Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 57

New Study - Is homeopathy a placebo therapy ? Maybe not.
This is a new study.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24396390 “In our paper we showed that the effects on quality of life observed in patients receiving homeopathic care in a usual care setting are small or moderate at maximum, but cannot be explained by RTM alone. Due to the uncontrolled study design they may, however, completely be due to nonspecific effects. All our analyses made a restrictive and conservative assumption, so the true treatment effects might be larger than shown.]” — Preceding unsigned comment added by George1935 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What jumps out at me at first glance is that it's an observational study (which "cannot be used as reliable sources to make statements of fact about the "safety, efficacy, or effectiveness" of a practice") with no controls.--Frglz (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's so many weasel words in the abstract it would be easier nailing jello to tree than trying to find an actual conclusion in the study.--Daffydavid (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All it says is that the observed effects "cannot be explained by [regression to the mean] alone". This isn't a finding that homoeopathy has effects over placebo.  It specifically says that the effects "may, however, completely be due to nonspecific effects."  Brunton (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The fourth word says it all. "We" showed = primary source. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * According to what you are saying this  sentence from Shangs review -  "We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias." shows that their review should be regarded as a primary source? --George1935 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course that is not what I said.... Shang was reanalyzing other's trial observations. Please read wp:MEDRS. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read the cited study It is not a primary source : Are the effects of homeopathy attributable to a statistical artefact? A reanalysis of an observational study.--George1935 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a reanalysis of a single observational study. That mean it is just as much a primary source as the originally published study.  If it had been published before the original analysis of the study results, it would not make the original analysis a secondary source.
 * And read the cited study (the bit you quoted, actually): it explicitly states that the apparent effects of homoeopathy may "completely be due to nonspecific effects". In case you don't know, "nonspecific effects" are those effects that would be seen equally in treatment and placebo groups of a controlled trial.  The study actually says that homoeopathy may have no effects over placebo.  Brunton (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "In this paper we reanalysed data from a previously published cohort study, which evaluated the changes in health effects in patients that received treatment by a homeopath in a usual care situation. " It is a secondary source It might be completely be due to nonspecific effects -this does not mean ONLY placebo,  .Anyhow ..This is their conclusion and an encyclopedia has to report it -- If one wants to be neutral. Or one might wants to ignore the study like any study reporting positive effects on homeopathy which is a typical practice in this forum. Even if the studies are published in reputable sources. --George1935 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a single study, George, even if it is a second analysis of a previously published single observational study. "Second" is not the same as "secondary".
 * "It might be completely be due to nonspecific effects -this does not mean ONLY placebo". Yes, it does.  That is what "nonspecific effects" means - effects that are not specific to the treatment being tested, and that you would also expect to see in the placebo arm of a trial.  A study that concludes that it may "completely be due to nonspecific effects" is explicitly stating that it has not established that there is a difference between homoeopathy and placebo.  Brunton (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. -- Even Ernst in his blog writes that "t......his interesting re-analysis really tell us? My interpretation is as follows: the type of observational study that homeopaths are so fond of yields false-positive results. Even he finds  the results -- which he criticizes(false)  ''positive"  And you say that this ..means that it is negative. ?  --George1935 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the conclusion that the results may be completely due to nonspecific effects means that it does not demonstrate that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. Brunton (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The paper says it is possible to be placebo or it could have a real effect. - but maybe Dr. Enrst is pro homeopathy --- and the wikipedia definition about secondary sources is ..wrong. Who knows?  --George1935 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't conclude that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. End of story.  Brunton (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not have to say that-to report its findings - you know that. --George1935 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A study that doesn't establish effects over placebo doesn't alter the consensus on the efficacy of homoeopathy currently reported by the article. Brunton (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia was to inform people about the findings of different studies -not matter what they are positive negative or both.Not to pretend that studies other than negative do not really exist. --George1935 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article cannot possibly report on every single paper, and in fact WP:MEDRS recommends the use of reviews rather than primary sources like this one. And, once again, this study doesn't come to any conclusion that alters the consensus reported by the article.  It doesn't conclude that homoeopathy has effects over placebo.  We don't need to cite an individual study that doesn't establish efficacy over placebo when the same thing is supported by secondary sources.
 * The purpose of this talk page is to discuss changes to the article. What specific changes to the article are you proposing, based on this study?  Brunton (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To stop reporting that the consensus is that Homeopathy is non sense because a number of secondary sources do not say that.It is misinformation. --George1935 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, could you provide the specific wording of the change with the source(s) you want to use? --McSly (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Until George1935 provides the sources he alludes to an edit suggestion would be rather premature. George, the consensus IS Homeopathy is nonsense. Perhaps you should look up the definition of consensus. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean among the editors here or according to the reliable sources wikipedia supposes to rely on to make such a statement? --George1935 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * George1935, you have been invited to provide your sources and instead you continue to make snide comments. Despite what you continually allege, Wikipedia has rules and they are being applied to this article. If you have a large number of WP:RS sources that support your position we would all love to see them. As it stands now you have provided 1 study and in the face of countless other studies it doesn't mean much. If you were to provide many studies and they all showed the same conclusion then we would include that information in the article and the degree of coverage would be proportionate to the number and quality of the studies. Until you provide this information - I and I suspect other editors are tiring of this conversation. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well ---the tired people can always take a break. I will provide the sources analytically. --George1935 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you do that, it is probably worth having a look at the archives for this talk page, to make sure that you aren't just bringing up the same points and sources that have already been discussed. Brunton (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Homeopathy a speculative, refuted concept as the article states or this is one side of the story?
Here are some sources which while do NOT prove homeopathy but they say that the findings of the research are positive but inconclusive. Definitely not a ...refuted concept.

Of course almost all the papers below-even if they are published in first rate journals have been edited out- in order to make the statement "Homeopathy is  a speculative, refuted concept"  sound well founded.

"Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness. Even if they call for more research they find strong evidence for efficacy and grounds for recommendations besides the statement for the effect beyond placebo.-"

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092 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.]

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18834714 The meta-analysis results change sensitively to the chosen threshold defining large sample sizes. Because of the high heterogeneity between the trials, Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented.]

"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. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®."

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 and "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."--George1935 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Flogging a dead horse George. Is your real name Dullman? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this the cue to start the Bullying??--George1935 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the archive pages? All of this has been discussed many, many times. --McSly (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The "refuted concept" is a new addition to the article and the sources above state something else than "refuting." --George1935 (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so what we have here is:
 * 1. An analysis of three studies by the same lead author, the first of which, according to the AMA (on a webage that is no longer available, but is quoted in the archives of this talk page), "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". According to the authors of the three papers, "all three studies followed the same basic study design, including similar entry criteria, treatment assignment, follow-up schedule, outcome measures and data analysis".  A larger study by the same team failed to find homoeopathy effective.


 * 2. A quotation from the abstract of a narrative review. 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. Here's what it 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 no conclusion of efficacy there.


 * 3. A reanalysis of the results of Shang 2005, which explicitly states in its conclusions that its results "do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite."


 * 4. The Cochrane review on Oscillococcinum that has already been mentioned above and which found that "There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made".


 * 5. Quotations from a letter to the editor of the Lancet, making some observations specific to the methodology of the Shang et al. analysis, and criticising some statements from a Lancet editorial that the article doesn't even cite,  The letter, incidentally, starts with an observation that "homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", and goes on to say that the authors' "1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven" (that follows on immediately from one of the passages you quoted).


 * All these have already been discussed here. There is nothing here to change the scientific consensus as reported in the article. Brunton (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All these are irrelevant. You are answering the wrong question. We are NOT talking about the strength  of the evidence.  These sources you like them or not DISPUTE the statement that homeopathy is refuted. It is a different point of view besides the sceptic point of view -- and since they appear in reliable sources their conclusions   have to be reported- not censored. --George1935 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect information. If the overwhelming consensus from the scientific community is that homeopathy is hokum, then it is against Wikipedia policy to include the findings of a few studies, which at best say homeopathy is not conclusively refuted. Cannolis (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the journals the overwhelming consensus from the scientific community is NOT  that homeopathy is hokum. These above  are high quality sources. There are NOT a ..few individual  studies - For instance, Cochrane review the best source available ( about oscilillo) states  findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect or  Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness''' from another j=high quality source which is a different study than Brunton cites and he knows it. --George1935 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20402610 which I believe is already cited. A review of Cochrane reviews on homeopathy. Cannolis (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know it - this is one point of view - it does not mean that this is only one. If other points of view are published in reliable sources they have to be also included. --George1935 (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:WEIGHT. Sources like the above which show reviews of reviews of Homeopathy show a scientific consensus. Cannolis (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The ..title of the review does not ...add extra weight- of course. What defines weight is the rate of the journal an paper or opinion published. All the above papers are published in first rate journals --George1935 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be misunderstanding the Wikipedia policy in play here, let me quote it: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." I was hoping you would read this and understand why we are against inclusion of this minority of inconclusive reviews. Cannolis (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are misrepresenting the policy ---Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] The above papers I cited - again- are published in first rate journals--George1935 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Okay, since you are apparently choosing to ignore the wealth of literature and want someone else to show it to you, lets. Just looking at all Cochrane summaries available for free on their site that mention homeopathy/homeopathic in their title:

1. http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003803/no-evidence-that-homeopathy-is-effective-in-treating-dementia (self explanatory title)

2. The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective

3. Overall the results of this review found no evidence of effectiveness for homeopathy for the global symptoms, core symptoms or related outcomes of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

4. The review of two trials, involving 133 women, found there was not enough evidence to show the effect of a homoeopathy as a method of induction.

5. [http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001957/homeopathic-oscillococcinumr-for-preventing-and-treating-influenza-and-influenza-like-illness Results from two poorly reported clinical trials (total of 327 participants) do not show that Oscillococcinum® can prevent the onset of flu. Although the results from four other clinical trials (total of 1196 participants) suggested that Oscillococcinum® relieved flu symptoms at 48 hours, this might be due to bias in the trial methods.]

6. [http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004845/homeopathic-medicines-for-adverse-effects-of-cancer-treatments Two studies with low risk of bias demonstrated benefit: one with 254 participants demonstrated benefits from calendula ointment in the prevention of radiotherapy-induced dermatitis, and another with 32 participants demonstrated benefits from Traumeel S (a complex homeopathic medicine) over placebo as a mouthwash for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. These trials need replicating. Two other studies reported positive results, although the risk of bias was unclear, and four further studies reported negative results]

7. [http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD009710/homeopathy-for-treatment-of-irritable-bowel-syndrome inconclusive - first study - "No conclusions can be drawn from this study due to the small number of participants and the low quality of reporting in this trial." other two - "However both of the studies were carried out in the 1970s when the reporting of trials was not as comprehensive as it is now. These studies were subject to bias which makes it difficult to determine whether the benefit found in these studies are a true reflection of the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment."]
 * In each case there is overall no evidence for efficacy. Furthermore, it is repeatedly noted that many homeopathic studies are either subject to or at risk of bias. It is overwhelmingly the case that the viewpoint in the published, reliable literature is that there is no evidence that homeopathy works. The opposing view is miniscule in prominence, and thus, per the following two sentences in WP policy, we do not include their viewpoint. To save us all from wasting more time, I would urge you look into the archives of this talk page as has been suggested by others, this has been hashed out in the past. Cannolis (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Compare to what is "minuscule" ? How you calculate the percentage which is negative? Arithmetically ? --George1935 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * George, you write, with reference to a quotation about diarrhea (or possibly also one about oscillococcinum; you are not very clear) discussed above that it is "from another j=high quality source which is a different study than Brunton cites and he knows it." The studies discussed above are the ones you cited.  Oh, and please try to WP:AGF.  Brunton (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The larger study you refer to was NOT about individualized homeopathy. The meta analyses I refer to they is  about individualized homeopathy. --George1935 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a meta-analysis of three studies by the same lead author, performed by that author, so there are issues with replicability in addition to the issues already noted above. It concluded that future studies should have larger sizes.  Has such a study been carried out, apart from the 2006 paper you are objecting to?  Brunton (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a different study. It is about INDIVIDUALIZED homeopathy. No repeating a study does not automatically disqualify it. --George1935 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Studies showing that homeopathy is placebo vs studies that state the evidence is positive but not conclusive or compelling part 1 Dementia cochrane Reviews
Lets see - Cannolis I think you just cherry picking and you change what the studies actually say- For instance you wrote http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003803/no-evidence-that-homeopathy-is-effective-in-treating-dementia (self explanatory title)

but the study concludes---

Homeopathy is however controversial because although there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo, no one understands how it could work. The researchers did not find any good quality trials and so 'cannot say whether it is or is not effective for treating this condition'. - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003803/no-evidence-that-homeopathy-is-effective-in-treating-dementia#sthash.Pdye3pra.dpuf

