondary literature on the topic. A single review does not carry much WP:WEIGHT.


 * Furthermore, we report on already established mainstream medical practice, not on suggestive preliminary results that have not been replicated, confirmed and discussed WIDELY in the mainstream secondary literature, per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS.


 * Yes, it is OK to use old sources, but ONLY IF they are consistent with and supported by more recent sources, that is, if they reflect current consensus on the topic.


 * And yes, using tags just because you disagree with the article is disruptive. As is misrepresenting the source you wish to use, which clearly does NOT support homeopathy at all, and in fact says that homeopathic treatments "it should not be substituted for proven therapies". Nor, as I mentioned above does it say that their is any firm evidence for any of the claims of homeopathy. Hint: "may be effective" does not mean "is effective". Speculation is not of encyclopedic interest here on WP, per point 4 of WP:CRYSTALBALL.


 * Whether you think it's fair or not, our policies are not friendly to fringe proponents. They have a tougher row to hoe on WP, just as they do in the real world.


 * And yes, you can be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing, including WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE.


 * Last of all, it is YOUR responsibility to know, thoroughly understand and abide by our core content policies and guidelines as an organic whole: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOT; as well as our main behavioral policies and guidelines: WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:ETIQUETTE,WP:CONSENSUS, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a great defintion of NPOV - for instance - depending on your bias or opinion about Homeopathy the Lancet can be reliable or unreliable the same time - maybe parts of the same article can Well I hadn't though of it.That s a great way to write a polemic - but for an encyclopedia seems absurd. Lets hear from other editors.Is this ok? --JayR1977 (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Jay, your criticisms are too broad and ethereal to address. Let's work on specifics. Please provide a specific example of something that should be added, but isn't; or, of something that should be deleted. If there are few specific examples that are related, you can include them all in one discussion. But, it's impossible to respond to 'this article violates NPOV and you editors are all using a bunch of double standards.' Thanks! Joel Why? (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as the Ann Intern Med paper goes, it really is worth looking at what the paper itself says, rather than just the abstract that has been posted here.

While the abstract says that "There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea", for postoperative ileus the paper actually says that "the evidence from controlled trials is inconclusive" (see page 397). For influenza, the paper cites The Vickers et al Cochrane review on Oscillococcinum, which was withdrawn in 2009 and has now been replaced by Mathie et al which concludes that "There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum(®) in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness." For allergies one of the sources used is Taylor et al, which is a review of a series of small studies by the same team, and the article notes that "a larger study using a similar protocol did not reproduce this clinical effect," the other source for this states at the end of its conclusions that its "results may be slightly biased". For childhood diarrhea the review relied on is a review of three studies by the same team, and the paper was unable to take into account the same team's larger study published in 2006 which found no effect of homoeopathy.

The "Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy [that] reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo" turn out to be rather heavily qualified, with Kleijnen (1991) stating that "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias," and Table 2 of the Ann Intern Med paper describes its conclusion as "Available evidence is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions". Cucherat (2000) concludes "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies." The positive conclusion of Linde (1997) was considerably qualified by the same team's 1999 reanalysis which found that the 1997 paper "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments". And, of course, the Ann Intern Med paper was unable to take into account later work such as the 2005 Shang analysis.

