Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 9

Controversial
I've been going through the some of the NPOV disputes. Some are easy to evaluate, most are not. As for this article.. Wow!! From the first paragraph of the article, you can see what the issue is:


 * "The claims of homeopathy are controversial, and do not satisfy the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine."

And just browse through Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 8, and you'll see within the first few lines what has been going on here. Homeopathy is fairly new, and it is based upon using natural medicines to make a person's symptoms become more severe in order to help the body. The terms "homeo" and "homo" mean same. Homeopathists sometimes refer to established medicine as "allopathy". Now I suggest someone try to find scientific studies or something to balance out this debate and rewrite certain areas based on what homeopathy is believed to be. If anybody has any opinions to express, they had better balance them with an alternative POV. This should not be a hard article to write. - Dessydes 12:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a group of editors for reasons that are hard to understand will only accept a hopelessly biased account of homeopathy. Repeated attempts have been made to reason with them, ask them for evidence, etc., but they continue to make unsubstantiated assertions while deleting documented claims to the opposite. This page is hijacked by hopeless POV-pushers who have absolutely no regard for Wikipedia policy, and it seems that this lawlessness carries the day. It is a travesty, and this article may be the one that discredits Wikipedia more than anything else. -- Leifern 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * could you say exactly what point of view is objected to? I've started editing the article a little and am a little confused. - elizmr 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have tried to get Leifern's input, and left this message for him in March inviting input from the project he organises "Hi, I'm done on homeopathy, and maybe it would be a good thing now to give this project attention, could do with some other views. Gleng 19:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)". I want to withdraw from this article, I have absolutely no strong feelings about homeopathy, and only became involved to try to help produce a balanced version. I don't agree with Leifern's comment above, maybe it was true many months ago but not now. I think that I and several other editors have tried very hard indeed to be neutral and to consistently improve by referenced verifiable sources with very extensive discussion on the Talk pages - you will see in the archive how carefully many particular issues of fact were explored, and I believe that eeveryone has been acting in good faith. There have been recurrent problems from both extremes, (Aegeis in particular), and editors have co-operated very patiently in blocking from introducing POV. This is extremely controversial, and it is inevitable that it will be hard; the way forward must be WP policy on verifiability and reliable sources, and avoidance of weasel words. However it is difficult to explain homeopathy honestly without either making claims for its efficacy, which will be disputed, or discussing its history, which is colourful, or trying to discuss the theory, which is quite hard to do objectively without making it sound ridiculous. - Gleng 08:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this phrase:
 * Although homeopathy is reported to be rapidly growing in popularity, it is controversial. Critics assert that its claims are do not satisfy the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine, and that the theoretical explanations of the effects of homeopathy are far-fetched.
 * But I do have a problem with the assertion that it doesn't meet scientific standards. I also believe that more citations are needed about the homeopathic community's efforts to establish scientific validity. I do see real fruits of Gleng et al's efforts to make this NPOV, but I have every (sad) expectation that once he/she disentangles himself/herself, the anti-everything-alternative brigade will start messing things up again. This should not be a difficult article to bring to consensus if people made an effort at intellectual honesty and NPOV. Sadly, there are those who think WP is a place to practice advocacy, and I'm worried that's exactly what it's turning into. -- Leifern 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see Gleng's point, here. I'm a latecomer to this discussion. I believe it's a shame if he/she leaves, as efforts to contribute and to resolve the issues have been strenuous. I would be very willing to try to construct a shorter and purely informative article on the subject, that should satisfy both parties (that is unless anyone wishes to turn Wikipedia to their own ends by promoting or suppressing the subject). However, I cannot do it immediately, as I have several other very pressing projects on my hands in my wordly existence. If there's sufficient interest in this proposal, I'll present it to discussion a.s.a.p. - Ballista 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sad article
This article is just ridiculous. Anybody that has any common sense or even the slightest bit of exposure to science understands that homeopathy is complete crap, it has no scientific basis, yet this article presents it as almost mainstream. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if you read the article again, you'll see that the article simply explains what homeopathy is, where it comes from, what the theories and models are, what the criticisms are and it is already quite clear in saying that there is no known scientific basis. The content of the article is supported by the required sources. If you plan on making significant changes, it would be helpful if you would first present your proposed changes on this page. -- Lee Hunter 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The introduction only says that critics assert that it isn't real, when really it is the entire scietific and medical communities. Just saying critic indicates a degree of support that doesn't really exist. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pot, meet kettle. What a ridiculous statement. Many MDs support and prescribe homeopathic remedies. NPOV is fine, but please grind your axe somewhere else. - Mews


 * "it is the entire scientific and medical communities"; prove it, not by assertion or opinion but by objective fact. Who has surveyed the entire scientific and medical communities to establish this? It may be true, but this is not verifiable from the kind of reputable source that scientists must use. Without such sources, what we say are just opinions, and in an article like this especially, we have to be very careful to keep opinions and facts separate. The article as a whole must be NPOV, i.e. its purpose is neither to promote nor discredit homeopathy, but to give verifiable information from reputable sources to present a clear, honest and objective account of homeopathy. It's not easy. - Gleng 13:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Im not advacating putting that exact phrase in, as I know it would be impossible to verrify. However I do plan on putting in a sourced passage that better desrcibes the actual level of oppostion and ridicule that is directed at this theory by actual professionals. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, most of the medical community are skeptically open-minded about it. Medical associations will never endorse any kind of treatment - "alternative" or not - unless they can find scientific evidence for its safety and efficacy, and even then claims are narrowly articulated. There are only a few activists that go to the trouble of "ridiculing" it, and their objections should of course be noted. -- Leifern 15:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Leifern here; homeopathy does not present any kind of "threat" to science, and if a convincing scientific explanation is forthcoming and convincing evidence for efficacy then it will rapidly be embraced in the mainstream. There is no cause for ridicule here, not in WP or anywhere. Ideas may or may not be wrong, there are frauds and charlatans about, but let's assume good faith where we can, not just on WP. - Gleng 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (Excuse my indenting.) It is very difficult to know what the mood is, whether one asserts the hilarity and mirth emerging from the windows of doctors' messes (lounges to Americans) are over the patient who believed in homeopathy (or indeed the amount one can save by not using actual drugs, just water) or that the doctors who did not enter into an argument about it were considering it as a serious possibility rather than looking forward to going home on time with their digestion intact.  I've spent a fair bit of time in messes and doctors' on-line fora, as you'd expect, and while I hope we are generally polite about it, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg is pretty close to the usual junior doctor's views.  Locally we have one of the few university departments of complementary medicine - run by the notable Professor Edzard Ernst and I've provided facilities and permission for a properly designed trial my first assistant wanted to take part in.  She made people feel better in a whole variety of ways, and I was happy enough for her to try Homeopathy provided the conditions were those of proper research, and indeed to participate in setting them up.  I think it is WP:CB promoted by charlatans and quacks, but I'm willing to see them prove specific interventions have specific reliable effects.  The explanation is hocus pocus though, and the derivation from one guru essentially pathognomic.  And that is a pretty reliable representation of senior UK doctors' common views on it. - Midgley 17:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I lost the place here, someone said they'd be willing to offer a rewrite. Of course, all rewrites should be considered!