Sorry but this study states the opposite you are saying - besides that they clearly state  "although there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo" look above --this is not a study but a statement that they found no good trials to EVALUATE it. They did not say we evaluated the method and we concluded it is placebo. So this is not a negative study - besides that fact that it recognizes that there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo''' Is not that funny? --George1935 (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "There is some evidence that it is not just a placebo." The study did not state "there is some credible evidence that it is not just a placebo."  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ( this is not the point of the discussion but ) Credible evidence ? I did not know there is such a thing as ...non credible evidence..... Any way thats their words - Cohrane review- it shows the authors impressions from the available literature and wikipedia has to report it unless you believe that Cohrane reviews can be trusted only when they make anti homeopathy statements. --George1935 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is getting close to quote-mining. We can't use a review that concluded that there is no good evidence for the condition it studied to imply that homoeopathy has effects over placebo.  Brunton (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like this study failed to reach any definite conclusions. H eptor   talk 13:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't even read that one, just the title. The conclusions of the review, however, are still not exactly impressive evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy - this goes back to many homeopathic studies being of such poor quality Cannolis (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well - If the authors of a Cohrane review write that 'there is some evidence that Homeopathy is not just a placebo plus 4 at least  of the previous first rate journals  which state almost the same -- how minuscule is this point of view compare with the skeptical point of view ( all is placebo ) . Proportionally seems to be really significant and this has to be reflected in the articleGeorge1935 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It already is George. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article writes that the consensus is that Homeopathy = placebo which is false according to the highest quality sources available. The researchers have reached different conclusions which cannot be summarized in one single sided view. --George1935 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article mentions in the lead that "although some clinical trials produce positive results [...]". This statement is consistent with the Cohrane publication that you refer to (McCarney et al), which mentions that some evidence exists, but it is impossible to draw conclusions based on the available data ("In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia"). It appears that you have reached a conclusion by isolating a single sentence from the context of that report. H eptor   talk 21:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No it is misleading- it says that "systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. " which is wrong at least  ---one sided. The view of the authors of the specific review - with the others I have cited above DEPARTS from this view- they do say the overall evidence shows there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo. They do NOT say that it has been shown in general that it is all placebo. --George1935 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering the totality
There is a statement in the lead that I feel is left dangling in the logical flow of the article. It says that "Homeopaths select remedies by [...], and by considering the totality of the patient's symptoms, personal traits, physical and psychological state, and life history". Is there any kind of guidelines by which the homeopath is to consider those things? Or is this task essentially left to his or her free imagination? H eptor  talk 20:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that statement is referenced to another Wikipedia The Organon of the Healing Art article which is rather lacking in references. Here is a link to the actual book "The Organon of the Healing Art" (not sure which edition) - https://ia700509.us.archive.org/5/items/homoeopathicmedi00hahn/homoeopathicmedi00hahn.pdf I beleive the information you are looking for starts on page 277, I found it a bit lenghty but the sentence in Homeopathy article does seem to sum it up.--Daffydavid (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clearing that up! H eptor   talk 21:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

 * Anyway, in an attempt to get back on track, George, I disagree with re-instating the tag. It is my opinion that the tone of the article is well in line with the scientific consensus that is thoroughly referenced in the article. We have somewhat discussed the 1st of the 7 available Cochrane review summaries on homeopathy that I was able to find, perhaps we could leave all this drama behind and return to discussing the remaining 6? Cannolis (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To me this is not a good faith discussion. The tag is self evident. I nominated the article to be checked for neutrality and from what you can see a number of editor agree that there is a neutrality problem. The people who revert the tag say that there is no discussion - and there were feeling so strong about that that they almost tried to ban me from wikipedia.  I find that abusive, pretentious  and dishonest. The worst part is that they pretend that there is no discussion about the neutrality of the article  - for instance between you and me - so  it must be our imagination that we exchange  messages. The main goal is to give the false impression that there is no discussion over the neutrality of the article so readers will not participate in the talk page. How close in this to the wiki spirit for good faith - ? --George1935 (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What people who revert the tag are saying is, "there is no discussion with specific examples we can debate." Simply declaring "POV!!1!" isn't discussing anything, nor is saying it's "self-evident." If you want to stop and provide some concrete places in the article you feel need altered, that would be a discussion. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems you are not aware of the discussion above- I edited the article - based on high quality sources I cited - and THEN i added the tag. Take a look above.. --George1935 (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the discussion above. Part of it is the sources you cited need to be discussed first, not unilaterally tossed into the article with repeated assertions tha they are "high quality" based on your word alone. Work on that part. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the lancet, Pediatrics, annals of internal medicine, high quality sources because I say so or it is self evident? --George1935 (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@George Arguing about tags is almost never productive. If you're looking to get additional input, try other methods of dispute resolution, like DRV or an RfC. That being said, if multiple experienced editors are telling you that your complaint is not in line with our content policies, it may be worth considering that you're not as experienced with our content policies as you could be. WP:WEIGHT is an important one, and it can be tricky for many new editors. The original edits (which were reverted here) substantially shift the weight of the article in a way our sources indicate is undue. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The question is - Do you find honest to say that there is  no discussion in the talk page  on the neutrality of the article therefore the tag should be removed? It does not matter whether an editor is experienced or s/he is the pope. It is not rocket science. --George1935 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stick to discussing specific content—text which needs to be changed, or removed, or added. There has been a lot of meta-discussion above, but practically none about specific content. My comment at 05:11, 16 March 2014 above has not been addressed with more than generic complaints. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about the tag and one should be able to answer what I m asking  "if it is honest to say that there is   no discussion in the talk page  on the neutrality of the article therefore the tag should be removed"? So far people say - please do not ask this question.  You don'r have to give an answer if it makes you uncomfortable. --George1935 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If the only thing you're prepared to discuss is whether there even is a discussion, then no, I don't see any problem saying there isn't one. Your question is a waste of time. What's the change to the article, and what are the sources backing it up? If there's already consensus, then see WP:DR or drop the stick.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not continue for now - taking a short break --- thanks for  your answer- though -  it completely summarizes all the attitude which prevails in this forum : pretension, a little abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=599026217 and I did not hear that -- thing-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#Is_Homeopathy_a_speculative.2C_refuted_concept_as_the_article_states_or_this_is_one_side_of_the_story.3F Did you say anything ? What discussion? --George1935 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The tag was/is there because the article was nominated for a review (discussion) of its neutrality (not because there is a discussion but to call for one). I think that review has taken place, albeit, very informally and unsystematically due, I think, to inexperience of the nominator. The unstructured nature of the review may have resulted in uncertainty as to its outcome, but a very long history of similar discussions here has produced the consensus exhibited by the article in its current state, consistent with Wikipedia's pseudoscience policy as summarized at WP:PSCI. Joja lozzo  15:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. George1935 is in essence complaining that Wikipedia's policy on neutrality (which is quite specific about not giving undue weight to fringe pseudoscientific theories) doesn't accord with his views as to what the term ought to mean. Given that we couldn't alter Wikipedia policy on this here even if there was consensus to do so (which there clearly isn't), the 'neutrality' tag is misplaced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course this is not what I m saying- my basic suggestions were 1. to stop distorting the views of the authors who have investigate  the clinical trials to look like they say - it is all placebo while they say something different.2. To stop censoring reviews and papers form high quality sources just because their view on homeopathy differs. 3. The tag shows that a number of editors disagree with point of view and want to invite ordinary readers to comment - but the group which control the article wants to keep this discussion secret since they dont want people to compare the actual sources content with their distortions in the article. 4. I cannot sustain this pretention described above.     --George1935 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where, exactly, is the article "distorting the views of the authors"?  You say that these authors "say something different", but what exactly have they said and where are you proposing to source it from?  What specific changes are you proposing?  As has already been pointed out, the article can't imply that researchers have concluded that homoeopathy has effects over placebo in the absence of systematic reviews that have concluded this.  Brunton (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Τhe number of quality studies that show Homeopathy is useless (or only as good as placebo) versus the quality studies that show Homeopathy's efficacy or inconclusive
George, care to quantify for us the number of quality studies that show Homeopathy is useless (or only as good as placebo) versus the quality studies that show otherwise? Your own comment above indicates that you are aware that Cochrane only said "some evidence that it is not just a placebo" which it doesn't specify what "some" means(at least not in the abstract). It then goes on to say "researchers did not find any good quality trials" which is pretty much another way of saying all they found was reports filled with "chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias." --Daffydavid (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly I do not do original research to conduct my own meta analysis to arrive to conclusions like that. The editors of the article should not do either. because this is against wikipedias policy. I m just pointing out the significant number of first rate sources which hold the view that Homeopathy is not just placebo but there is some evidence that it is not just a placebo. The statement in the Cohrane review is about Homeopathy in general. Regarding what you wrote  the "researchers did not find any good quality trials" which pretty much another way of saying all they found was reports filled with "chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias : of course this is not the meaning -- having no data to evaluate CANNOt really mean ---they found was reports filled with "chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. They are very clear : form the studies they were NOT able to arrive to any conclusion whether homeopathy works or not. --George1935 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Providing us the numbers would not be WP:OR but would instead be helpful in determining if WP:UNDUE is being properly applied. In the abstract you provided above "There were no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and no data to present." So yes, it's really hard to say whether Homeopathy works or not when they can't find any good data. However this is one study, versus countless others. So again, if you think the article is biased, then provide the numbers so it can be determined if WP:UNDUE is being properly applied. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The reviews and meta analyses provide that you are asking - I pointed out several first rate journals which hold this view. I can quantify them versus the ones which state homeopathy is placebo -I showed some of them - they are at least 5-6 --George1935 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So there are only 11 studies? Well in that case feel free to list them so we can all have a go at verifying your information. --04:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The results of the review were that there is no evidence that homoeopathy is effective in treating dementia. The statement "about Homeopathy in general" is not part of the results of the review, but part of its "background" section, and is referenced to the 1997 Linde et al. review which the article already discusses.  Brunton (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of opinions here with most editors basing their conclusions very quickly on what they consider "established" and "fact" and not openly discussing the particular issue. However we are possibly getting to the nub of the issue with what Brunton says.

I haven't had time yet to look at that, but if this is an academic article that includes a review of a meta analysis, that must have academic importance and is not to be dismissed off handed - nor from editors prejudice. If they are merely (mis)quoting the findings of other academics, then this would need to be evidenced, not assumed. If that is the case, then we can package it in that way.

In summary, it's not for our original research in concluding why the authors say what they do, but for us to report what they say with any definite context attached if that context is relevant. Cjwilky (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't "include a review of a meta analysis", it uses Linde 1997, in its background section, as a reference for a statement that "some studies (Linde 1997) have found evidence for efficacy of homeopathic treatment for some conditions". As far as evidence for particular conditions is concerned, Linde 1997 itself concluded that "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition", and its authors' 1999 reanalysis of the same dataset, with particular reference to study quality, found that it was "likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments".   Brunton (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "At least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments" does NOT mean that homeopathy = placebo according to the authors. Besides that the dementia review shows the impression of the authors about the efficacy of Homeopathy in general  - From all the available sources in the article ( besides the censored ones ) only Shang says it is ALL placebo - the other authors say it might  positive for some conditions ( see Linde's letter who makes this statement citing his own work )- inconclusive which is quite different than the article assumption.--George1935 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think user:Brunton deserves credit for going through each of those "censored" publications and explaining why they present a fringe minority view, which is properly presented in the article. H eptor   talk 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Annals of internal medicine, Pediatrics, the Lancet and Cohrane reviews are fringe? --George1935 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As user:Brunton pointed out, the results from the first one you listed could not be replicated by the same authors in a later study. I did examine the remaining ones in any closer detail. H eptor   talk 21:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IT could not be replicated ? Read carefully- What a I cited is about INDIVIDUALIZED homeopathy and cannot be compared with a different study Brutnon cites-- He already  knows it.
 * The conclusions were " The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness." It is a pretty clear evidence of efficacy published in a first rate journal  --  How can you regard all the above first rate journals as fringe? --George1935 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, you found a study that is actually a statistical analysis of 3 other other studies where we are to assume the "individualized" homeopathic treatment was the same. Why then if this doctor has been able to produce a study with positive results would he produce a study that had no advantage over placebo. Hell, he had all the data at his disposal to do the same thing and voila - more positive results. Too bad it didn't work out that way -- "There was no significant difference in the likelihood of resolution of diarrheal symptoms between the treatment and placebo groups." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17034278 So now we have a study by the same lead author saying he had positive results and he had nil results (no better than placebo. We could go on like this forever, but the important thing to take away from all this is to stop cherry picking studies to support your point. You were invited above to quantify the total number of high quality studies with positive results versus the number with nil or negative results, instead you keep trying to analyze individual lines from individual studies. Is this because you know that the numbers are not in your favour? --Daffydavid (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't really know what is the difference between individualized homeopathy and homeopathy which use the same remedy for everybody. Read the article you defend. This is a different method and a different meta analysis which showed efficacy. The study you refer to was NOT a attempt to replicate-- the studies Pediatrics refer to and found to be effective. --George1935 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * George, as usual with homeopathists, you are relying on the supposition that this contention is new and compelling. A few questions for you:
 * Why mention Linde 1997 and not Linde 1999, which acknowledged that Linde 1997 was unsuppoortable because they had failed to take account of the fact taht increasing study quality correlates with reducing chances of a positive result?
 * Why mention the diarrhea meta-analysis and not the critiques noting that it took mutually incompatible endpoints, and combined them?
 * Why would it be a surprise that there is a small net positive evidence base from RCTs? That is precisely what is expected for an inert intervention (see Ioannidis and other sources).
 * In what way is a study that "can not rule out" some effect, supportive for the actual existence of that effect despite the total absence of any remotely plausible mechanism by which it might work? Did you not see that Boiron has removed the claims of effect from its packaging in the US following a class action?
 * My biggest problem with homeopathists is the use of points refuted a thousand times. Only creationists are more prone to this. It is very tiresome. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't read the text of the source George is citing, but I did manage to find the | NICE Clinical Guidelines for Diarrhoea and Vomiting Caused by Gastroenteritis from 2009 which actually evaluates both the review George cites and the study Daffydavid and Brunton have in some detail. See the section on homeopathic care. The NICE guidelines note what George has said, that the review found positive findings, but "However, as overall the treatment groups were not similar for age, weight and height at baseline, these findings should be treated cautiously as they may overestimate the true treatment effect size." Like with the other Cochrane reviews I listed, the question of bias is raised with many homeopathic studies, and as has been pointed out, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Cannolis (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a criticism which could be included- but it does not mean because a paper is criticized should be excluded. Shang's study has been heavily criticized  in reliable sources - that means that it should be removed from he sources ?  And stop repeating exceptional claims require exceptional sources because ALL the studies I cited are published in exceptional sources -- Lancet, Pediatrics, Cohrane reviews unless  you regard these sources  as fringe? --George1935 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, homoeopathy is regarded as fringe. It'll take more than a few inconclusive reviews, flawed studies, and letters to editors stating that "homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust" to overturn the clear scientific consensus reported by the article.  Brunton (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies in advance if anyone minds me reformatting the two above comments to fit the outdenting I did. George, it is not that we consider the journals themselves fringey, but that the select papers in journals are espousing a view that is incompatible with the multidisciplinary scientific consensus that is already described in this article - namely that homeopathic remedies have no basis in modern science and have not been incontrovertibly shown to be effective. A related example would be that of Benveniste's water memory study. This was published in Nature, a model of reliability. However, the claims it made were so extraordinary that the editor of Nature published it with a letter warning readers to be wary of the results until the study was replicated, which has never been incontrovertibly done. This lack of scientific basis for homeopathic remedies and the clear consensus in the scientific community is why we re-iterate that exceptional claims require exceptional proof - papers that are not just published in well-regarded journals, but are also of extraordinary quality and bias free. Cannolis (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a logical fallacy - "papers that are not just published in well-regarded journals, but are also of extraordinary quality and bias free" and also  inconsistent with wikipedia;s policy --who is the judge?---Are you evaluating the papers published in Pediatrics, for instance,   yourself and decide  which paper is good enough? --- Since a paper is published in first rate source its conclusions deserve reporting no matter what it says- This is the wiki policy which supposes to regulate neutral editing; the weight and rate of the source defines its  reliability and prominence not the anonymous editor.  ALL meta analyses used currently in article do NOT say that homeopathy = placebo besides Shang. ---Besides the censored sources ---If you have any doubts lets examine one by one. Beneviste example does not support what you are saying: There was an attempted replicated study which failed. ( Some people say it was not a replication but anyhow) .  Does wikipedia  exclude from the article  the original Beneviste paper because of the  failed replication? Of course not and the papers which I cited have NOT been attempted tp be replicated and failed ) --George1935 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the one the results of which were later questioned by its own authors as having "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments" (and six published re-analyses of which have "arrived at a less than positive conclusion"), the systematic reviews and analyses have all failed to establish efficacy. That means that they don't exclude "homeopathy = placebo" (as you put it), or that they are, to quote the 2005 Shang paper, "compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects".
 * George wrote, "You don't really know what is the difference between individualized homeopathy and homeopathy which use the same remedy for everybody." As fear as the results of systematic reviews are concerned, no difference whatsoever: some evidence, not conclusive because of issues with the trials, and "when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen.".  Brunton (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is false - they did not try to establish ...efficacy-- most of them were positive and inconclusive.The authors disagreed with the notion that is all placebo. Read it again. --George1935 (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * George, they were clearly trying to establish whether or not homoeopathy has effects over placebo. If they, as you claim, "did not try to establish ...efficacy", then they aren't even relevant to this discussion.  We can't use reviews that weren't investigating efficacy to source statements about efficacy.  However, they were looking at this question, and they failed to conclusively establish efficacy.  They do not exclude placebo.  Brunton (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it an anti homeopathy propaganda piece or an article about homeopathy?
For instance:

Continued homeopathic practice, despite the lack of compelling evidence has been criticized as unethical because it increases the suffering of patients by discouraging the use of medicine that works,[21] with the World Health Organisation warning against using homeopathy to try to treat severe diseases such as HIV and malaria.[22] The continued practice, despite the lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to characterizations within the scientific community of Homeopathy as nonsense,[23] quackery,[24][25][26] or a sham.[27]

How many times you have to write -- it does not work - it does not work- in one paragraph ? --George1935 (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There are quite a few 'anti' propaganda pieces on Wikipedia. For example, here and here. 221.133.75.209 (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How else are we supposed to cover fringe theories with minimal following in the relevant scientific communities? H eptor   talk 14:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By following the wikipedia guidelines, showing good faith and stop pretending that the exceptional sources I cited (departing from the point of view - Homeopathy= placebo= scam ) do not exist or that their number is insignificant.  I m tagging the article POV-check - maybe other editors should express their opinion-  --George1935 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * George, unless you can give decent reasons for the placement of the pov tag, it will be swiftly removed. You ought to justify such a placement. Nothing on this talk page justifies it so far. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted as querulous - read the archive to this talk page, there's a lot of it and you've raised no concern that hasn't been raised before - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * see! -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't like people to be informed that there is a discussion going on huh? I wonder why? --George1935 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What discussion? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is not that kind of abusive ? The first time  you are calling me names and now you revert me and you are saying there is no discussion? --George1935 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * George1935, you will not win this argument through perseverance although it is becoming more and more apparent that this is your plan. Tagging an article with a WP:POV tag in the hopes of gathering more people to rally to support your cause will not help either. Wikipedia works by consensus not majority vote. You have repeatedly ignored requests for the information supporting your arguments (number of quality studies supporting your argument vs. number of studies against - just one example request) and instead continue to repeat yourself as if that will somehow win the argument. Please read the archived talk pages and stop wasting everybody's time. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Daffydavid, that isn't true, you know that consensus tends to mean majority on here. It's evidenced many times, go look. The majority of editors here are signed up skeptics and as such are not nuetral on this. Many people come to edit here who have pro homeopathy views and are bullied off. It's happened endlessly - one of the worst bullies was unofficially warned off from this article. You may want to say the new eds are merely confronted with wiki procedure, but meanwhile they are riled and bullied (not by all eds I must add - but eds such as Roxy here demonstrate the case quite well - sorry to have to name and shame, but sometimes a stick is needed). What is left are the same bunch of eds, mainly the psuedoskeptics, and the skeptics.

User:George1935 I urge you to stick around, don't get drawn into the confrontation that the skeptics here are trying to instigate. There are serious issues with this article, many people read just the intro here and see it as a joke. You will be told to read through the archives - as if they hold some ultimate truth. Some issues have been discussed reasonably, but many have been decided by majority bullying. There have been editors come here to lend a hand, and most have given up. I think the point George makes well here is the amount of repetition of "it doesn't work".Cjwilky (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All experienced editors know that disputes such as seen here are a dime-a-dozen—there are hundreds of pages just like this where people arrive to tell the world how wonderful their favorite thing is. A good way to think about it is to imagine a reader who wants some information about a topic (say something in the news like MH370)—how would someone feel if they read that article and later discovered that it had been largely written by a couple of people who believe that a UFO was responsible for the disappearance? Most people do not want to read articles written by people who espouse FRINGE views because they would be reading essentially arbitrary text which may or may not correspond to reality. It is far better for articles to be based on reliable sources which duly summarize what is known about a topic. If someone has a problem with the current state of this article, they should start by describing the problem in terms of policies—what text is in the article that fails WP:NPOV? why? what text is omitted that fails fails WP:NPOV? why? What is wrong with explaining that "it does not work" in unequivocal terms? How should the text be written? Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cj, you of all people shouldn't be bringing up the subject of bullying after your attack on me. I agree with Johnuniq. His comment gives George a series of guidelines that (if he is willing to abide them) may allow us to move back to a productive discussion. I for one am not optimistic that this will happen. --Daffydavid (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a poor attempt to deflect from the skeptic bullying daffydavid, denial rather than a search for truth appears to be a domminant trait of pseudo skeptics.


 * Johnuniq, you know fully that the "skeptic" eds on here will tend to look for evidence against homeopathy as that is their belief system. Take Edzard Ernst who has an a priori belief that homeopathy doesn't work and publishes work to "prove" that which makes up a large amount of the data used by skeptics to make their point. Just because other "skeptics" out there who have academic qualifications choose to publish works backing up Ernst et al, doesn't mean they are evidencing some kind of truth. But then the bulk of psuedo skeptic editors on this article don't just report this. They are pseudo, they have a mission, they are not NPOV, and contrive an article that is far from giving the reader balanced information. The result of this is an article that says homeopathy doesn't work 14 times in its lead of 12 sentences - or did you not read the lead? Cjwilky (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cjwilky, I suggest you read WP:AGF, WP:BLP, and perhaps also WP:COI. Brunton (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cj, did I miss something here or are you just living in denial? Or perhaps you need to read WP:POTKETTLE, and yes I am aware of the irony of mentioning it. --Daffydavid (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Brunton, thanks for your pointers, however, VERY strange you don't see WP:COI as applying to skeptic editors here. Even more strange that I don't recall you mentioning WP:AGF to the more aggressive, even abusive, skeptic editors. Why is that?
 * Daffydavid, no denial here, just pointing out the blatant hypocrasy which I know you see but you, and all the skeptics here, turn one of your blind eyes to. Cjwilky (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you need to read WP:AGF. Brunton (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't hypocrisy when you remove the tag saying that "there is no discussion " or when you call me names -without any of the above ..civility  guardians to say one word--isn;t hypocrisy to lecture us about ...good faith?  Is abuse part of the talk page -discussion -rules when you disagree with someone   It seems to be --George1935 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please also note WP:3RR - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you part of the abuse team? --George1935 (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, though obviously I'm not going to use my admin powers in a dispute I'm involved in - but anyone can report 3RR: Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling names and reverting without actual participation is NOT a recognized form of a civil discussion in my book.It would be more civl and in the spirit of wikipedia to participate in the discussion instead of lying--- there is no discussion - when there is a real discussion going on. Don't you think this is a more noble action beneficial to the purpose of this talk page - compare with the  bureaucratic tricks you are trying to play? --George1935 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The neutrality Tag should certainly stay in the article. George1935 edits were good ones. I was actually quite surprised to see the lead on this article finally being reasonable and NPOV.79.180.150.136 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Cj, just how short is your memory? You are clearly having trouble remembering that you have already attempted character assassination and failed miserably as seen above above in the section named External links. Cj, George and Ip editor, propose actual changes(with valid reasons while abiding by Wikipedia rules) and give it up on the accusations unless that's all you got, which in that case feel free to start a blog somewhere else.--Daffydavid (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He has one. Chris is a homeopath and a prolific proponent of bullshit. Your Google-fu does not need to be terribly strong to find his COI. Guy (Help!) 19:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I feel like discussion has very rapidly degenerated into finger pointing and general lack of AGF. The subject of this article is obviously quite contentious, but it seemed like we were still mostly talking about content prior to this thread. George, from a look at the case was opened at the WP:3RR page, it looks like you do not understand why repeatedly reinstating the tag was edit-warring. The tagging of the article and the subsequent removal of the tag is a standard part of the editing cycle. You boldly made a change that you felt was right and then dissenting editors removed it. The next step would've been been discussion about the specific edit before reinstating the tag, and while we have indeed been discussing content that is related to NPOV and weight, there was certainly no consensus built among editors participating in the discussion to add that tag, and so you would've needed to discuss the addition of the tag. Instead, you re-added the tag in violation of WP:BRD and WP:3RR without further meaningful discussion, which is the definition of edit warring.

Inconclusive evidence for efficacy
There are review articles in reliable sources with inconclusive summaries. These vague conclusions have created difficulties in reporting the status of scientific analysis and give rise to criticisms of our editorial neutrality. Because some of these reviews say there is very weak evidence for possible homeopathy efficacy over placebo in a few instances, requiring further study, perhaps a separate section on "Inconclusive evidence of efficacy" and a single statement in the lead about this might address these criticisms without unduly compromising the "inefficacious, pseudoscience" position for the rest of the article. Joja lozzo  15:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why? The evidence is inconclusive - you say so yourself in the title of this section. Decent studies, which we have, show that homeopathasists are conning their customers by claiming it has some effect, when we know it doesn't. Why should Wikipedia not report properly? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The authors of the reviews  besides ( shang and ernst ) say this is an overstatement that homeopathy is all  placebo - some of the reviews of specific conditions  the authors recommend homeopathy.. Others reviews dispute the statement that Homeopathy has no benefit. An encyclopedia should present all the evidence and points of view ( as long they appear in reliable sources )  not only the skeptical point of view. .I agree with  Joja  lozzo  15:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC) --George1935 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * George, your 1st and 3rd link are not studies but letters to the editor(or online comment) from the same author, the 2nd comment is the study we discussed already and the same author couldn't replicate his findings in a subsequent study. So, you need better and more studies (not letters to the editor) to justify including this "information" in the article.--Daffydavid (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The authors referring to their own  reviews the article cites to support that all is placebo say:  If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4 they cite their own review for this sentence), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. which  really differs from the statement the article makes ( consensus that it is all placebo) --- it is a crystal clear  case of distortion of ones views. Regarding the second --Read more carefully saying "the same author couldn't replicate his findings in a subsequent study" is false. They did NOT try to replicate the first study-- the first one was about individualized homeopathy the second one is NOT about  individualized homeopathy. This is a big difference.--George1935 (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The point George is even if what you say is true, it doesn't satisfy WP:WEIGHT. As for your analysis of my summary, while I may have oversimplified, does individualized homeopathy have numerous positive studies that you can share with us? And just what exactly is individualized homeopathy? I mean specifically the definition, with WP:RS sources not just your opinion.--Daffydavid (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition there is the 2009 evaluation of the 2nd study, cited by Cannolis above, which described its results as "questionable". Brunton (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This means nothing -- l Shang's study has been criticized more harshly in exceptional sources but it is still used - and it should be used.OF course the exceptional  sources  which criticize it have been again ...censored. Surprise surprise. --George1935 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice dogging of Daffydavid's question?