The paper itself is not as positive as the abstract suggests; where they differ we should, of course, go with the paper rather than the abstract. It has also been overtaken by subsequent events to some extent. Brunton (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is original research ; you are not supposed to do that according to the guidelines. The editors job  is to report the results not the evaluate the paper. Since it was accepted to be published it belongs to the available evidence  and its results should be reported no matter what they state. The authors summarized  their review and again according to wiki guidelines they are qualified to do that - not the editors of wikipedia.  The review was published in 2003 AFTER the reviews you are referring to besides Shang . If you want to edit according to the principles of the NPOV you have to report all the evidence since it appears in a reliable source. However I m glad that you don't say - like the others --- we can use old reviews as long as they are anti homeopathy or (this one is more funny ) that Anns of internal medicine is not a ........reliable source. --JayR1977 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Jay - Reading a paper properly is most definitely not original research - you should try it. While you are at that, have you read the FAQs at the top of this page, and this Talk Pages archives?  They would help you to understand 'the editors job' far better than you appear to at the moment. Roxy the dog (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading a paper properly means that you accept authors capabilities to summarize their findings in the abstract. You cannot say -no the abstract contradicts the paper - this is again original research. You have to report their findings.Not to report what you think that they should conclude but they don't. I m glad that though you are in the group of editors who agree that ann of internal medicine is a ...reliable source, and it is not too ........ old--JayR1977 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Utter bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Reading a paper properly means that you accept authors capabilities to summarize their findings in the abstract. " That would... rather defeat the whole point of peer review.  Millahnna (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, u. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The abstract is not part of the paper, and it's not peer reviewed. Furthermore, it's often not written by the authors. I've written hundreds of abstracts for other authors' papers myself. Furthermore, they often innacurately summarize the paper, as they are often not updated during sunsequent drafts of the paper itself. Abstracts are not reliable sources on WP, and only a fool would rely on the abstract instead of the paper itself. The only purpose the abstract serves is to give other scientists a general idea if the full paper is worth reading or not, i.e., if it AMY contain information they are interested in. Also, your reading of WP:NOR is seriously faulty. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * JayR1977: It clearly isn't OR to read a paper to see what is says - we can't possibly even consider using a source if we don't read it. You claim that we can't say that the abstract contradicts the paper; what else can we do if they say different things, such as the abstract saying that there is evidence from RCTs that homoeopathy may be effective for a particular condition, while the paper itself says that for the same condition, "the evidence from controlled trials is inconclusive"?
 * Incidentally, please try not to attribute opinions to other editors where they haven't stated those opinions. Brunton (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Jay, I certainly didn't say what you said I said. Roxy the dog (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone can accept that the authors approved or written statement are an inaccurate summary of their findings. One certainly can criticize the paper but in wikipedia you suppose to REPORT the findings not to EVALUATE the paper if it contradicts itself or not . Otherwise you write a polemic article and certainly you are NOT neutral and the article is biased. I m again glad that no one claims that ANN of internal medicine is an....unreliable source or too...old.. Thats progress for this talk page. The next step is to stop censoring all sources ( as long they are published in reliable sources ) which happened to report different findings from the article point of view that Homeopathy is a just a sham and placebo. --JayR1977 (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, you comments are not consistent with our policies and guidelines, and, as said above, the abstract of a paper is NOT a reliable source. Continuing arguing in that direction is pointless. WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE apply. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Evaluating what a source actually says (and working on summarising it for inclusion if necessary) is precisely what a Wikipedia talk page is for. We cannot possibly include every peer-reviewed publication, so we have to look at sources and decide whether they add anything to what we already have, whether they are still relevant, etc.  In this case, the conclusions of the paper don't really add to the sources the article already uses.  As Dominus Vobisdu has already pointed out it is more of a call for further reseach than any hard finding of efficacy.
 * Additionally, even for the handful of conditions the abstract says there is evidence "that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of", the text of the actual paper is less positive, in one case actually stating that the evidence is inconclusive. For another condition it cites a review that has since been withdrawn, for another it cites an analysis of three small studies by the same team and notes that a larger study failed to produce the same result, for another it cites three studies by another team but was unable to take into account a later negative result...
 * In any case, a finding that there is some evidence that homoeopathy works for some conditions does not challenge the article's current position that "although some trials produced positive results, systematic reviews revealed that this was because of chance" - if there are some positive results from individual trials, these will inevitably be for particular conditions.
 * The three positive comprehensive reviews it cites have their findings heavily qualified and/or have been superseded by later papers.  It also does not take into account more recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
 * It is not being rejected on an arbitrary basis, or as a result of some sort of censorship or conspiracy. It is being rejected for these particular reasons.  Brunton (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate what has been said, an abstract can NOT be relied upon for Wiki purposes, and it is laughable to argue that reading an article to determine its content is synthesis when comparing it with the abstract.    Joel Why? (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot seriously claim that your interpretation of the paper is actually more reliable than the authors approved summary. You could say that if you were signing your own polemic - in wikipedia the guidelines say report the findings and their critisims IF they appear in a reliable source.They do not say write your own critisim about whatever study --JayR1977 (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An editor's interpretation of the article would be synthesis. However, it is a disservice to readers to rely on an abstract of an article to present information.    Joel Why? (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a diservice to not include the paper info only because it states something supportive of homeopathy ---the best the best and least biased way to present it is to use the authors approved summary--- not yours or mine ---.--JayR1977 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a consensus among the researchers who publish about Homeopathy about its efficasy ?