 * FYI, I found an interesting page that has lot of med cites for evidence or not on a specific remedy, arnica montana, one which I personally have found helpful for brusing taken orally http://www.herbmed.org/Herbs/Herb92.htm


 * Also, I think this is one of those things where the mechanism is clearly not understood, if indeed curative powers are possible. Many times causes are understood later, or not, so at the time when we don't understand the causes I think the better approach is to focus on evidence or lack thereof for cures. - Kissedsmiley 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reductio Ad Absurdum

 * After reading about homeopathy I decided to use the Theory of Infinitesimals in other areas of my life. Specifically, I used it to save me money on gas for my car. I emptied out the tank, and filled it up with homeopathized gasoline. Compared to the fifty dollars a tank of gas would cost me, I saved $49.99 by using homeopathized gasoline!
 * Unfortunately I have not had a chance to see how well my homeopathized car would run on the street, as some ass seems to have filled my gas tank with water!
 * I can't wait to see how healthy I'll get when I homeopathize my food... Modusoperandi 20:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments, as much as you may find them amusing, appear to be rather unhelpful. Would it be helpful for me to go the discussion page for Catholicism and start making fun of the Bible?  --Xaliqen 21:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem here isn't that we're not talking about a religion or value/belief system. We're talking about health care, which is rooted in science. The usefulness of remedies can be empirically tested. If there is no medicine present in a solution, then the solution isn't medicinal. Sorry.
 * Yes, if you can illustrate the lunacy of any subject I highly encourage exposing that subject for the sham that it is. Something diluted with water to the point that it is water, is water. Dilution dilutes things, hence the term; shaking water just results in shaken water.  Modusoperandi 05:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, "shaken" ("not stirred") must do something for James Bond......;-) Fortunately he's likely too logical to believe in homeopathy, but he certainly believes in martinis. -- Fyslee 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I am heartened to see these comments on the lunacy of homeopathy, as pointed out above its just water. Homeopathy is really about the human condition ie we are driven to invent illogical arguments because it is not a perfect world. The main point for me is that no comapny would be allowed to release a new medicine on the type of data that exsists for so called homeopathic remedies.