 * As far as I recall, those "exceptional" sources were rejected because of low quality. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For example ? --George1935 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For examplehere, less than 2 weeks ago.


 * And 3 days ago, in the third message of this section, you presented more low-quality sources, which were also rejected. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Roxy, you appear to have a strong bias against homeopathy. I think if you had a more balanced perspective you'd be able to see that if reliable sources say that they lack conclusive evidence for determining whether homeopathy is better than placebo, then we need to report those conclusions. That's why. I'd like to hear from others here who are coming at this from a neutral perspective. Joja  lozzo  21:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer to think of it as a pro science/reality/mainstream bias, so I am against conmen and quacks of all description. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The neutral perspective is that homeopathy cannot work because its principles are in contradiction with basic laws of physics.--McSly (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I sympathize, truly, but the neutral criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not what we know to be true. Right? Joja  lozzo  00:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are preaching to the converted, but tell it to George, CJ and all the other woolly thinkers around here. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WP:WEIGHT may come more into play here. A few inconclusive studies does not outweigh the scientific consensus Cannolis (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what WP:WEIGHT dictates " Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources".  Even the majority of the meta analyses currently used in the article ( without counting the censored  ones equally exceptional sources ) state that the evidence for homeopathy is positive but inconclusive -- and the authors make very clear that it does NOT mean that it is placebo. Of course only 2 reviews say that homeopathy is no sense. --George1935 (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the policy for Verifiability includes Weight, but Weight doesn't mean the majority rules and we can ignore reliably sourced minority results. It means we need to include all points of view that are supported by reliable sources in proportion to their predominance in the sources. I am proposing that it would be appropriate weight to include a section that discusses the inconclusive results in reliable secondary review sources. Joja  lozzo  03:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And just what "reliable" secondary review sources do we have which say that x >> x ? The cohort size necessary to reliably distinguish the effect of two placebos (test placebo vs control placebo) to beyond random variance is of course infinite. So far, nobody's gotten funding to run an infinite-cadre trial. LeadSongDog  come howl!  21:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said all the reviews ( currently cited in the article ) besides Ernst and Shang say - positive but inconclusive -- besides the censored studies. Also [|here]. --George1935 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We have reliable secondary sources that conclude there is weak evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. Our personal interpretations of those conclusions do not have a place here (that's a big piece of what WP:V is about) except in determining weight. I'm still waiting to hear some neutral, policy-based arguments for excluding these results from the article. (setting out into the night with my lantern...) Joja  lozzo  22:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * These results are not excluded from the article. The issue is already included in the subsection of the "Efficacy" section headed "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy".  While some reviews have found "weak evidence" for efficacy, they have reasons for describing it as weak - in the earliest reviews that the quality overall is poor, and in later reviews that examined trial quality in more detail (e.g. Linde 1999 and Cucherat 2000) that the positive results were more likely to come from poor quality trials.  We don't need to add another section to discuss this and in effect, give the poor-quality trials undue weight.  The lede reports the scientific consensus, which is that while some trials have produced positive results, efficacy is not established (I'm not particularly happy with the wording, but if I recall correctly it was the consensus arrived at after discussion about translating the scientific terminology of the reviews into plainer English). Brunton (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a basic disregard for the principles of statistics as applied to this problem. "Positive but inconclusive", in this context, means that some studies indicate that homeopathy is helpful in treating some conditions, but that, overall, it is statistically inseparable from a placebo.  It may be correct (although misleading) to say that there is some evidence of its efficacy.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on where you draw the line between poor statistics and hearsay. I know people who claim that homeopathy helped them. I could certainly count them and write a report about it. Would you call it "weak evidence" or quack science? H eptor   talk 11:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting from the end. @Heptor - I think the quality and weight of the sources count and NOT what one thinks of them. @ Rubin- the " overall, it is statistically inseparable from a placebo." is your conclusion - even the authors who are cited make it clear that the statement Homeopathy = placebo is an overstatement and that there is some evidence it is working for some conditions. To summarize their opinion  with the authors saying it is all placebo is misleading and kind of misinformation. @Brunton Linde and all write However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results Less positive does not mean that it is all placebo- it means weak evidence. But still positive. Overall there is NO consensus at least  among the authors who published on homeopathy in high quality sources -you can see  --the (suppressed)  the disagreements among them as they appear in high quality  sources  . --George1935 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * George, linking a letter to the editor(twice) is not going to win this argument. I can quote from it too - "homoeopathy is highly implausible", but since it is a letter to the editor it's essentially useless as a source.--Daffydavid (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, flawed studies are from time to time published in reputable journals. This is usually caused by pure chance, flawed research methods or outright fraud. There are examples of that in many other fields of research. A few studies are therefore not enough to cast a serious doubt on an interdisciplinary scientific consensus. Even if one were to look at the efficacy of the homeopathic remedies isolated from the implausibility of such claims, the overwhelming majority of the published studies fail to show any distinction between the homeopathic preparations and placebo. The summary in the lead, "Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[16][17] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias", is a correct representation of the current state of research.  H eptor   talk 18:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * -@Daffydavid you asked the same question before -- Sorry to repeat myself as I said before The authors referring to their own reviews-- the article cites to  falsely support that all is placebo say: If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4 they cite their own review for this sentence), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered; which really differs from the statement the article makes ( consensus that it is all placebo) --- it is a crystal clear case of distortion of ones views. @ Heptor - what you writing departs from wiki policy -neutral, policy-based as defined from wikipedia. You have to report all the points of view and their weight is defined by the quality and rate of the  source not from what you personally believe as truth. The majority of the already used sources do not support the articles lede - that its all placebo -only 2 reviews support that |even if we dont count the censored reviews published in first rate journals. --George1935 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to play the policy card please read MEDSCI. Scientific consensus is to be summarized, individual primary studies are to be treated with caution, views of tiny minorities need not to be reported. The current content is 100% in line with the policy. H eptor   talk 20:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know the policy. What tiny minorities and primary studies ? I referred only  to the point of views shown in systematic reviews, reviews and meta analyses already  cited and misrepresented in the article and the ones which have been censored , all published in first rate sources.There is no consensus  there. --George1935 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they all were primary and fringe. However, they all represent a fringe view, and Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials is a review of a three papers by the same lead author, which makes it a primary source for the purposes of the policy. H eptor   talk 21:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The definition f a secondary source is very specific ; this is a secondary source and as such and it is published in a first rate journal. Therefore according to the wikipolicy one has to report it. Besides that ,there is  the point of view shown in systematic reviews, reviews and meta analyses already  cited and misrepresented in the article and the ones which have been censored , all published in first rate sources.There is no consensus  there according to these sources that it is all placebo -only 2 state that. The rest is positive but inconclusive or weak evidence. --George1935 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice Wikilawyering. But no. The intent of WP:MEDPRI is to avoid primary studies before they undergo some criticism by the community. This problem is not specific to homeopathy - the policy mentions that many other primary studies are often unreproducable. H eptor   talk 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have to reply with arguments and be specific. Can you point out according to what policy specifically the studies I cited are primary? Don't say read this - you have to point out exactly what is the definition of a secondary study and why what I cited does not comply with this definition.--George1935 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The last study that you mention is technically a secondary, but for the purposes of source quality it's a primary, because it's still the same authors. H eptor   talk 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any requirement in the definition that if one author is the same then it is regarded as primary source. Besides that the acceptance to be published by a reputable journal as a meta analysis - gives the necessary  weight and makes it a usable as a secondary source not my personal opinion or yours.  --George1935 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a secondary source which is no more representative of the scientific consensus than a primary source. H eptor   talk 23:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that you keep changing your own words-- from primary source - it became a secondary source-- but it does not say what  you think ...it should say ---so censor it ?---This is a sequence of logical fallacies - and of course the scientific consensus that H = only placebo exists  solely in the imagination of the "skeptic"  group after they  edit out all the reliable sources which state the opposite or something different   - it does not exits  even in the cited sources. --George1935 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Brunton and Arthur: Thanks for your clear arguments. I agree that we've done a good job covering the reviews in the Efficacy section - actually "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy". My idea was to address concerns about neutrality by reporting the early inconclusive reviews ([16][18][19][160]) in their own section. Perhaps a better section title than the one I originally proposed would be "Early inconclusive meta-analyses". However, I'm having trouble seeing how we could restructure that section without interrupting the flow. The more I think about my proposal the more it seems my idea unduly compromises the article's quality. This may be due to my inadequate editorial abilities, but in any case, I'm standing down unless and until someone proposes wording and structure that maintains the existing quality. Joja lozzo  03:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Any suggestions? --George1935 (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Since we are repeating ourselves, care to dodge this question again George? - Just what exactly is individualized homeopathy? I mean specifically the definition, with WP:RS sources not just your opinion. While we are at it George, are you saying that since this letter to the editor is worth including in the article because they refer to their own studies in it? One other question, if the evidence is that Homeopathy is not just placebo can you provide us with a hard figure (percentage) of the efficacy over placebo and for which conditions? Please provide a link to each study so we can verify the figures. Thanks. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just google it. It is classical homeopathy according to prominent homeopaths - this an example first rate journal but  -- again edited out. Surprise surprise. I said it before ---"This  letter to the editor is worth including in the article because they refer to their own studies in it ";  and  it mainly shows that their conclusion does NOT concur  with Shang's everything is placebo--- as falsely the article states- It also shows a controversy appearing in a first rate journal - and per wikipedia policy you have to report it not to refuse to mention it so it can create a false consensus among the authors who have researched and have published seriously about homeopathy. I 'm not doing research in homeopathy  myself  to provide the figures - for wikipedia purposes the editors have to just report the findings from first rate journals secondary studies about   efficacy  ( positive, negative inconclusive) . All the examples  I cited above are from these  exceptional sources. --George1935 (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what DaffyDavid is driving at is that while you continue defending individualized homeopathy, you seemingly conceded that there is no evidence for efficacy of the generic homeopathic preparations that are typically sold over the counter. Also, thanks for a link to another unreproducable primary study. H eptor   talk 19:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree-- there is no evidence for whatsoever --if one decides to edit out the secondary studies showing positive but inconclusive evidence and to distort the ones showing some evidence ; or  if you call all these studies primaries changing the meaning of the words secondaries sources.  Yes, then there is no evidence. /User:Daffydavid  did not know about the individuated homeopathy  - I answered citing a reliable source and you are trying to say that I used it as an evidence that homeopathy works- That;s not so ..intelligent I m afraid. Especially the "unproducable"--you need reliable sources to argue not your personal opinions.    - --George1935 (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The debate about those sources has been going on for 76 kb now, and it appears that no new information or arguments have been put forward for a while. So perhaps we can end the debate on this apparent not of agreement? H eptor   talk 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to continue- however I do not see any consensus among the editors that the article is neutral  - so a tag showing this time that the neutrality of article is disputed  should be used Pov-check--George1935 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @George: I'm not sure what you are agreeing with but I think it behooves those who think there are issues with the article's neutrality to offer something concrete and propose some new language (perhaps in a sandbox). Unless we can improve the article, something I am unable do, this is a dead horse and there's no point in continuing this discussion. Joja  lozzo  22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I thought you proposed a change based on the neutrality concerns. a new section with the inconclusive or weak evidence studies. WIth which I agreed.  There is not consensus that the article is neutral - Why it should be kept secret  that there is a dispute over neutrality? Any particular reasons? --George1935 (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think such a section could address your concerns about neutrality but I'd want to see the proposed changes first. What wording might you suggest? Joja  lozzo  02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will let you know- but this is the kind of bullying I mean here- another editor acknowledged the discussion which is going on ,he tagged the article BASED ON THAT and he was reverted with the summary "Editor failed to open a discussion before tagging" IS this in line with good faith editing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=600982248--George1935 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC) ?
 * Sure it is. From what I see, it seems the only remaining open item here is for you to provide specific wording for the change you're proposing. The discussion has been open for a couple of weeks now and without a concrete proposal, there isn't anything else for us to do here. So please provide the proposed change and don't get distracted by going on tangents. Make sure it is in a form like this: "I like to replace X by Y", here are the sources to back up the change. Thanks--McSly (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * George, please do your best to ignore the personal dynamics here and focus on making a concrete proposal that will explicate your position. Joja  lozzo  16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Personal dynamics you mean the abuse and bullying ? --George1935 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've told you before, there is no bullying going on here, just your false allegation of name calling, which you repeated elsewhere. Your attempt to manufacture evidence when trying to avoid being sanctioned for edit-warring was rightly ignored. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you change the meaning of the words- you might be right. --George1935 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Brunton, You want to make the page unreadable uh? For the last 2000 years paragraphs and sections make a text more readable. But maybe you can start a new era in this field. This is so silly - I know you dont to want to see the word neutral in big letters - Ask yourself is it worth to spend my time to make a page unreadable so one who is not familiar with the subject to be discouraged from looking into it? --George1935 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, George, I don't want to make the page unreadable. A discussion is easier to follow if it is all kept together rather than being split up.  In particular, adding a heading saying ""Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy" a new section?- concerns about neutrality ?" immediately above Jojalozzo's post risks giving the potentially misleading impression that Jojalozzo was starting a new thread with a suggestion that we should add the new section rather than posting towards the end of the old thread and in fact suggesting that perhaps it isn't such a good idea.  I'm sure that's something that you would prefer to avoid.  Brunton (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an innovation - For centuries now chapters and sections used to make a text more readable  - but you start a new school in formatting. --George1935 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Taking a devil's advocate position here; refactoring by changing headers to a more neutral description (which would include most of yours), and inserting subheaders when a discussion takes a tangent are sometimes allowed. However, your interpolation was not related to a change of topic, and Roxy the dog is exactly correct as to a neutral interpretation of your actions.  By the way, isn't your indisputably false accusation of "bullying" an WP:NPA violation?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * False? You must be kidding. The entire page consists of  examples of violation of every wiki rule -   But hey, I forgot I replied to someone who is "correcting" the best available reliable source to say what he thinks it "should" say --thinking--- that this is OK  since I believe it is the truth. Vide - you changed the  quote  in the Ocsillo article  from Cohrane reviews  with the summary : More honest  statement. Do not take it personal though - you are part of this movement and being part of a movement eliminates one's ability to think critically and mainly be objective. (   I would not reply if you had not mention me) . --George1935 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see hectoring (by you), badgering (by you), obfuscation (by you), arm-waving (by you), misrepresentation of policy (by you), special pleading (by you), vexatious commentary (by you), tendentious statements (by you), but no bullying. It's not bullying to tell a street corner preacher to stop haranguing people. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Faulty assertion re quantum entanglement
The statement "...quantum entanglement is not possible as humans and other animals are far too large to be affected by quantum effects, and entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second." is out of date and perhaps should be replaced by one that argues this as possible explanation. Reference, see Nature Communications: Non-classicality of the molecular vibrations assisting exciton energy transfer at room temperature. Is it too much to hope that this necessary change will be made by someone and the article will not be immediately be reverted to its present incorrect form? At least there can be no cause for using WP:RS in this case. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there's a clearer reference at http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3787, entitled 'Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light harvesting complexes'. That is the preprint (got from WP Quantum Biology article and it was published in Nature Physics 6 (6): 462–467. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The "not possible" statement is of course a gross overgeneralization: some specific changes of state in folding one DNA molecule could lead to a disease, e.g. cancer. The firing of a neural synapse is a critical phenomenon which can sometimes be determined by a tiny difference of state, leading up to a life or death decision. Neither of those papers are in reference to entanglement of water, though, and both are primary sources. Care to suggest some wording that would be appropriate to the circumstances (i.e. not in the encyclopedic voice)? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One is spoilt for choice on secondary sources really. Here's one for example: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/05/10/untangling-quantum-entanglement/, or this: http://disinfo.com/2014/01/evidence-plants-get-energy-quantum-entanglement/.  But I'm sure whatever source I quote you'd find some obscure reason for not allowing it. The fact of the matter is that for most people (I must assume that you are not a scientist yourself) publication in Nature Physics would be enough to to take a scientific claim very seriously, enough to consider it prudent to remove the quoted text.  Or are you yourself quite happy to have a statement that has clearly been shown to be wrong in recent times stand in an encyclopedia article?  Is this the version of truth that you stand by?). --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sir, please tell me you jest. You cannot possibly believe that the press office of LBL is a suitably independent secondary source for a paper authored by researchers at LBL. I don't claim to have the depth of QM mastery to be in a position to question their result, and in fact it seems rather unsurprising that organisms would evolve their photosynthesic processes to be as efficient as possible, including exploiting any available phenomena not previously recognized. That said, I don't get to make the assessment of the science. We must rely on secondary publications. Editorial judgement here only extends to assessing the reliability of those secondary sources, based on the usual criteria: independence of the publisher from the authors, reputation of the publisher for fact checking, etc. This isn't arcane. It isn't a conspiracy to silence "the truth". It's just the way a bunch of anonymous or pseudonymous editors have to act in order to produce a product which can be trusted and verified by readers. Yes it comes at a cost: we can't reflect the latest developments until sober second thought has been published. That's o.k. because the mission of Wikipedia is wp:NOTNEWS. If there is an embarrasment of secondary sources, great. Let's use the best of them. I'll be happy to correct the article. LeadSongDog  come howl!  17:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that you haven't yet found a reason to reject the second source, but I guess we haven't given you long enough. But since we are on the subject of reliable sources, what is the source for the statement I dispute? "quantum entanglement is not possible as humans and other animals are far too large to be affected by quantum effects, and entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second."Either there is no source at all, or it is the next one in the text, which seems to be 'How to teach physics to your dog'. Nuff said. Unfortunately, this business of quoting sources fails to take into account the fact that science advances and information gets out of date. Are you now going to vandalise (in the dictionary sense of the term, not as defined by w'pedia) the Quantum Biology page by removing the link to a primary source, Phys. Rev. Letters, entitled Sustained Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the Avian Compass which states "We find that superposition and entanglement are sustained in this living system for at least tens of microseconds, exceeding the durations achieved in the best comparable man-made molecular systems. This conclusion is starkly at variance with the view that life is too “warm and wet” for such quantum phenomena to endure." --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, keep your scientifically discredited text if it pleases you to do so: I've just unchecked the 'watch this page' box so as to avoid wasting any more of my time on meaningless discussion. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The second source is an entertainment blog quoting another entertainment blog quoting the original press release? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the talkpage for the Homeopathy article. Your discussion of the Quantum biology article belongs on its talkpage with editors there. I thought I made clear above that I think the "not possible" statement is wrong, and I'm happy to see it corrected. We still need usable sources to do so, because what I think doesn't cut it. A website such as disinformation is only a very small step from an open blog. Its reputation for fact checking is only as good as the poster, in this case one Jacob Sloan. The Nphys paper obviously does not suffer from that problem having been through peer review, but it still is a primary source. Even if we were to treat it as reliable, it would still be quite tangential to the subject of homeopathy. We are not, after all, dealing with proteins on picosecond timescales, but rather with bottles of water, with month- or even year-long timescales between "potentization" and use. It might suffice as a reference for a statement such as "In 2010, modellers at LBL reported findings that the Fenna–Matthews–Olson protein could maintain an entangled state, between a pair of chromophores, at a concurrence of 5% for times of a few picoseconds." I'm not sure how that would really be an improvement in the homeopathy article, though it could be useful in the article on the FMO complex. LeadSongDog  come howl!  21:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is unscientific to say anything is not possible, since we do not yet know everything. Milgrom's quantum flapdoodle is merely risible and completely unsupported by any credible scientific evidence. However, "impossible" is probably kinder, since there is no known example of significant effect from three-way entanglement of non-entangled massive objects. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Brian Josephson I agree that this should be included and corrected. At least to be removed as an unsupported or unsourced statement. I don't think the objection is about secondary sources - the article is using whatever sources can show that homeopathy is non sense and impossible just one example  --Atwood, Kimball (January 11, 2008). "Homeopathy and Evidence-Based Medicine: Back to the Future – Part II". Science Based Medicine. Retrieved September 18, 2013. -- this IS a  blog definitely  NOT a secondary source  - and it is cited at least your source belongs to a first rate  scientific organization -