 * The abstract of the paper is NOT a reliable source? Of course especially when someone disagrees with the conclusion - Well that borders absurdity i m afraid.

However, the point here is that the article states that the scientific consensus is that Homepathy is placebo and a sham while some researhers whose work is published in the lancet and other reputable sources ( including the ....unreliable Anns of internal medecine) DISPUTE that; and the editors have cansored this information from the article to imply that this is the consensus. --JayR1977 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want a statement that implies that there are researchers who have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo to be included in the article, you will need to cite the peer-reviewed work in which they have concluded this. Brunton (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * And single primary studies are not worth much, unless they have been independently replicated, confirmed, cited and WIDELY discussed in the recent secondary literature. Also, accusing others of "censorship" is also a breach of our policies, specifically WP:AGF. It also diminishes your own credibility. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * No I did not say that: I said that the researhers (already cited ) DISPUTE the statement that homeoathy = placebo as the article states. They  say about Shang and the Lancet that  "The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven. We now find it extremely disappointing that a major medical journal misuses a similar study in a totally uncritical and polemical manner and that "Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."


 * Don't you want your readers to know about these uncertainties and disagrements among the experts who have researhred and publihed on the subject? This is called censorship..--JayR1977 (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That's mostly a comment on the Lancet editorial that accompanied the Shang analysis, not Shang itself. The editorial is not cited or even mentioned by the article.  The letter is not peer-reviewed, and does not state an opinion that homoeopathy works better than placebo.  to use it to support a statement implying that its authors have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo would clearly be a WP:SYN and would also be giving the letter undue weight.  Brunton (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The letter states clearly that the Linde studies and conclusion DIFFER from Shang's conclusion ( he does NOT say it is proven he says there is some evidence that works for some conditions- it is a obvious disagrement per their own words - can you explain why you don't want readers to know about that? --JayR1977 (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Because we don't wan't to lie to our readers by cobbling together every last bit of dubious 'evidence' the pro-homoeopathy lobby can come up with to suggest that there is any serious 'controversy' or 'debate' regarding whether homoeopathy works. There is no debate of any significance, and it would be utterly dishonest to suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Aslo, you missed this line: "We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." Again, unconfirmed preliminary results are of little, if any, encyclopedic value as far as WP is concerned. You grasping at straws. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For the reasons that I have just explained above: because it would imply something that the letter doesn't say (see WP:SYN), and would be giving the letter undue weight (the article cannot use non-peer-reviewed sources to rebut peer-reviewed secondary sources). Saying that the authors disagree with a conclusion that homoeopathy has no effects over placebo would imply that they think that it has effects over placebo.  We can't imply this unless we have a peer-reviewed source in which they have concluded this.  Brunton (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The letter and the ANN of internal medecine is the PROOF that Linde and all hold a quite different view in their own studies from Shang - so different that they send a letter to the Lancet to emphasize this difference and protest. And not as the artile falsely states misrepresenting the meta analyses - that there is consensus - if there were consensus there will be not letter stating so stronlgy this disagrement. And you are telling us that this is NOT significant to be included?Is it better to keep your readers in the darkness and ignorance?   --JayR1977 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you barking up the wrong tree, and you're obviously not going to get anywhere because you have fundamental misunderstandings of what WP is and how it works. It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think other editors agree with my views - how do you konw that I im not going to get anywhere - are you in touch with the wikipeda community and you know something i dont? Everybody agrees that it is best for the readers to not know about the disagreements in the scietific community regarding the available evidence for or against homeopathy ? I wonder.--JayR1977 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm counting 9 editors disagreeing with you and nobody even remotely agreeing. On top of that, that lancet article has been discussed to death already, please see archive pages. It's time for you to move on.--McSly (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, "the PROOF that Linde and all hold a quite different view in their own studies", at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned, would be their own studies making a statement that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. Not letters to the editor saying that the evidence for homoeopathy is not robust, commenting on another analysis, and saying that their own studies have "unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven".  Not narrative reviews that say that there is some evidence that it may work for a few conditions, especially when even that tentative conclusion is based on papers that were later withdrawn, studies that the review itself states have failed replication, or that have been superseded by other later work.