Ad Absurdum
Yes Midgley, but I know what my colleagues in basic science say about clinical science too, (and probably vice versa). Polite is good, after all we might just be wrong, and if we're right, what does it cost us to be reasonable? Maybe it costs us credibility if we're not, or are not seen to be. It seems to me that it should be in the interests of all parties that this article is seen to be fair. These articles must not be a platform for advocacy, and if they are seen to draw conclusions for the reader then they insult the reader's ability to draw conclusions for himself or herself. So Leifern and anyone else, please be specific, what will it take to get rid of this tag, because from where I stand, it seems that some think the article is POV because it doesn't indulge homeopathy's claims and some think it's POV because it doesn't damn them. While this tag is there it's an open invitation to make mischief; get rid of it and we have something to legitimately defend. Leifern, you don't like the balance of the Science section, please follow the tags, the balance is there, in reach. Personally I don't think that the way forward is to see more studies cited in the text because then we get into a cycle of which should be chosen, and how many is a fair balance, and what's wrong with them; the consensus is obvious, at present the data haven't convinced most medics and scientists yet at least, here's the biggest and most recent analysis that has informed the consensus view of medics and scientists, and here are the links if you want to see the data and the other side for yourself.Gleng 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Midgley 02:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I'm not sure it is really correct to say that the vast majority of the scientific community considers homeopathy pseudoscience. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't give much thought to homeopathy at all, or really know what it is. elizmr 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's what I'd call a pseudofact. :-) --Lee Hunter 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Moshe--do you feel really strongly that this word has to stay in? elizmr 04:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed 'pseudoscience' describes the claims of homeopaths perfectly. They use the scientific method for some of their claims but do not follow through with the whole requirements of science and therefore it is a pseudoscience. Maustrauser 04:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The item should stay and there is no need to qaulify it with some or a majority. Any description of a group, if there are only tiny minorities with a different view, does not get qualified unless the article is about the tiny minority. There's lots of WP policy on that. Mccready 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on guys. It's an opinion, maybe a fair opinion, but it's an opinion; the word is judgemental and derogatory, and it's not our place to make judgements like this. The purpose of this article is not to promote homeopath nor to rubbish it, if either of these is a consequence of a fair accounting of facts, then so be it but it's for the reader to draw the conclusions, not us to draw them for him. Pseudoscience here doesn't even list homeopath as a pseudoscience, and if it did I wouldn't say differently. Let's have no dual standards; we expect claims for the efficacy of homeopathy to be verifiable and attributable to the best and most authoritative sources. Has any reputable authority representing a large consensus formall declared homeopathy to be a pseudoscience? Can't see any description like that from the AMA or GMC or the Roal Society or Parliamentary select committees, if so they would certainly merit reporting here. I'm weary here; I'm going to remove the POV tag; anyone wants to replace it, I suggest that they explain precisely what elements in the text as of now that violate WP policy on NPOV and how, and lets try to resolve these. Let's move forward; there's a lot more can go into the article, Aegeis' stuff isn't all rubbish and needs sifting through, but lets get a framework to defend and improveGleng 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I would bet that a few reputable organizations of scientists have declared it pseudoscience. I don't think any of us are attempting to just throw in our opinion, it's just necessary to explain how the establishment views homeopathy so as not to mislead the readers into thinking it is more accepted that it actually is.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I konw this isn't an entire organization of scientists but here is a link from the BBC- .- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd guess it's more likely that there are no such formal declarations. Reputable scientific organizations don't feel a need to issue official reports that Ouija boards don't work or that Uri Geller can't bend spoons or whatever.  It's clear that homeopathy is not accepted by the scientific establishment. JamesMLane t c 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The BBC link is to an interview with Randi, a highly public opponent of fraud and pseudoscience; someone I think very highly of as unafraid to express his opinions forcefully and intelligently. However this is not a formal endorsement by an authority. Yes it is cleara that homeopathy iisn't accepted by the scientific establishment, no dispute. Pseudoscience is a derogatory term that we reserve for fraudulent activities that marquerade as science without taking any account of scientific method or norms; this is not generally true of homeopathy, much is published in peer reviewed literature, many accept the concept of validation through controlled trials, many see the weaknesses of explanation and propose possible mechanisms; this does not look like pseudoscience activity; it may be misguided, the arguments may all be flawed, but being totally wrong does not make it pseudoscience any more than quantum theory and relativty make Newtonian mechanics pseudoscience. You won't find the scientific establishment making declarations like this, indeed you should look at what the AMA does advise - (be open minded; it might just be right; probably not but...). We don't make the judgementsGleng 13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The opinions expressed by Randi are well taken, but I dont' think the BBC link is a reference which justifies saying that the entire community of science considers homeopathy to be "pseudoscience". I agree with Gleng that "pseudoscience" it is a derog. term and thus can't be considered NPOV. I think what MOshe probably wants to say is that homeopathy hasn't been demonstrated to be effecive in double blind randominzed controlled trials.  Can't we say this without using derog language?  Also, as a medical practice, we need to realize that we probably shouldn't hold homeopathy to higher standards than we hold anything else that medical professionals do.  As authors of this article, we should probably realize that much of what is done by the medical community isn't based on the gold standard of double blind randomized controlled trials, but rather based on what the existing evidence would support at a given point in time along with the aim to do no harm.  A good case in point is the widespread use of hormone replacement therapy which was done based on observational studies.  When the randominzed trials finally came out and did not confirm the observational data the practice was largely stopped.  Mch of what surgeons do is not based on randomized trials at all.  This doesn't mean that there's pseudoscience or quackery being done, it just means that docs are doing the best they can based on available evidence.  We need to give homeopathy the benefit of the doubt when writing this article.  elizmr 15:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree that pseudoscience is limited to fraudulent activities. Disagree that it is derogatory, though it is negative. The science community regards, with tiny exceptions, "homeopathy" as psuedoscience. Because it's a tiny minority there is no need to qualify. As to Elizmr's point about medicine. Exactly. Medicine abandons the practice once it's shown to be ineffective - "homeopathy" doesn't. Having said all that, after you read the article referenced somewhere in the page Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:393-399. there are very good grounds for splitting the article into homeopaths who seek a scientific viewpoint and homeopaths who don't. In other words our definition of H needs to reflect at least these two viewpoints. The problem as I see it is that those homeopaths who accept science are a minority of practising homeopaths. Mccready 05:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience isn't exactly derogatory. It is a term that refers to a specific practice of using using science in a very non-scientific way. This is pretty much was homeopathy does, they don't use normal scientific method to prove their claims. Some people say that normal medicine is just biased against different techniques, but this is clearly not true, since probably no other profession will adapt to new effective techniques the way that medicine does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me perfectly acceptable to say that the majority of the scientific community regards it as pseudoscience as this is the state of affairs as it stands. Jefffire 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

From WP peudoscience "It generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science." Can't escape the derogatory implications. If it's a reasonable conclusion that homeopathy is pseudoscience from the facts given in the article, then it's a conclusion that the reader can draw. If it's not a reasonable conclusion from the facts as given, then it shouldn't be said anyway. As for Jeffire's point, OK, if you can find a verifiable reputable source for fact (not opinion) then cite it; I'd be happy to accept a reliable survey of opinion, or a declared policy statement. As for Mccready's point, fine, by all means add a V RS indicating that most homeopaths reject scientific criteria. I'm not against facts here, just against opinions masquerading as facts; the opinions may be fair, but are they verifiable. No dual standards, we expect EBM to support claims of efficacy, lets be no less rigorous elsewhere. On PubMed, "pseudoscience" gets 71 items, none related specifically to homeopathy ("homeopathy + pseudoscience" gets none). Come on guys, read the whole article through carefully. On the whole, it's reasonable, reasoned, balanced; it doesn't shout and it doesn't preach, let's keep it like that Gleng 13:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly with Gleng that "pseudoscience" can't be used without negative conotations. At the same time, I would say that a bald description of homeopathy--using remedies that don't contain any substance, giving sick people something that makes well people similarly sick--screams pseudoscience and it is not necessary to use the actual word to get that point across.  However, and (I don't mean to be insulting by saying this) it is a little facile to call something "pseudoscience" to be dismissive of it without really knowing all that much about it.  Hahnemann actually followed some pretty scientific principles of hypothesis, testing hypothesis, observation of results, as he developed homeopathy.  I think it is more exact and accurate to say that the MECHANISM of homeopathy is biologically implausible than to use the label "pseudoscience".  elizmr 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. Remeber many homeopaths accept there is no plausible mechanism. While some suggested mechanisms are clearly pseudoscience others (such as god did it) don't really pretend to be science.01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, are you for or against the use of the word "pseudoscience" to refer to homeopathy? I'm arguing that we should not use it.  elizmr 02:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy per say no. Just as we wouldn't lable Church of England as pseudoscience. However if we deal with some of the proposed mechanisms then yes the word pseudoscience should be used.Geni 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