(You realize that this article is controlled by a group of editors they will edit out any source ( secondary, first rate journals, etc) if  the sources don't state that Homeopathy is non sense. Despite the several editors who disagree with this.) --George1935 (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I already changed the text to reflect the source cited. I'll remind editors that article talk pages are for the discussion of the associated articles, not the behaviour of fellow editors. There are other venues for that. LeadSongDog come howl!  01:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You were talking about the necessity for secondary sources and you are using a book to support your statement and a blog - ( Science based medicine. How can you explain that? --George1935 (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't select those sources, I just changed the text to more accurately reflect them. LeadSongDog come howl!  01:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * According to what you said - not secondary sources do NOT qualify- why you are still using them - and why don't you object to their citation  as you objected to Brian Josephson suggestion?  Try to give good faith answer and I will examine it and I will agree with you. --George1935 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see MEDRS for the specific section on book sources. Please also note that the author is discussing work by other people, not his own, and that his field of expertise is relevant to the work on which he comments. These are characteristics of good, though not ideal sources. By all means if better sources can be found, let's discuss them. LeadSongDog  come howl!  05:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You have to explain why Brian Josephson source qualifies less than the books the article uses. --George1935 (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, George, I've already recognised this fact from my editing past. But let's now phrase this in the form of an intelligence test.  People with a modicum of intelligence (and the ability to understand the physics) will be able to look at the references cited and see that there is now clear evidence (from sources considered reliable in the real world, if not as defined by w'pedia) that quantum effects and entanglement are not as fragile at room temperature as was once thought (incidentally, people working on quantum computing are tackling this issue as well).  I will therefore delete the outdated reference to entanglement and see what happens. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian Josephson presumably you can read so it's perplexing that you failed to heed WP:NPA. --Daffydavid (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The aim was to discourage people from mindlessly reverting, as so often happens in these situations, and so far it appears to have succeeded. But it is early days yet. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC). [update] It has turned out that there was good fishing today, despite the poor start. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's odd, the deletion here had no mention of temperature. What was the real objection? LeadSongDog  come howl!  12:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To the statement that it is a delicate state. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC) But there's a whole slew of things bound up together. For example, it is often considered that temperature destroys quantum effects, which recent research shows not to be the case.  And on the question of how long entanglement lasts, the photosynthesis case indicates that this is quantum-enhanced, and lifetime is irrelevant here, the enhancement just happens.  I should make it clear though that I have no special attachment to the quantum entanglement explanation, it is just that I think simplistic and outdated dismissals should play no part in the article.  I believe it is by now very generally accepted that these quantum enhancements happen in biology, the claims are not going to go away (and they are indeed in the quantum biology article). But thank you anyway for raising this question on the talk page rather than automatically reverting. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have any credible source that suggests the state persists for months or years in water on an apothecary's shelves, or even a whole second for immediate administration? LeadSongDog  come howl!  13:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not use ,misleading summaries "The talk page opposed your change, as of yet." in reverting Brian Josephson edit. I agreed.The edit was meaningful and supported by a better source than the one currently used. The article already uses sources which are NOT technically secondary and I gave examples - blogs and books. Besides that, you have to explain why a book is more reliable than Brian Josephson  source in the absence of a technically qualified  ideal secondary  source. --George1935 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is NOT consensus to keep this the way it is phrased and sourced. You have to give a good faith answer to the question above. Should we tag this section until we found a solution? --George1935 (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @George, WP:CON; consensus does not require unanimity. It is also not a vote. The discussion above is clearly opposed to removing the sentence outright. Rewording it is certainly not out of the question, but we would need a concrete proposal.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Up to know there are 4 editors who agree with you and 3 who disagree. This is NOT consensus I m afraid. If you want to participate in this explain in good faith ---The article already uses sources which are NOT technically secondary and I gave examples - blogs and books. Besides that, you have to explain why a book is more reliable than Brian Josephson  source in the absence of a technically qualified  ideal secondary  source?.--George1935 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a strange way of counting, and even stranger to say after I just informed you consensus is not a vote. To repeat: Rewording the sentence is not out of the question, but we would need a concrete proposal. What is your concrete proposal to change the wording?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, which "Brian Josephson source" are you referring to? If he hasn't published it, it isn't verifiable. Publication on wikipedia simply doesn't qualify, no matter how eminent the writer.LeadSongDog come howl!  16:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jess - and Lead- Why is it strange? If  3 people out of 4 disagree that  indicates a consensus  ? ( I have to revisit number theory) I think that first we should examine the sources used first: please give a good faith answer to the question  why a book ( or different blogs used in the article)  is more reliable than Brian Josephson  source in the absence of a technically qualified  ideal secondary  source?. You have to be able to answer and JUSTIFY your choices. So far you act  as you did not "hear" them --George1935 (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, that source doesn't say anything about entanglement providing a credible mechanism for homoeopathy (or, indeed, anything about homoeopathy at all). You also say that the edit was "supported by a better source than the one currently used", but the edit in question doesn't actually seem to have added any sources to the one currently used.  Brunton (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is anyone who "heard" the question - is the current statement supported by adequate secondary  sources  and why people do not object to the use of blogs and books as they do for  Brian Josephson  sources in the article --in violation of wiki policy sources? Brunton he cited his sources ( it is a technical thing to add them)   --George1935 (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. So you still haven't read WP:CON, and you have no concrete proposal to change the wording. That means there's nothing to discuss.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be kind and respond to the issues raised. I asked you a question above regarding the quality of the sources supporting the statement. You don['t have to answer - if you cannot or want to - but please  leave time and space to other people to answer. Saying" you have nothing to discuss" is kind of rude. (By the way I support Brian Josephson  edit because his sources are better quality than a book - of course no of them are secondary sources. I will wait for other people to respond to this besides the people who are currently commenting- before i say my opinion.    --George1935 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is that one needs to understand the rules in order to work within them. It is not the job of other editors to spoonfeed them to you, though we have attempted to do so, providing you the relevant links to wp:V, wp:RS, wp:MEDRS, wp:NPA, wp:CON, etc. The goodwill to do so only extends so far, and you're close to exhausting it, at which point wp:IDHT kicks in. This is not bullying, it's just part of the cost of participating. If you don't choose to take the time to do your reading, I suggest you ask for an independent assessment of the proposed sources at wp:RS/N.  LeadSongDog  come howl!  20:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to explain why the sources you defend while not complying with the wiki policy- they qualify. You are not  an  adjunct professor to give assignments  to undergrands - read this and read that. You must give reasons and be specific..  --George1935 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:PARITY: "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal".