 * What you need is a recent systematic review that has produced an unequivocal conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo. Brunton (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What disagreements Jay? Roxy the dog (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Read above.--JayR1977 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I see at least 2 editors who agree with me--Brunton and others :  the main question remains :it is best for the readers to not know about the disagreements in the scietific community regarding the available evidence for or against homeopathy ? You could answer yes to this question - Let's wait to see what other people say.--JayR1977 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with you, and have posted nothing here that can remotely be interpreted as saying that I do. [Comment posted before JayR1977's post above was clarified.] Brunton (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is best for us to maintain this article in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As regards homeopathy's effectiveness, the article is already doing this. Alexbrn talk 15:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I had the impression that wikipedia wants the readers to know about the disagreements in the scietific community regarding the available evidence for or against homeopathy as long they appear in high impact jourals- but thanks for stating your preference. --JayR1977 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You had the wrong impression, see WP:FRINGE. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss every fringe opinion ever articulated but to present and summarize the current scientific consensus. --hroest 15:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To summarize - not to fabricate. --JayR1977 (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Brunton (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont combine anything. Linde systematic reviews published in the Lancet and ( the qualified ones) arrive in a conclusion that differs from Shang. They - the authors STATE that in the Lancet - not me. However the article  falsely reports  that they agree - while themselves state in written that they disagree. Readers have the right to know about that. Now they believe that all agree -  this is misinformation. --JayR1977 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In the forum where I spend a lot of my time, it is traditional to tell idiots to "Stop being a dick". Are you allowed to do that here? Roxy the dog (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you can say that as long as this concerns an editor who disagrees with the biased article here. IF I had said that I would be blocked from editing immediately - but abusive behavior against editors like me is allowed if not discouraged. keep going. That was the best argument in this disucssion --JayR1977 (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See []. Scroll down to the essay itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe DROPTHESTICK applies here as suggested already above (and is a nicer way to say it). To me it seems that everybody here agrees except JayR1977 and unless there is new evidence there is no need to continue this debate. --hroest 17:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @DV - I appear to have inadvertently made a wiki faux pas. I, ... I'm so ashamed. There is a section on that link called "How to deal with dicks without being a dick yourself" and I'm pretty certain I'm a dick. I would like to apologise to editors here for being a dick.  I'll try harder. Roxy the dog (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Try to gather all the insults in one paragraph so I can follow. --JayR1977 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Linde systematic reviews published in the Lancet and ( the qualified ones) arrive in a conclusion that differs from Shang." Linde's 1997 analysis, along with the 1999 analysis that found that it had "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments" is already discussed in the article.
 * "They - the authors STATE that in the Lancet - not me." The Linde and Jonas letter in the Lancet doesn't make any statement about the efficacy of homoeopathy other than "We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust."  It therefore can't be used as a source for additions to the article that would imply that the letter's authors have concluded that homoeopathy is effective.  And it still isn't peer-reviewed.
 * "However the article falsely reports  that they agree - while themselves state in written that they disagree."  The article doesn't say anything about whether Linde and Jonas agree with the Shang analysis.  It does, however, accurately report the scientific consensus.
 * If you want the article to imply that Linde and Jonas have concluded that homoeopathy has efficacy over that of placebo, you need to cite their peer-reviewed work that has concluded this. It's been almost 8 years since Shang was published. Rather than producing a review or analysis that differs from Shang's conclusion, Linde has been reported (in 2010) as saying "Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein."
 * You want to "teach the controversy", but you fail to establish that there is one. Brunton (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No i dont want the article to imply that Linde and Jonas have concluded that homoeopathy has efficacy over that of placebo- I want to article to report Linde;s findings and conclusions which differ from Shang as LInde Jonas say and mainly the critisism of the study ---which is very strong- The controversy is recorded in the Lancet but you think it is best for the readers to not now about that -maybe you are afraid that they will not be onviced that homeopathy = sham = placebo  - so it is better to edit out the evidence from reliable sources. You want them to believe that they agree which is a lie. --JayR1977 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you "want to [sic] article to report Linde;s [sic] findings and conclusions which differ from Shang" then you will need a source for these "findings and conclusions". This will be a peer-reviewed systematic review or meta-analysis in which Linde concluded that homoeopathy has effects over placebo.  The letter does not report Linde's "findings and conclusions", and is not peer-reviewed (as has been pointed out frequently in the past it is the peer-reviewed paper, not the journal in which it is published, which is the RS).  Using it to rebut a peer-reviewed paper would be at the very least a violation of WP:WEIGHT, and using it to imply anything about Linde's "findings and conclusions" would be a violation of WP:SYN.