From the Encyclopaedia of Pseudoscience, pxix, comes the comment that something is pseudoscience if it (a) disregards or contradicts rational principles or (b) the field does not develop through trial and error but by revelation. Homeopathy fits both these criteria. Pseudoscience is a good description of homeopathy and it should stay. Maustrauser 02:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy WAS developed through trial and error, not revelation. I'm not sure what sources you are consulting to support your claims.  elizmr 14:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

currently
I'm not sure what is wrong with saying that homeopathy doesn't "currently" meet standards of EBM. It doesn't imply that it ever will or ever will not. I have a problem with such a final sounding pronouncement in the lead, especially since homeopathy is difficult to study in rcts given the individualized nature of the treatment. Jeffrie, I see your user page says that you are a scientist, but really with all due respect being a biologist does not mean that you are the final arbitor here on Wikipedia of all biomedical scientific matters. This is a group project: a collaboration. Would you be ok with this if we said that homeopathy has only been recently studied using rcts, that it doesn't meet standards currently, and it may or may not in the future? From my point of view, this is more a reflection of the actual state of the knowledge on homeopathy. elizmr 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that the use of the word 'currently' implies to the average reader that it may only a matter of time until homeopathy is proven. This may well be true, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is a redundant weasel word which doesn't add anything to the article. I also don't believe I've ever claimed to be the final arbitar on biomedical matters, nor the be disrespectful of the consensus. Jefffire 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * J--what do you think of the sentence written above? elizmr 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To speak frankly!! I must say Homoeopathy is not been understood in general society so have such oppositions saying it is not worthed...what is required i must simply say go through it what exactly homoeopathy is and then raise the questions calling it as placebo therapy or a kinda quackery. Further i must say if it is really known,it works miraclously,just what is required is to know the art of using this science and (sorry to say ...)those dont want to go through even to stick to what they say as contradicting may never understand even how the homoeopathy works! User:neha wadhwa 00:17 09 may 2006


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jefffire 18:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience again and rewrite offer again
I'm very concerned about the use of the tag 'pseudoscience' anywhere in Wikipedia - it seems to me that the word is expressly POV, which would appear to contravene the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. I have offered to do a rewrite of homeopathy, altogether, as a purely 'descriptive' article, completely without POV, claims, labels, tags, etc. Homeopathy exists, whatever any reader might think of it and it therefore merits a place in Wikipedia. Is there any interest in a rewrite?


 * Nope. This article has undergone complete rewrights quite regularly.Geni 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I forgot to sign the contribution above Geni's, here. I am happy to keep the current article and would offer some edits, if keeping it is the consensus view. Ballista 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that removing claims labels tags etc would be good. I don't know the history of the article, really, but think a less emotion-laden and purely descriptive approach as Ballista suggests above would be helpful.  I have worked on some controversial articles where a descriptive section as free from controversy as possible is then followed by a controversy section where all of the controversy is discussed fully.  This approach might work well with this article where some editors want to use the term pseudoscience, some do not, etc.  What do people think?  It might get us off the place we are stuck right now.  elizmr 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether or not homeopathy works is irrelevent to this particular discussion. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience by every definition of the word, so the article must mention that if it is to be NPOV. Jefffire 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an opinion. We keep opinions to ourselves. Find a V RS that labels it a pseudoscience and quote it as an opinion. Unless you want to label this article with a flashing message saying don't bother to read any further if you're looking for facts not opinions.Gleng 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Homeopathy uses scientific terms but doesn't confrom to the usual scientific rigour. It is by definition a pseudoscience. The only POV is that some people believe that is a bad thing. Jefffire 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You refer to "homeopathy" as if it were some kind of monolithic entity when in fact it encompasses a very broad range of concepts, methodologies and approaches. Some researchers are doing studies that follow the usual scientific rigour and there are some that don't. The clinical side, which is the bulk of the practise of homeopathy, is the practical application of the information acquired from others and the question of science or pseudoscience does not really apply (i.e. they're not doing research). The word "pseudoscience" is simply a vague pejorative (and used very loosely) which does nothing to shed light on homeopathy. --Lee Hunter 20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Granted there may be some legitimate research on homeopathy and there is a broad range of disciplines under it. However the same is true of astrology. Negative results are usually ignored at the clinical end and unproven conjectures are stated as fact, both trademark of pseudoscience. Some form of homeopathy may graduate to a real science one day, but what is around today is most definately not. Jefffire 20:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Talk:Pseudoscience page we have thrashed out criteria for a listing as pseudoscience, which include the criterion that the subject must not be under serious study by academics or professionals. Evidence that it is being seriously studied includes courses or departments at established, recognized universities; publications relating to the field in peer-reviewed professional journals; and the like. There are chairs of and courses in homeopathy at some universities (including the Universities of Bern and Exeter), on-going study at health institutions such as the NIH's Center for Alternative Medicine, but especially there are numerous peer-reviewed publications about this, also cited on that talk page. Here is a very small selection of such publications:
 * 1) research done by the centre for complementary medicine research at the Technical University in Munich
 * 2) Annals of Internal Medicine
 * 3) European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
 * 4) another Munich study
 * 5) this study from the Department of Complementary Medicine in the Medical School of the University of Exeter.