I understand that "homeopathy works via quantum" is one of such theories. Until this is proven false, we feel free to use authors who educate the public about science, such as Ben Goldacre, Chad Orzel or Rose Shapiro  --Enric Naval (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Your except has nothing to do with the situation here.This is true if there NOT reliable sources available.  Compared with the blogs and "pop" books about science used in the article even if reliable sources for this do exist  the sources Brian Josephson cited have more weight. If you think they dont how you justify it ?
 * The current statement in the article "rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second" is not contradicted by the source Brian provided - "persisted over picosecond timescales" so what is all the arguing about? --Daffydavid (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not the same of course. And his wording is supported by more qualified sources than the pop books about science currently in use,( the issue raised here why other blogs or websites are used to support statements in the article while they are not qualified as secondary sources was never answered. )--George1935 (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I made no attempt to address anything but this line, to me they say the same thing, six eggs - half a dozen eggs, picosecond - fraction of a second, no difference(except laymen may not know what a picosecond is) and if we are going to argue about fractions of a second when will this ever end? I would be okay with adding the Brian J source as a second reference for this statement. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well ask him - I said my opinion ( it is quite different and I found his edit really accurate ) ; but he might have an opinion. --George1935 (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still need reliable sources for "homeopathy works via quantum". Sources that, unlike Josephson's source actually mention homeopathy, are not press releases, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont think you are following the discussion. NOBODY said that the article should write "homeopathy works via quantum" - Please read above. --George1935 (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Quantum physics is mentioned in connection with homeopathy for two reasons. First, the ridiculous claim by Milgrom, that lacks any remotely plausible basis in fact; second, the fact that quantum mechanics refutes the doctrine of infinitesimals. For homeopathists, exploiting the mysteries of quantum physics is a great way to sound sciencey while waving their arms and moving their mouths. I take it we've all seen what a real quantum physicist says when faced with this bollocks? Guy (Help!) 01:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Seth Speaks
Here's what a different real quantum physicist, Seth Lloyd, principal investigator at the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, and director of the Center for Extreme Quantum Information Theory there, has to say on the importance of quantum effects in biology; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXSpXyZVuY. In this lecture Lloyd begins "It was thought until quite recently that quantum weirdness ... played very little role in living systems. Then ... a very beautiful experiment ... showed that quantum mechanics, and quantum coherence, and quantum entanglement, was playing a very important role in photosynthesis ... it was what caused photosynthesis to be so efficient."This should give pause to the naysayers.--Brian Josephson (talk) 08:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't watch videos. Does he say anything about homeopathy? Or about liquid water having a multi-year memory? LeadSongDog  come howl!  12:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're barking up the wrong tree, LeadSongDog. The quote I've given, which is how the video starts off, contradicts the statement I have suggested be removed as being out of date.  Water may or may not support these quantum effects, but the question of whether it does or not is irrelevant to the truth of the out of date statement. Let's stick to the point and not get sidetracked.
 * And before others start barking up the wrong tree also, saying 'oh, this is just a youtube video', I must point out that it is a recording of a lecture at a premier physics institute. And, by the way, it is a secondary source. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So based on that source, how would you propose to rephrase the statement, preserving the basic point that entanglement is irrelevant to objects on the scale of homeopathic "remedies"? LeadSongDog come howl!  14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I'm following you properly, LeadSongDog; what are the grounds on which your 'basic point' is based? It may have once been believed that things were thus but now we know better, as e.g. my secondary source (Lloyd's lecture) makes clear.  Am I missing something?  Is there some reason for retaining something now known to be false in a w'pedia page; usually you people are very keen on excluding assertions that you believe to be false, and I can't see why this particular assertion should be an exception to that general principle. Please enlighten me! --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with LeadSongDog. This source is referring to quantum effects on Photosynthesis. Please kindly make a proposal for rephrasement, as suggested by LeadSongDog. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I give up the attempt to explain this to people. What a situation! --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. You link to a video where a quantum mechanism for photosynthesis is discussed, and when people ask you the relevance to homeopathy you give up trying to explain it to people. Seems you gave up before you started! Just to refresh your memory: homeopathists assert that "quantum" is a plausible mechanism of action for homeopathy. In reality the problem is that "like cures like" is based on extrapolation from a single false inference, there is no credible link between most "remedies" and the conditions they purportedly cure; the claim that dilution increases potency is simply wrong; there is no objective evidence of any property distinct to remedies which persists through the process of dilution and twerking, let alone increases; there is no evidence of any distinct property of "remedies" which can persist when the original dilution is evaporated on a sugar pillule, or that it could then transfer to the body in a quantity sufficient to have any clinically relevant effect. In other words, quantum is being used in the Chopra sense - semantically equivalent to "magic". The fact that smell or photosynthesis might work through quantum interactions of molecules cannot possibly explain homeopathy because it doesn't even begin to address the evidential gaps. It is simply not relevant to the missing links that need to be provided in order for homeopathy to be remotely credible.
 * So while Seth speaks about QM, but not homeopathy, Jim Al-Khalili speaks on QM as directly applied to homeopathy:
 * "Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP etc then you'd better take a proper course in QM"

- Jim Al-Khalili


 * Above quote was inserted by me, sorry, missed the sig. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That did rather confuse me as it looked as if JAK was participating in this discussion himself, and directing his comments at me, and my response below assumed I was talking to him. I may send my comments to him directly. His comments are not untypical of the Pathological Disbelief syndrome that I have discussed elsewhere. He knows that memory of water is impossible, probably on the basis of the fallacious 'no molecules, no effect' argument, and if it's impossible you clearly can't derive it from QM.  I'd be very surprised if he has a proper proof, but as I say in the pathological disbelief lecture saying something forcefully is routinely used as a substitute for proof in these circumstances.  I don't have time to respond to Guy's misconceived analysis but think I've said enough to indicate that one should not rely on that tweet. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim, regarding what QM does or does not allow (I speak of homeopathy at this point, and will address the ESP issue separately in a moment), 'it is difficult to prove a negative', as they say, but you seem to be claiming one in your comment. I've just been listening to your Guardian interview on quantum biology and didn't hear anything in it regarding what is impossible. Anyway, in this context, computer simulations show that even classically there are some interesting large scale structures in water.  I'm not in any way suggesting this proves anything about memory of water/homeopathy, but it does seem to show that there are more things in regard to water than are dreamt of in the sceptics' philosophy, and future physics may revolutionise biology even more than you think. Re QM and ESP, no-one in the 23 years since it was published has pointed to an error in our paper Biological Utilisation of Quantum NonLocality, but perhaps you can achieve a first in this regard.  Antony Valentini arrived at the same idea independently at about the same time and based his Ph.D. research on it, so he and his examiners would have had to have got this analysis wrong as well. I'd be interested to know, by the way, what you think of my paper Limitations to the Universality of Quantum Mechanics --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A video that you think makes an otherwise-uncited claim plausible is not usable as a citation to that claim. In the context of the article, that would just be WP:OR - David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I am reminded of the quacks' reaction to an announcement that there appeared to be a quantum mechanical effect in the mechanism of smell: "Smell is a quantum physics phenomenon, implications for homeopathy". The answer to which is of course: none at all, because it requires that the actual molecules are present. And that's before you get to the question of why on earth anyone would expect the remedies chosen to have any effect anyway, since there is no credible evidence that like cures like as a general or even common principle. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've belatedly figured out that you are (perhaps) referring to the computer simulation I cited. I'm sure Jim A-K will get the point, even if you don't. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The specific seems to me to adequately counter the general here. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ???? Clarification needed here, I think! --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You assert that a video discussing a quantum mechanical phenomenon in a biological system, is general support for the plausibility of quantum mechanics as an explanation of homeopathy (never mind the fact that the person who apparently originated the conjecture did not include this in his rationale). However, Jim Al-Khalili, who is undoubtedly proficient in quantum physics, states specifically that if you think QM supports homeopathy, then you need to take a proper course in QM. Specific rebuts general. In the end of course the general source you cite does not discuss homeopathy anyway, so it's irrelevant. I think it's probably necessary to remind you of the three core problems with homeopathy:
 * There is no reason to suppose it should work.
 * There is no plausible way it can work.
 * There is no reliable proof it does work.
 * If there were a quantum effect in play at some point, it would not fix #2, the relevant missing link; it woudl not do this because you'd need all of the following:
 * A mechanism for clinical effect that is dependent on some facet that is directly related to symptoms.
 * Evidence that this persists through dilution but only in the presence of succussion (how many strikes are required? How many agitations?).
 * Evidence that this is persistent (unlike, say, ordered structures in water, which last only femtoseconds).
 * Evidence that it can be transferred to an intermediary of a sugar pill, when the original dilution is evaporated away.
 * Evidence that this can then be transferred to a human patient.
 * Evidence that it can have a clinically meaningful effect once this happens.
 * There are a lot of things going against this, including the law of mass action, the second law of thermodynamics, and everything we know about human physiology and biochemistry. Do you not think it odd that despite its purported power as a healing mechanism, no homeopathist has ever been able to propose a test that will accurately identify the "active" ingredient in a randomly selected remedy at the normal levels of "potency" used in practice?
 * Let's not forget that the debate would be fundamentally different if there were even one case where homeopathy alone could be authentically proven, through objective measurements, to have cured anybody of anything, ever. And it would be changed fundamentally by a single study that credibly refutes the null hypothesis, but again none exists.
 * To be fair, most homeopathists do not understand the null hypothesis, they think the placebo effect is the entirety of the null hypothesis but of course it isn't: there's also observer bias, expectation effects, natural history of disease, regression toward the mean and so on. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Different groups about homeopathy Neutrality of the Homeopathy page

 * Agreed. Feel free to reorganize the sections to be readable. --George1935 (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I did a quick search, and, for what it's worth, here are what some groups have to say about homeopathy:
 * Merck:"Efficacy of homeopathic remedies for various disorders has been studied. No study has clearly shown efficacy for any specific homeopathic remedy, although some studies have shown positive results." (http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/special_subjects/complementary_and_alternative_medicine/alternative_whole_medical_systems.html?qt=homeopathy&alt=sh#v1125654)
 * American Cancer Society: "While homeopathy appears to be safe, available published studies do not show that homeopathic remedies are effective in treating cancer." (http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/pharmacologicalandbiologicaltreatment/homeopathy)
 * Another interesting article is http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0053174. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * in 2014 the George1935 (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the othe rhand, the UK's Depratment of Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs has denounced alternative remedies for animals as "unethical": . And they, unlike members of the AVMA, don't have the potential to make money from selling it. This is your problem all over. Analytical sources with no vested interest uniformly fail to support homeopathy, support is strongly correlated with vested interest. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The following statements, recommended by the Council on Scientific Affairs, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA policy at the 1997 AMA Annual Meeting.There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. - that;s the latest I know - do you know anything else. ?--George1935 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the US Government body charged with investigating alternatives to medicine, NCCAM, says: "There is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition." and "Several key concepts of homeopathy are inconsistent with fundamental concepts of chemistry and physics. There are significant challenges in carrying out rigorous clinical research on homeopathic remedies." These challenges include the fact that it is fundamentally unethical to give homeopathy alone to anyone who is actually ill. Oh, and NCCAM have said that hoemopathy is so unlikely ever to produce a positive result that they no longer fund tests of it. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You missed a few useful ones.
 * House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: "By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products."
 * NHS Choices: "By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products."
 * Homeopathy is "Rubbish" - Professor Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer, UK.
 * ""My view scientifically is absolutely clear: homoeopathy is nonsense, it is non-science. My advice to ministers is clear: that there is no science in homoeopathy. The most it can have is a placebo effect" - Sir Mark Walport, Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government.
 * "homoeopathy, which is mad. It has no underpinning of scientific basis. In fact all of the science points to the fact that it is not at all sensible. The clear evidence is saying this is wrong" - Professor Sir John Beddington, outgoing Chief Scientific Advisor ti British Government
 * "I have serious reservations about any efforts to register or otherwise legitimise homeopathy or other similar alternative forms of medicine." Alastair Hope, coroner, inquest into the death of Penelope Dingle (killed by a believer in the cult of homeopathy).
 * "One more day and I'd have been dead" - Mark Wilde, journalist, who used homeopathy instead of antimalarials and contracted malaria.
 * "Homeopathy remains one of the most controversial subjects in therapeutics. This article is an attempt to clarify its effectiveness based on recent systematic reviews. Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analysis on the subject. Seventeen articles fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six of them related to re-analyses of one landmark meta-analysis. Collectively they implied that the overall positive result of this meta-analysis is not supported by a critical analysis of the data. Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they 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. It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice." - a systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy, Ernst.
 * "The evidence that homeopathic treatments work is zero" - Fred Kavalier, GP of man who nearly died after using homeopathy instead of medicine.
 * Are we done here? Guy (Help!) 01:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is civil conversation. You seem really upset, and your comments and tone are becoming increasingly abusive- you closed a discussion where editors from different point of view tried to discuss politely and systematically were trying to find common gounds; this behavior is not in the wikispirit. You should know better My talkpage is full of your hostile and almost abusive comments. Please stop.  --George1935 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * More of this sort of thing -Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Where exactly does Guy seem upset George? All the above are source quotations. If "are we done here?", is what has you so upset, then there must be some local slang interpretation of this that I'm not aware of. Your talk page is irrelevant to this discussion, please try to keep on point. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant? It is a click away -and every body can see and decide himself.( We were discussing in a calm tone only groups position on homeopathy - there are other sources as well stating otherwise) lets take a break though.  --George1935 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: you demand the right to cherry-pick statements supportive of homeopathy, and not to have them contradicted by robust statements from reliable authorities that show homeopathy to be bunk? Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of your cherished beliefs. I sincerely doubt that you can come up with a single argument that has not been made before by homeopathists, usually in the talk pages of Wikipedia. Endlessly repeating points refuted a thousand times before is rude and disruptive. That's why you will be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "American Cancer Society: "While homeopathy appears to be safe, " so can we add this to the article?Cjwilky (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "While homeopathy appears to be safe, available published studies do not show that homeopathic remedies are effective in treating cancer."? Given that as far as I'm aware nobody has suggested that the active ingredient in homoeopathic remedies (i.e. nothing whatsoever) is dangerous, there seems little need for the first part of the sentence. And the article already makes entirely clear that 'nothing whatsoever' isn't an effective cure for cancer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the classic misdirection of homeopathists. Homeopathy is safe only as long as you do not use it as a form of medicine when you are ill. If you treat it as confectionery, which it is, then yes, it's safe. If you try to use it to prevent malaria, then you get malaria. If you try to use it to cure cancer then you die horribly. The safety claim is a despicable fraud: quacks assert that homeopathy is "safe", medicines have side effects, therefore homeopathy should be used instead of medicines. It's a classic bait and switch, sidestepping around the actual issue, which is that homeopathy is clinically useless. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't kind of dishonest to keep arguing against "banned" editors? If they are not allowed  to answer to your "arguments "- (If you ban everybody who disagrees with you it is really easy to achieve consensus. I will say no more.)  --George1935 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It is dishonest to misrepresent posts clearly made before a contributor was banned as something they aren't. Next question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't George1935 supposed to be topic-banned, or have I missed something? Brunton (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah - I'd missed that, and assumed that it was the now-topic-banned Cjwilky that George1935 was referring to. But you are right, George1935 is banned too - and posting here looks like a violation, though I'd be inclined to ignore it as either just venting, or perhaps a bid for martyrdom... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