 * And, as was pointed out in the very comment to which you were replying, Linde's "findings and conclusions" are already discussed in the article. They are not being excluded.  Brunton (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources are cited above.  "Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement." and also  three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. They are still part of the available scientific literature even if the editors of this article edited them out to write this biased article. --JayR1977 (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * These sources have already been discussed above. Repeating what you have already posted above does not add anything to the discussion, and does not address the arguments other editors have posted.
 * Have a look at what the paper actually concluded: "Homeopathy is an alternative therapeutic system based on the “Principle of Similars” and the use of “minimum” doses. Homeopathy was a prominent component of 19th century health care and recently has undergone a revival in the United States and around the world. Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine. More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system. Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy’s possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it. As in all of medicine, physicians must know how to prevent patients from abandoning effective therapy for serious diseases and when to permit safe therapies even if only for their nonspecific value." There is nothing there to change the scientific consensus as reported in the article.  Brunton (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been working on a translation of this - "Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein." So far I've got - "We can no longer maintain our former conclusion as it was then." - To the Editor who reverted my previous version, I say, Really? Loosen up a bit. Somebody actually thanked me for the previous contribution! Roxy the dog (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * there are a couple of translations in the archive, one from Edzard Ernst ("we can no longer uphold our conclusions, because positive results can be caused by bias") and one from User:Hans_Adler ("We can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated, since the positive results could be due to errors in the studies"). Brunton (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The authors themsseoves say they differ in written in the Lancet. Even the conclusion you cite reports effects superior than placebo. They do NOT say it is placebo as the aritcle reports as consesnsus. Linde probably refers to the qualifiatin of the first study which still finds homeopathy effective with results less positive. --JayR1977 (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We are firmly into WP:IDHT territory now, to the point where it is becoming disruptive. Alexbrn talk 08:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Disruptive to bias - I agree with that. Do you have a better answer to my question above and below? Does Linde refers to the qualified second review ( still positive for homeopathy ) or to the first one?. --JayR1977 (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Der Spiegel specifically refers to the 1997 review in the context of Linde's comment that translates as "we can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated". This obviously isn't a good enough source to include in the article as it's a news report, but it does indicate that Linde's opinion has changed.  Brunton (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This does not mean that they concur with homeopathy = placebo as the article and Shang have adopted. His qualified review still reports positive for homeopathy. According to their own words they hold a different position - that's really clear. The article should report this difference not to pretend that it does not exist. Of course, I see that the majority in this talk page can edit these  facts out or block/ discourage/insult  anyone else who disagrees (not you personally) .  but I don't think this the spirit of the wiki. --JayR1977 (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The letter to the Lancet is a comment on a specific paper, which the article discusses in a sngle paragraph of two sentences. Including this non-peer-reviewed letter, in that context, to rebut the peer-reviewed paper would be to give it seriously undue weight.  Even if it was peer-reviewed we couldn't use it to imply that they have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo because it doesn't say that.  This has all been pointed out before.  And a statement of the form you appear to want to include in the article, that they disagree with a conclusion that homoeopathy has no effects on placebo, would inevitably imply that they think it works better than placebo.  As has also repeatedly been pointed out, we cannot say that some researchers say that homoeopathy has effects over placebo without a peer-reviewed systematic review or meta-analysis in which they have concluded this.  A narrative review that says that some unexplained effects have been observed does not overturn the scientific consensus as reported by the article, especially when it goes on to talk about the "uneven" quality of the existing research and the use of therapies for their "nonspecific value".  Brunton (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for reminding me about that AMA page. It also commented on one of the studies on childhood diarrhea in the series used in that review's assessment, saying that it "has been criticized for inconsistent/incorrect data analysis; use of different diagnostic and treatment categories but combining them in the conclusions of efficacy; and lack of chemical analysis of different treatments. The clinical significance of the results, given the self-limiting condition being studied, has been called into question".  Brunton (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh you see it now. This is what I mean. They did not say that homeopathy was a sham - I do not mind the different points of view and criticisms of homeopathy. Im advocating for their inclusion--JayR1977 (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)