This is simply an on-going research question with varied results, some positive and some negative. As long as this study continues, it is appropriate to cite its results but not prejudge its eventual conclusions. Hgilbert 11:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Talk:Pseudoscience does not define what is and is not a pseudoscience. Try typing define:pseudoscience into goolge for some definitions of what pseudoscience is.Jefffire 11:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When I read the definitions of pseudoscience from Google, my conclusion is that homeopathy does not state itself a science, as yet, and so can not be called a pseudoscience. I'm a health care professional in Canada, and have never used homeopathy, but I jumped over to this talk section of the article specifically because I was surprised at the "pseudoscience" tag here and a couple other non-NPOV comments on the page. Wikipedia is usually not this slanted.70.51.132.130 23:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the first few definitions I get are:


 * Scientifically testable ideas that are taken on faith, even if tested and shown to be false
 * A set of ideas based upon theories put forth as scientific whether they are or not; based upon an authorative text rather than observation or empirical investigation
 * Research that has the appearance of science but does not follow the scientific method, usually lacking peer review and repetition of observations by independent researchers


 * All three fit homeopathy like a glove, so pseudoscience is a valid description. Jefffire 00:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hahnemann's Cinchona proving
It is a lie that "the law of similars is based on Hahnemann's observation". His observation was that he experienced paroxysms of fever after intaking the drug, nothing more. The law of similars is an erroneous interpretation of this observation. The falsity of this interpretation is demonstrated by the facts adduced in my version. You obstinately remove the facts from the text; why? Because the word observation creates an impression that homoeopathy is rooted in facts; you intentionally try to deceive the reader.

Aegeis 20:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Aegeis

Assuming good faith
Aegeis--please try to assume that all the editors who are working here are doing so in good faith. I doubt anyone is trying to deceive anyone by what they are writing. There is no reason to insult other editors intentions. elizmr 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

LM potencies
While Hahnemann introduced these late in his life I'm pretty sure they were not a post Hahnemann invention.Geni 00:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy tag
(This is re the April 28 edit appearing under an IP number - I forgot to log in)

I was surprised to see the tag removed when people on both sides of the debate regularly comment that this article is biased or contains errors.

Right from the beginning: "Although homeopathy is reported to be growing in popularity..." - no one in the world will dispute that it is growing in popularity so why the tentativeness (unless we're willing to say that "homeopathy is reported/believed not to conform to scientific standards..."!)?

The science section is a total sham. No positive studies or the several comrehensive meta-analyses (published in Lancet and BMJ, no less) reporting positive or ambigious results are mentioned. The Lancet article is totaly misrepresented: it is not the largest meta-analysis at all because its results are not based on 110+110 studies but on 6+8 studies (please read the article rather than a press release before reporting on it) and, crucially, which are the studies used from among the 110/100 is not reported!

"There is scientific agreement that evidence based medicine should be used in healthcare and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential" is simply incorrect: there is no such agreement! This is a policy-line and the advertised image of medicine as a homogeneous entity, but not reality.

The AMA quote doesn't address homeopathy but a heterogeneous group of therapies and is compatible with any situation in which homeopathy has evidence for it yet at lease one therapy doesn't (that the meaning of "most" in my understanding, it's different from "all"). So the quote is inappropriate to this context.

The Regulatory Decisions section is totally out-of-context and irrelevant to the article (unless one is willing actually to report about homeopathic regulation in a comprehensive way) but no one seems to notice that because it has the "right" bias.

The above is a sufficient sampling. I don't have the energy to debate homeopathy unless others are willing to apply the same criteria to both sides of the debate and actually educate themselves about this complex subject-matter before contributing to the article (as opposed to discussion, which is fine). But minimally the tag should remain as you ought to consider the consensus of those who may not be online in eternal vigilance yet have clearly expressed their disagreement with the article in its present state. Davidnortman 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of the positive studies do not use strict enough scientific protocols so they can't be included in such a way as to suggest they are valid compared to the Lancet study. Jefffire 09:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but "many" is not "all", and among literally over 100 positive studies there are 5-10 of the highest quality plus several excellent meta-analyses, published in the most reputable mainstream journals including Lancet (so if you're using Lancet publication as your main criterion, there are I believe more positive than negative reports on homeopathy in it if you go back in history beyond the last well-publicized press-release, just as valid as the last study). It is precisely a careful selection from those (or meta-analyses referencing to those) that was reported in an earlier version of the science section (one that I attempted to revert to some weeks ago), alongside negative evidence of similar quality and some laboratory evidence considered by some as relevant to homeopathy. But it is easier to make categorical statements (I am not referring specifically to you here but to the general trend) than actually research the subject-matter. Absent adequate knowledge, the only prudent approach is to refrain from contributing to the article body, especially destructively (i.e. by removing existing material). Davidnortman 09:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Only the highest quality studies should be included, both positive and negative. Selection must be very careful in such a controversial area though. Jefffire 09:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Depend on exacly how you define homeopathy there are 2-3 high quality studies into homeopathy. They all came out negative. Your 5-10 claim is false.Geni 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