External links cull
The external links section is turning into a directory (and includes an actual link to one). Most of the links fall afoul of WP:EL. Given there are literally hundreds of reference links, do any of the ELs deserve to be there and yet not be references? - David Gerard (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse period removal of every WP:LINKFARM. Go for it. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the NHS link is worth keeping. The rest don't add overmuch.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Culled! Left NHS link (as official information page from a significant national health authority) - David Gerard (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The decline of homeopathy on the NHS
A good source, which also references other good sources: Brangifer (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The decline of homeopathy on the NHS


 * This is relevant to what exactly? Cjwilky (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't see the relevance, then why comment at all, unless you're just baiting? Leave it to those who do, and I put it here so editors can see if there is anything useful. This part, which we have not quoted, is very relevant: "In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos." (House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, 2010) -- Brangifer (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the article whose Talk page we are on is called Homeopathy, and the information Bullranger has provided is about, yes, homeopathy, and the information is about how homeopaths are charging more for their non-existant remedies, and how the NHS is probably going to reduce its spending on homeopathy even more. It is all grist to the mill. Do you see the relevance to our article? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First check out Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy. There is nothing about what homeopaths are charging - maybe you could explain your conclusion on that, or are you just quoting the Nightingales who you maybe should know have clear axe to grind on the topic. You referral to "non-existant remedies" is your opinion and intended to cause disharmony in mentioning it here, I feel you could do some reflection there. What is the change in actual homeopathy that is used in the UK? The NHS is just one part of that picture. Though I'm sure you'd be putting any mention of the NHS changes (in the correct article as referred above) in context that is useful for the reader rather than just offering a potentially misleading statement. Am I on the right track? Cjwilky (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a well-established scientific fact that the 'remedy' in homoeopathic 'treatments' is diluted to the extent of non-existence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No point telling Chris that, he's a homeopathy apologist. He has been informed of the facts innumerable times, but does not believe them. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have essentially the same situation reported in the "Regulation & prevalence" article (sourced from the Daily Telegraph reporting the position as it was in 2011) and the Nightingale Collaboration page sources its data from government stats, so I don't think this can be dismissed as just the result of someone having an "axe to grind". And if the number of prescriptions is falling but the cost is increasing, then simple maths tells us that the unit cost is increasing.  Brunton (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That "simple maths" is actually your original research Brunton. Looking at your original research, you fail to justify the increased charging of homeopaths, you miss out several factors, or assume their non-existance.
 * Why you are defending the Nightingales? Whether or not any of the Nightingale info is backed up by other sources doesn't justify including such a blatently biased organisation. The original sources only should be used.
 * There is no evidence to show homeopathy doesn't work. You can cite all you want, use "skience" semantics, but there is only some evidence to show that homeopathy isn't proven to be better than placebo. That is entirely different (and cherry picking).
 * Cjwilky (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently someone hasn't understood wp:CALC. Simple arithmetic does not violate wp:NOR. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a significant assumption in your original research with it being merely simple maths. It might help to reread what I wrote above. Cjwilky (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First up, I would not include this here, I would possibly include it on the article about prevalence. The reason is not that it's OR (it isn't, the figures are drawn from government statistics and are correct); the reason is that we already know that homeopathy on the NHS is in terminal decline, and we already have much more tangible sources for that. There is no more Royal London Homeopathic Hospital. The clinic which is all that remains of the Glasgow homeopathic hospital is likely to be closed down soon.
 * I would love to exclude biased sources from this article, leaving only those which are properly objective and analytical. The howls of protest from the homeopathists would be epic. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Nigthingale Collaboration seems to be backed up by Simon Singh. This author seems to have a reputation for accuracy. Do we have any reason to believe that the figures might be inaccurate? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * None. Given he was sued by homeopaths, I would expect him to be extremely sure of any figures he gives - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought it was chiroquacks that accused him of libel. There isn't a jot of evidence it was homeopaths. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoops, you are of course entirely correct - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Singh is indeed an excellent source in general. However, he seems to be very emotionally involved in health issues, and that sometimes makes people (speaking generally) less careful in regard to things they assert.  However, as Gerard points out, he may well be very careful to avoid saying anything that could lead to a libel suit. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see what Singh has to do with the way these stats are presented on the Nightingale site?


 * Prescription items - there has been a trend towards homeopaths moving away from polypharmacy, hence less prescription items per prescription. You may doubt this, and ask for evidence - quite simply I'm aware of how doctors prescribe and how this has changed. On the other hand, you may consider this could be a variable in these stats. Prenting a table of prescription items under the heading of "The Decline of Homeopathy in the NHS" is misleading either through convenient naiivity or intention.


 * Prescription costs - likewise, due to a decline in polypharmacy AND alongside that an increased tendency to prescribe less frequently, prescription costs will decrease.


 * Average cost per prescription item increasing - with big pharma drugs the same is happening, except the figures are skewed by patents running out. That process doesn't happen in homeopathy. Anyway, using the Bank of England inflation calculator, £5 in 1995 is equivalent to £8.14 in 2012. The chart on the Nightingale shows the rise of a homeopathy prescription item cost as going from approx. £5 in 1995 to approx. £9.30 in 2012. Hardly constituting the claimed "We think these pictures speak a thousand words" is it?


 * I'm not doubting there isn't less homeopathy going on in the NHS, but prescriptions is a strange way of measuring it, consultations would be the method. The Nightingale's are clearly grabbing what they can to prove their point.


 * The "simple maths" assumption/mistake going on here is like the skewing that would happen in claiming the decrease in farming by measuring the amount of farms, and then the costs per farm to demonstrate their inefficiency. I'll leave you to grasp the flawed method there. Come on, you're supposed to be skeptics ;)
 * Cjwilky (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Brian, Simon Singh does not have anything like the emotional investment in this that Edzard Ernst has. The BCA libel suit propelled him into a long (and successful) campaign for libel reform, but his focus has always been science communication. Ernst is a full-time critic of bogus alt-med claims, Singh is a full-time science advocate, the two are very different. You can follow the comments of both online, Ernst writes extensively on quackery, Singh touches it only occasionally, and only when some particularly egregious claim makes it into the press. And Ben Goldacre is much the same, his primary focus is All Trials, and both he and Singh comment much more on that than they do on homeopathy or on quackery more generally. Chris is a homeopathist, of course, so his views are contingent on the need to protect his cherished beliefs against ugly fact. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree in the main about the difference between Ernst and Singh. This article does rely heavily on Ernst, less so in very recent times. He cannot be taken very seriously. That he is, belittles the dogmatic weight applied to various literature by wiki, and skeptics in general.
 * "Cherished" and "ugly" are emotive words you choose to use. Maybe you can reply to the points I raise above?
 * Cjwilky (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Citing Ernst as an academic specialising in SCAM is of course entirely valid and reasonable. There's no credible reason why only believers should be considered valid sources, and not apostates like Ernst. However, the specific point was in relation to the purported agenda of Simon Singh, and it is very clear that while Ernst very definitely specialises in debunking quackery, Singh does it as a sideline to broader scientific communication. The NC analysis shows the decline of homeopathic prescriptions in the UK, which tracks the decline of the homeopathic hospitals, which now survive only in residual form. I don't think it belongs in the article simply because it's a minor confirming fact. Alan's a friend, but I still would not include that factoid unless it's republished in something like the BMJ. As to your cherished beliefs being contradicted by ugly fact, that is just reality for you. I can't help you with that. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You make a statement "The NC analysis shows the decline of homeopathic prescriptions in the UK, which tracks the decline of the homeopathic hospitals, which now survive only in residual form." Is that going with the theory of "say it enough and it will be true"? You offer nothing to back it up. First, it is only showing NHS prescription items, not even NHS prescriptions, never mind homeopathic prescriptions per se. The point I am making is that not only is that particular article heavily biased, it is symptomatic of an organisation that is inherently biased. The facts clearly demonstrate that. A further point arising is that editors, including yourself, appear to be deliberately avoiding acknowledging this, or are having short circuits in their skeptical faculties around this particular issue.


 * Repeating your poetic terms concerning your personal take on my experience of the efficacy of homeopathy merely adds to my points above.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The NC cites figures from the responsible Government department that show the decline in homeopathic prescriptions. That's a fact. Bristol Homeopathic Hospital suffered a serious decline in business and is now a small clinic in a larger building and no longer has its own front door. Its Cullompton clinic has closed. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital is now the Royal London Hospital for Integrative Medicine, embracing numerous mutually contradictory forms of quackery not just homeopathy. Glasgow homeopathic hospital is likely to close soon. Tunbridge Wells Homeopathic Hospital closed in 2008. Liverpool Homeopathic Hospital appears to have vanished. Are you arguing that NHS homeopathy is in rude health? Despite the NHS Choices page saying it's rubbish, the Chief Medical Officer saying it's rubbish, the Science and Technology Committee saying it's rubbish, the Chief Scientific Advisor saying it's rubbish, and the word homeopathy virtually disappearing from NHS facilities? That's the truth of it, whatever you believe. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's true that I haven't heard Ernst speaking about homeopathy so I can't judge his emotional level. But have you heard Singh speak? It sounds like you're really referring to professional investment, which admittedly Ernst has more of. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Check out Ernst's Twitter, Brian. That tells you all you need to know about his "emotional investment". Cjwilky (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian, Edzard Ernst was the UK's first Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, he trained in a homeopathic hospital in Germany, and he is an apostate homeopath. He is a reliable authority on the evidence base for SCAM interventions, especially since he is one of the very few academics studying SCAM from a properly scientific perspective - as you know, SCAM proponents have a terrible tendency to pseudoscience, producing studies designed to support a hypothesis rather than test it. Ernst does not do that. And homeopaths, especially, hate him for it, to the extent that a cartel of German homeopathy manufacturers paid a journalist of the order of €40,000 to rubbish him in print. Ironic, when you consider the prevalence of the "pharma shill gambit" among True Believers. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * SCAM stands for what exactly?


 * Ernst appears to be a failed homeopath, not even able to get the placebo to work. He is indeed an academic, although he demonstrates very strong prejudices, one's that evidently preclude his academic work. As a skeptic, I would assume you understand the idea of confirmation bias? But you consider him reliable. How exactly do you square that? Producing studies to suport his viewpoint is PRECISELY what Ernst does. Read his twitter, read what he says about his views of homeopathy whilst he was doing it. I've seen no evidence of any training, only his say so and others comments based on that. Nothing to show his specific work in homeopathy. We can only guess at what his motivations are, we can see clearly that his views preceded his academic work.


 * That his work is very fundamental to the skeptics beliefs is highly relevant. The article here relies on him directly or by proxy. He directly makes up 18 of the 254 references, and of course that's including non-critical references. THIS is why people like guy are defending him. For skeptics to not EVER bring up his confirmation bias is striking. That other academics in the pharma/orthodox world don't either is equally striking.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As the originator of the acronym (about 2001) in this context, I can inform you that it is properly written sCAM, and the original meaning (as published) stands for so-Called "Alternative" Medicine. It's a portmanteau of scam and CAM, but since most practitioners are true believers who are not deliberately running illegal "scams", the emphasis is on the fact that "alternative" medicine is a misnomer, because it's not a true "alternative" to medicine that works, hence it is "so-called". The use of a small "s" also signals that this is not just a capitalized accusation of someone running a scam, a potentially libelous assertion, but something else with an esoteric meaning. I know that's a bit complicated, but that's its history, and it gradually became adopted in skeptical circles, especially those involved with combating health fraud. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ernst is not a "failed homeopath", he is an apostate. He realised it was bonkers. His work is not fundamental to the skeptic acceptance of the scientific consensus, he is one of a number of people who are critical of supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) in general and homeopathy in particular. Homeopathy is a frequent subject of discussion among those who promote scientific approaches to medicine, because it embodies so many of the common flaws and fallacies that underpin belief in SCAM, and it does not take a lot of scientific knowledge to understand the problems. To understand that vitamin megadoses are bogus requires an understanding of the evidence, whereas to understand that homeopathy is bogus requires only GCSE general science.
 * It is of course a staple of believers in SCAM that academics critical of their beliefs are portrayed as "prejudiced". This is actually a reversal of the truth - or rather, reality is biased against the claims of homeopathy, in that there is no evidence that like cures like as a general or widespread principle, no evidence that dilution increases potency (quite the opposite in fact), no good evidence that homeopathic remedies have any specific clinical effect (see Lewith's paper in Rheumatology which accurately notes that it's all down to the consultation). Homeopathy is the medical equivalent of young Earth creationism or Velikovskian catastrophism. You can see why someone might have believed it at first, but the evidence that it's wrong is such that science, as a field of inquiry, finds nothing of value to investigate any more, leaving debunking the endless crap studies as an exercise for a few people who specialise in that.
 * Oddly, it's always they who are accused of bias, rather than the cranks with their ever-shifting post-hoc rationalisations and long history of outright lies, e.g. the "Swiss report", Ullman's claims for Darwin and Nightingale and so on. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not a lot of relating to what I said there, and nothing at all to the substance of what we were discussing above re the Nightingale misleading information.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Misleading? Facts are facts. Homeopathy is in terminal decline on the NHS, the number of prescription items is down to negligible levels and needless to say the cost per prescription item has risen as a result (anybody with a basic understanding of fixed versus variable costs will know why). I know that as a homeopathist you consider any information conflicting with your beliefs to be false or misleading, but this is not really our problem to solve for you. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you trying to more fully reply, however you have missed the key point of the substance of what we are talking about and have diverted into general statements from other sources about the decline - that isn't the issue, as I clearly, explicity, pointed out above :)