On The Lancet study; I've never read a press release on this and wouldn't ever cite a paper without reading it. The description of it in the article is correct, see Table 3 of the paper for instance, the legend of which is: Univariable meta-regression analysis of treatment effects in 110 placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and 110 matched trials of conventional medicine. (The paper does additionally compare the very best studies of which there are relatively few, that's implicit in very best). Apart from the paper itself, this section refers the reader to two critical commentaries on the Lancet study published in homeopathy journals. I did not quote from the editorial that accompanied the Lancet article, but perhaps it is appropriate to do so. This is all V RSGleng 11:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Table 3 does not offer (or purport to offer) a comparison of homeopathy with conventional medicine. It rather offers evidence for the claim that in homeopathy trials various measures (e.g. English vs. foreign-language, MEDLINE vs not, etc.) had a greater influence on homeopathy than conventional-medicine trials - the authors intention is to argue that the current homeopathic literature is more sensitive to bias due to such factors than are conventional-medicine trials; that's all - nothing there about comparative efficacy. The statistical comparison on which the authors based their conclusion re efficacy is based strictly on an unknown (because unreported) subset of 8 homeopathy and 6 non-homeopathy trials - as stated in the article summary as well as later within the body. I should mention also that the whole process of meta-analysis relies on homogeneity so "110 [representative] trials of conventional medicine" is a fiction, but this can be dismissed as private criticism. Within the article is also this interesting sentence: "For example, for the eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract that were included in our sample, the pooled effect indicated a substantial beneficial effect (odds ratio 0·36 [95% CI 0·26–0·50]) and there was neither convincing evidence of funnel-plot asymmetry nor evidence that the effect differed between the trial classified as of higher reported quality and the remaining trials. Such sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works." In short, claiming that this article is the most comrehensive meta-analysis, or that its conclusions are uniformly negative, is simply incorrect once the article is read. This article is worthy of inclusion simply because it was published in a prominent journal; but then so are the positive ones such as Reilly DT et al. "Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?" Lancet 1994;344:1601-06 and the accompanying editorial "Reilly's challenge" (p. 1585) - the first is a superb study in every respect (based my own subjective estimation plus the fact that it has not been subject to substantive criticism over the years) and the latter an honest editorial suggesting that the results are equally a challenge to trial methodology (if one does not accept the data as evidence for homeopathy) as they are in favor of homeopathy (if one accepts the conclusions). This subtlety of the data was reflected in the long-ago version of the science section but is completely missing from the present version. Davidnortman 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting defintion of homeopathy you are useing there. "Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?" tests isopathy not homeopathy. In any case the studies were not equiverlent so the reporducibilty question is imposible to answer from the data and there are questions over how many of the paincents had the supposed illness.Geni 13:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Old story and discussed many times before: When testing for whether homeopathy works at all the best model is some sort of simplified homeopathy because it offers the highest methodological rigor (internal validity); when testing clinical efficacy then studies of classical homeopathy are desirable (at least when trying to prove classical homeopathy). Our present discussion is the more basic one of whether there is any effect or not, for which the Reilly study is very appropriate. I keep seeing this endless vascillation in skeptics, without the acknowledgement that it is by nature impossible to design a study that's optimized to answer both these questions at once; this way it is always possible to dismiss a Reilly type study as you did above for not representing homeopathy (as if your belief in isopathy is not tightly correlated to your belief in homeopathy!), and a clinically oriented study for not being methodologically rigorous enough. The trouble is that in turn when homeopaths are faced with one type of negative study they say it means nothing about the other (isopathy/classical homeopathy) and vice versa, so this misunderstanding is perpetuated. Instead let us both agree that there are currently two separate questions that require largely independent investigation: scientific and clinical. This issue was also indirectly adressed by the long-ago version but has been obliterated in the present version which over-emphasizes clinical efficacy. Davidnortman 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Davidnortman I think misrepresents the Lancet paper, and I quote from the discussion "We compared the effects of homoeopathy and conventional medicine that are seen in placebo-controlled trials, examined the presence of bias resulting from inadequate methods and selective publication, and estimated results in trials least affected by these biases. We assumed that the effects observed in placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy could be explained by a combination of methodological deficiencies and biased reporting. Conversely, we postulated that the same biases could not explain the effects observed in comparable placebo-controlled trials of conventional medicine. Our results confirm these hypotheses: when analyses were restricted to large trials of higher quality there was no convincing evidence that homoeopathy was superior to placebo, whereas for conventional medicine an important effect remained. Our results thus provide support for the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy, but not those of conventional medicine, are unspecific placebo or context effects."

Reilly is indeed a good researcher who elsewhere (in the BMJ) endorses the evidence based principles. Quoting him and others, "If we are to ...combine the best of conventional medicine and complementary and alternative medicine in order to provide an informed choice for our patients, then it must be research led and evidence based" However it is not true that his 1994 Lancet paper has gone unchallenged - the BMJ has published a failure to replicate his findings, and an accompanying editorial (BMJ 2002;324:498-499) editorial "Randomised controlled trials for homoeopathy". Quoting from that editorial, "The study by Lewith and colleagues (p 520) in this issue joins the pool of good quality placebo controlled trials and no doubt will take its place in the next meta-analysis.3 It is a negative trial in patients with asthma, showing no difference in lung function or their asthma-specific quality of life between those treated with placebo and those who received ultradiluted allergen. It is a test of isopathy (the use of homoeopathically prepared allergens to treat allergies), not a test of homoeopathy as such. The study was designed to replicate a previous trial by Reilly et al using the same intervention.4 The main differences between this and previous trials are the outcome measures and duration of treatment, which may account for the different result, although chance is another explanation." Gleng 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Re Lancet 2005 trial: Nothing in the quote above talks about comparing 110 with 110 trials, and indeed there is no such statistical comparison presented in the paper. Note the authors' strange methodology: presuming that positive effects of homeopathy could be due to various biases/deficiencies, and then selecting quality criteria that will confirm that bias. But this is post-hoc reasoning; in any case (I won't pursue this point further here), this is what Table 3 refers to. I repeat that there is no statistical comparison of 110 vs 110 trials, and of course based on the above one can conclude that before the filtering down to 6+8 trials there was no difference (otherwise why was the filtering done in the first place?). In other words, the study begins with the claim that homeopathy appears to show a positive effect based on collected trials, yet that this effect could be due to biases that, once dealt with, leave only a handful or two of studies, which are then statistically analyzed. So again, insofar as this is a comparison of 110 and 110 trials we can only infer that there is no difference between the two groups; whereas the negative result for homeopathy emerges only subsequent to filtering, and is based strictly on the final subset. Under different filtering, as the authors themselves admit, at least one subgroup analysis shows positive results, but it is assumed (not demostrated) that those results are due to bias (because this is the starting assumption - I'm still scratching my head trying to understand how one can assume one's conclusion. / Re Reilly: By not being challenged I meant that it was not shot down as a bad paper, so the result stands for what it is: one unimpeachable positive study for homeopathy. Repeatability is another issue - (without remembering the details of that study or having in on-hand right now): The quote given above admits that different outcome measures were used, so how can the authors claim "failure to replicate" the findings? It should rather be considered a different study unless successfully argued that it is a replication (which it may well be); but this cannot be done by fiat. Davidnortman 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Davidnortman's remarks above. elizmr 22:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the wording in the article; you're criticising a phrasing that is not used and not implied. The lancet paper is notable and is very unusual, I don't know of another comparable large study. I used the authors' words above, but they could have put things more clearly. This is a "global" meta analysis of homeopathy, not an analysis of particular effects. The problem is this - you can analyse homeopathy by each specific claim - this addresses specific claims but does not address the global question of whether homeopathy is ever effective. This study tested the global hypothesis, that ALL reported effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. If this is true, then the reported positive effects are placebo effects, publication bias, observer effects etc, and if so, then the magnitude of reported effects should diminish with sample size and study quality, and with the best studies there should be consistently no effect. This is the prediction that the study sought to test. For comparison, they subjected an equal set of matched conventional medicine triials for identical analysis. The predition was supported by the study - whereas the analysis of conventional tests showed a real effect independent of sample size, the homeopathy studies did not. The study does not prove that homeopathy is never effective or that all its findings are placebo effects. It does show that the totality of tests analysed show outcomes consistent with the interpretation that all of the reported effects are placebo effects. Now check the wording in the article, what exactly is not accurate and verifiable in it.Gleng 08:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the authors' intentions and agree that they are those which you state. But the method of meta-analysis cannot be used automatically on a heterogeneous set of studies, and both sets in this study are highly heterogeneous - clearly the conventional medicine set which lumps together a huge variety of phenomena, but also the homeopathy set which lumps together several types of homeopathy. Furthermore, how can they compare 110 out of about 150-200 trials in the case of homeopathy, and 110 out of hundreds of thousands of trials in the case of conventional medicine? - Do you really think that the nature of the subgroups is equivalent? I rather think that this needs to be demonstrated. It may be that sensitivity to sample size, language of publication, etc. is greater in the homeopathy group simply because 110 best trials out of 200 is a worse-quality sample than the best 110 out of (say) 500,000? In other words, for every trial of homeopathy the matched trial of conventional medicine is expected to be of higher quality because the pool from which it is drawn is several magnitudes bigger. But beyond this fundamental issue, the authors do not explain why they chose the bias criteria that they did: For instance, does it matter whether a study was published in German rather than English? - It may well be that the better studies in homeopathy are done in Germany and not elsewhere. Are larger studies necessarily better than smaller ones? - No, we can look at P values as measures of reliability regardless of study size. In short, no justification is given for these selections. Other criticisms include: exclusion criteria for studies: "The commonest reasons for exclusion were insufficient information (precluding the calculation of odds ratios), ineligible study design, multiple publication, and inability to identify a matching trial of conventional medicine" - but what if any one of those criteria actually excludes better-quality homeopathy trials? Finally, the results could be interpreted in more than one way, one of which is that there is an insufficient sample size for making any conclusions about homeopathy; this is because the odds ratio for homeopathy was significantly below 1 (i.e. indicating an effect above placebo), it is just that the confidence interval was wide enough to envelop also the 1 (indicating no difference from placebo). But the difference in confidence interval might simply be due to the aforementioned difference in pool from which to draw the 110 studies on each side - this possibility was not excluded and cannot be, based on the provided data. In short, there is too much unexplained, possibly ad/post-hoc reasoning in this paper to read much clearly out of it. There is much room for error when starting with 500,000 studies and anding up with 6 - the room for random fluctuation (i.e. that these 6 studies are not representative of conventional medicine) is massive, and likewise (but to a smaller extent) for the 8 out of 200-or-so pool of homeopathy studies. To claim that this paper is somehow definitive is to be naive about the nature of statistics; maybe it doesn't suck as much as I think it does, but it certainly is not immune to serious methodological criticism, most of it extractable straight from textbooks of meta-analysis! Plug in crooked data and you will get crooked output, no matter how precise-looking - meta-analysis is a double-edged sword that we are still learning how to wield. You yourself state that you don't know of another comparative large study of this sort; if so, then how can this unusual design be used presumptively, without having undergone testing to see whether it tends to produce valid results? Davidnortman 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK we're getting closer here. Where is the claim that this study is definitive? Not in the article, or in anything I've said. It's a V RS, it's very notable (see editorial in Lancet)and it's reported concisely and accurately, without interpretation or exaggeration or extravagent claims, and two sources of criticism (in fact from non RS sources) are linked to it. Yes there is room for error with all studies, WP policy is clear; we are not here to decide the truth but to report verifiable facts (V RS)- getting into evaluation is OR. This study is notable, but does not prove that homeopathy does not work, no proof can exist for a statement like this, what it does is provide evidence that studies of homeopathy are consistent with the results being placebo effects. Evidence is not proof. It would be possible to handle this section differently, giving lots of citations to studies for and against. Fine, if this path is supported generally, I won't oppose, but I will expect to see that the studies cited are cited on the primary basis that they are V RS and reliable (i.e. not withdrawn or subsequently contradicted by an equivalent or stronger V RS). Evidence of impact would be good (number of citations). Recent large studies are good. Secondary RS V sources better than primary sources (WP policy).Gleng 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The format you are proposing is precisely the one that existed and to which I tried to revert to previously. Mostly meta-anlyses are referenced, as they act like secondary sources in pooling and discussing primary studies; I continue to disagree with your use of Cochrance/Bandolier summaries because they are no more readable than the original and are do not adequately cover the complete homeopathic literature. Just like the current version, that version was based on consensus over time, but unlike the current version it successfully presented both sides of the debate, however imperfectly. The current version is problematic almost throughout, and my proposed solution is to revert to the aforementioned version and take it from there. I am not prepared to argue my points one-by-one again - all this has already been done. (My underlying claim is that this article has degenerated after reaching a fairly good state, and the mere fact that this degeneration took place by consensus doesn't sanctify the present version, because it is largely based on distortions of previous material and removal of relevant material - what suggests to me that it was done by those who are not knowledgeable about the subject-matter. Theory of chronic disease is totally gone even though it is more peculiar to and characteristic of homeopathy than either the law of similars or minimum dose (and Hahnemann wrote Chronic Diseases besides the Organon); the miasms section (pretty much the only section outside of the science secion with new material in it) is a product of Aegis's infamous scholarship; etc.) Davidnortman 19:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not my version, and I didn't introduce the EBM, though I support its inclusion, (I added the pro homeopathy Cochrane reference). I don't agree with you, and I don't think you'll get consensus support for reversion. Have no idea if there will be any objections to restoring chronic disease theory - don't know why it went; before my time probably. Check the Talk logsGleng 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I know it's not your version, but my point is that there is complacency on your and others' part in accepting an obviously skewed version when it fits your collective prior belief, and extreme criticism of any version that actually rings of neutrality. The consensus you are referring to (which you imply is normative in some sense) is merely the consensus of the skeptics that happen to be dominating this article. Davidnortman 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WP policies apply. Assume good faith, be civil, and don't disparage the motives or competence of other WP editors. What you accuse me (and others) of above I find offensive. Neutrality in controversial articles is not about balance (giving equal weight to all sides) but about reporting facts, reporting consensus views, reporting significant minority views with facts. The consensus scientific view of homeopathy is clear, stated coolly with V RS. Minority views dissenting from the consensus are also reported. See WP policies on NPOV and controversial articles, reliable sources and verifiability. Gleng 09:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for sounding offensive, but my record shows a consistent tolerance of and incorporation of opposing views in my own contributions (see October 2005 history and back). I do not doubt your intentions of those of all but a couple of recent contributors, but competence remains an issue, in that it takes more than a casual acquaintance with homeopathy in order to contribute to an article on it. I have, for example, suggested that your search through Cochrance/Bandolier is inadequate because the databases are not comprehensive and emphasize clinically relevant studies (whereas as I discussed above a clinical study can also be used to produce a clinically irrelevant yet statistically significant result, which is relevant data in the debate). Nevertheless, the issue is not the contribution per se (which is constructive) but the presumption that that is all there is to it to the topic - that an Internet search is sufficient. Regarldess, the science section departs from your very statements about how the article should be, as it does not report the consensus properly (as mentioned above the AMA quote is inappropriate as it does not address homeopathy specifically and thus serves rhetorical purpose only), reports selectively on some obscure regulatory decision (out of, certainly, dozens around the world), fails to report on several positive, highest-quality studies, and leaves unmentioned the fact that there is a multidisciplinary reserach program investigating possible mechanisms of action, the existence of which at the very least should be reported (which does not, as some have claimed, automatically imply to the reader that there is a real effect involved). All these features were present in the previous version which suggested that despite a scientific consensus against homeopathy (a consensus which is built on the demand for conclusive proof) the actual data (which definitely do not represent conclusive proof but do demonstrate anomalies that have to be addressed) is somewhat more ambiguous, and informs a live scientific debate within the actual community of scientists, as seen in actual mainstream scientific journals. Davidnortman 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I second every statement in Davidnortman's well-written and lucid note above. elizmr 17:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hgilbert's edits
"Homeopathic physicians are licensed to practice medicine in most countries of the world"