 * The Nightingale Org talks of a decline of prescriptions when it is in fact a decline in prescription items. If it were consultations it would be accurate, but it isn't. I explained why the figures can and are likely to be skewed. You say "facts are facts" - what you are saying there is prescription items are prescriptions are consultations" - you are wrong to make that assumptive leap. The NHS is not saying that. The Nightingales are, and you are saying they are right to make that "simple maths" judgement, when it is far from simple maths. I explained how the cost conclusion of the Nightingales was misleading - "We think these pictures speak a thousand words" they say, but in fact just throw that statement out without having given it a thought. Misleading either by intent or naiivity, you choose.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's the key point: you are a homeopathist engaging in special pleading. The data is what it is, you just don't like it. Problem's your end. Guy (Help!) 07:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For a homeopathasist to accuse people of "not giving it a thought" and "Misleading either by intent or naivety" is hypocrisy gone mad. So sad. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here we go, reverting to abuse again when the going gets tough :) "The data is what it is" - is that as far as your skepticism goes? What both Guy and Roxy say looks like skeptic rhetoric, or skeptoric as it's known. Maybe I misunderstand in which case, what else do you believe that is just told you? I thought skepticism was about questioning? That's for you to consider, but here, either explain why you believe what you believe concerning the stats we are discussing, or move on. Cjwilky (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here we go, reverting to claims of abuse again when the going gets tough. Standard practice for you CJ when things aren't going your way. Also, stop making up words as you go or go edit on the random weird language Homeopathy page. Do you have proof that there is a a decline in prescription items? --Daffydavid (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I am pointing out abusive comments as and when they happen. You comment about my "making up words", but are happy with the rhetoric?
 * The figures show there is a decrease in "prescription items", they show nothing of a decrease in "prescriptions". That was one of my points. Seems you are in agreement then David.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Chris, neither science nor Wikipedia are censored for the protection of your delusional beliefs. Stick to the articles on Doncaster Rovers. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

More abuse, attempt at bullying, and no reply to the issue. I'll take that as an overall acknowledgement of the lack of supportive evidence for the claims of the Nightingales and that it's accepted they are bias and misleading, not a reference sourse to bring to this table in the future.Cjwilky (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You say that there is "an overall acknowledgement of the lack of supportive evidence for the claims of the Nightingales and that it's accepted they are bias and misleading". Can you provide diffs that show anyone other than you acknowledging or accepting this?  Brunton (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I said "I'll take that as..." There was no reply to the point I was raising though plenty of replies to other aspects that arose. It would be reasonable to assume that without any statement from eds with some reasoning about the main points that they were in agreement with it, or had no reasoned way of expressing their view. This is still the case. Maybe you can say your position - no hurry, but if you post further without relating to the main point, how am I to read it? :)
 * Cjwilky (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can I be in agreement Cj when I ask for proof and you provide none? What is the significance of this "prescription items" versus "prescriptions" that you speak of? To me they are the same thing.--Daffydavid (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A prescription contains prescription items, there can be one or any number of prescription items in a prescription. A doctor may have prescribed several items in one prescription for a condition. Due to a myriad circumstances (say if you disagree with this and why) a doctor may change to less items in a prescription whilst maintaining the same level of treatment for that condition. This may well mean that costs of "a prescription" is reduced, and that costs of treating that person is reduced - it doesn't equate to less therapuetic treatment from the doctor. The Nightingales place "The decline of homeopathy in the NHS" as the heading to a graph showing less costs for prescriptions. This is evidently a leap in assumption. It is misleading.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris, you seem to be unable to distinguish between blunt truth and abuse - I know this is common when religious beliefs are challenged, but the beliefs of homeopathy are delusional, that is a simple fact and Wikipedia does not shy from stating the facts. Nor is it "bullying" to suggest you stick to articles where your opinions are in line with truth, as appears to be the case with Doncaster Rovers articles. Your edits there have no issues with false beliefs as far as I can tell.
 * You also seem unable to understand that the facts as stated by Nightingale are just that: facts. Your interpretation is that the facts are misleading, but that interpretation is influenced by your belief in homeopathy, whereas those who do not have any emotional investment in quackery do not seem to agree with you. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Guy, blunt truth - not really what's being said though is it?
 * "For a homeopathasist to accuse people of "not giving it a thought" and "Misleading either by intent or naivety" is hypocrisy gone mad. So sad" is abusive - it's saying "you are not giving it a thought" and you are "misleading" on the basis that I practice homeopathy. Generalising instead of being specific is unnecessary, and is potentially abusive - eg the difference between saying "English men hate French men" and "that English man, hated this French man when xxxx happened". A non abusive version would need to be specific and in this particular case, I can't see how that would be written, it seems outrightly intended to be abusive. I don't see "blunt truth" anywhere in that... if you are, maybe add it to the article?
 * I can go through other egs, but we'll sort it out elsewhere anyway unless you think it can be resolved without that?
 * You claim homeopathy is religious. That may be your opinion, just as to me it seems evident that most skeptics follow a religion and in doing so fail to be skeptic. I've mentioned this before, but in response to the "religious" and worst abuse terms frequently slung at me and other by certain types of skeptics on this talk page. You drop it and I'll drop it, simple :) I have dropped it in the past, yet certain skeptic types continually raise it again and again. Not sure what work environment you experience, or cultural values you have, but THAT is also bullying. Sad but true.
 * You say I'm delusional. If that is the case and wiki supports that term, why isn't it in the article in any form? It isn't. It would be extending the truth even of your beliefs to enter that. Further the fact is that whilst going on a certain hierarchical system of "proof", it seems there is not sufficient evidence to show that homeopathy works. That is a long way from me being delusional.
 * To suggest in any way that I move from this article is bullying. To make a claim that you have the "truth" is worrying, however you try and back that up. Assuming that statement is more towards skeptics than yourself, do you believe skeptics are the enlightened ones?
 * So, we'll deal with the above elsewhere, better than clogging this page up :) Meanwhile, lets stick to the matter in hand and I wait to hear how you square the issues I have with the Nightingale statements, eg their graph headings and "a thousand words... conclusion.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Homeopathy is a religion - or more properly a belief system. It has no empirically verifiable basis. It depends entirely on accepting the literal word of one man, as further interpreted by his followers. If you remove the refuted conjectures of Samuel Hahnemann, nothing is left. I know you believe differently, just as young-Earth creationists believe that the Earth was created in seven literal days with all the species in finished form. Science has a word for the beliefs of homeopathists and creationists. The word is: wrong. My cultural values are immaterial, because in any culture in the world, homeopathy is still wrong. Whether you live in deepest Arkansas or highest Tibet, the world is billions of years old and homeopathy is bunk.
 * Wikipedia does not censor facts to protect cherished beliefs. That's not bullying, it's bluntness. If you don't want to have your beliefs contradicted then don't bring them to this talk page, because this talk page is subject of years and years and years of homeopathists bringing their beliefs as if just one more repetition will change the facts, whereas in reality the scientific evidence against homeopathy is getting stronger over time and the scientific support for it has pretty much evaporated altogether, to the point that NCCAM is not even finding studies any more.
 * You are right that we are more assertive in resisting the claims of alt-med believers than those of the older religions. The reason for that is very simple. There are believers out there who are promoting homeopathy for the prevention of malaria and the treatment of cancer. That moves it out of the realm of harmless nonsense and into the realm of lunatic charlatans.
 * Homeopathy is faith healing without religion, sums it up very well.
 * For your editing pleasure and harmony, I suggest you stick to articles on Doncaster Rovers. As long as you don't claim they can cure diseases. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... there is evidence that homeopathy works, it just doesn't trump Professor Ernsts grip on the world of acedemia. It may not be as hard and fast as the skeptics would like, but... it's not in the same league as a creationist theory, you have resorted to rhetoric cloaked in skeptism, otherwise known as skeptoric - opps, did I already say that ;)
 * It's the words you use Guy - it's bullying. You don't get that, hopefully we'll be able to sort it out elsewhere :)
 * Funny how you allude to evidence chaging and thereby affecting the status of homeopathy. THAT is how science works. It's dynamic. Things change. They are not stuck. There is nothing to suggest homeopathy can't work - simply because no one here, certainly not on wiki lol! knows what is "the truth". Some branches of skeptics claim that, and so do other religions.
 * I've seen homeopathy instigate the curing of many illnesses, sometimes instantaneously. You haven't. But then you haven't looked, you only believe people like Ernst who has a priori judgements - strange. On the other hand, I am fully in agreement with you about experiemntal proof being important. Give me the money and I'll do it. I despair about the experiments that are done and some of the claims that are made - it can be truly pathetic.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As an outsider, per wp:talk page guidelines I have collapsed the above discussion as it is not about the article, but about the subject—and about contributors. Please stop using this talk page for these discussions. This is not a forum. Try to make specific proposals about editing the article, and then strictly discuss these proposals. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool, lets stick to the business of understanding what this article is saying and it's validity.


 * The article talks of "prescriptions" whilst the data is primarily about "prescription items" - this demonstrates a misunderstanding of the data. There is a difference - ie one prescription can contain one or any number of items, each of which has a cost. Less items doesn't equate to less prescriptions, nor consequently to less treatment.


 * The data used may be accurate but the conclusions don't make conclusive sense due to the above. It may easily be that there are less items prescribed per consultation. For example, that would fit with the greater tendency of NHS doctors prescribing a "single remedy". A conclusion on the decline of homeopathy may be made if the number of consultations were discussed.


 * This article ultimately makes the claim that the pictures speak a thousand words, with no indication what that is, whilst also speaking of prescriptions in their analysis and not prescription items which potentially skews how a reader will understand the information.


 * The Nightingales have a clear aim, a very clear POV against homeopathy. Therefore, along with the misleading commentary included in this article I don't see how this is a useful source.
 * Cjwilky (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here we go. That is the reason why I had collapsed the entire section, including the pointer to the source. Leaving that pointer just there—without any precise, explicit proposal to make a change to the article—inevitably invites imprecise, useless comments like this. Frankly, after the bar was lowered, I had been waiting for exactly this to happen. It happened. - DVdm (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The original statement mentioned "good source". Usually such statements involve leading towards inclusion of information from that source or are you suggesting that is impossible... it isn't clear what you are saying. My comment is precise. Maybe you can explain more clearly your point?
 * Cjwilky (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I cannot explain more clearly my point. - DVdm (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

New study
Australian this time. Homeopathy is bunk, Australian study says. Not sure if it's useful to this article? Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This one is a bit more than just a study; it is a comprehensive review of all available evidence by the Australian government's National Health and Medical Research Council. It included consultation with the homeopathic industry. It found no reliable evidence that homeopathic remedies are effective in treating health conditions.  However, be aware that the report is currently a draft for review - not that the conclusion will be changed, it's more a review of whether it is clearly communicated, etc. The original report is at http://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/public_consultations/homeopathy_health --Gronk Oz (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is undoubtedly significant, yet another national-level review which, like the UK and Swiss Government reviews, concludes that there is no case for public funding or endorsement of homeopathy. As usual there will be special pleading and a political effort to overcome the scientific reality with appeals to popularity, tradition, mystery and the rest of the armoury of fallacies, but recent events in Aus lead me to believe that it won't change as a result. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another source about this: NHMRC rule homeopathic remedies useless for human health. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The question is how to cover this. What is pretty clear is that the few governments which have conducted thorough reviews of the evidenc,e have concluded that homeopathy is useless and should not be officially endorsed. We also know that there is political opposition to this from the largely industry sponsored health freedom movement. I guess you'ver read Merchants of Doubt and recognise the classic signs. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Two infoboxes
Why are there two infoboxes in this article? According to Help_desk/Archives/2013_November_4, this should be avoided. Perhaps one should be removed. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 02:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One's more of a navbox. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually meant the one down in the "Evidence and efficacy" section, not the navbox below the infobox in the lede. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oooh, well spotted. I merged them. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Swiss "government report on homeopathy"?
I've removed a reference to a Swiss "government report" from the "Regulation and prevalence" section. As this response from the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health to the editorial used as a source makes clear (with a clear statement that it was not "published or commissioned by the Swiss government"), the report in question wasn't a government report, and had no bearing on the provision of homoeopathy. Discussion of the report therefore doesn't belong in the "Regulation and prevalence" section. Brunton (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And the actual result of the consultation of which it formed part, was withdrawal of funding for homeopathy. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

National Health and Medical Research Council report

 * Pharmacists warned off homeopathy, Sydney Morning Herald


 * Call for stricter regulation of homeopathy in Australia


 * NHMRC draft Information Paper: Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions


 * Effectiveness of Homeopathy for Clinical Conditions: Evaluation of the Evidence – Overview Report (PDF, 3.29MB)

There should be some good stuff here for use. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The NHMRC report is still at a draft stage, with consultation open until next month. Perhaps we should wait for the final report to be published?  Brunton (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. This is worth watching. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)