Please provide evidence that at least 97 countries have lisenced homeopathic physicians that are allowed to practice medicine.

"including such countries as the USA, England, France, Germany, Holland, and Switzerland."

Your souce does not mention t heUSA or Switzerland. There is no such thing as a licensed homeopathic physician in the uk. There are various private organiseations that keep lists but homopath is not a protected title.

"There are eight medical schools in France with post graduate courses leading to specialization in homeopathy."

We have a homeopathy around the world section already. Please use it.Geni 01:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no "licensed" homeopathic physician in the whole of EU, unlike real MDs. So I'm leaning towards that list being entirely made up. --Denoir 06:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing attitudes
I have seen much more wholesale reverting on this page than others I have been involved with. It seems kind of rude when someone has worked on a few edits to just do away with them. Quite honestly, the world is not going to come to an end if this Wikipedia page has something that some of us don't agree with for a certain period of time. Could we consider building on stuff people have added, trying to improve on it, or moving it to a better section rather than just reverting? Could we consider objecting to an edit on the talk page rather than reverting? elizmr 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Science, AMA statement etc.
It seems disingeneous to imply that the AMA statement is not intended to be applicable to homeopathy and to other alternative medicines. The body of the report discusses homeopathy specifically in the following terms, before drawing its conclusions: "While most homeopathic remedies are not known to have harmed anyone (probably because of the extreme dilutions involved), the efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven. Some think it a placebo effect, augmented by the concern expressed by the healer; others propose new theories based on quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy. A randomized clinical trial of homeopathic remedies has been touted as showing the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments in childhood diarrhea.20 However, it has been criticized for inconsistent/incorrect data analysis; use of different diagnostic and treatment categories but combining them in the conclusions of efficacy; and lack of chemical analysis of different treatments. The clinical significance of the results, given the self-limiting condition being studied, has been called into question.21" The AMA statement, a policy statement adopted by the membership oof the AMA, is eviidence of the establishment view of the medical professon about homeopathy. This is why it is there. At present the science section is remarkably concise, civil, and restrained. Certainly add to it studies that you think are particularly notable; but if the impression is given by selection of citations that there is more than minority scientific support for the claims of homeopathy, then I would expect that many editors would expect to redress the balance by adding many examples of rigorous studiesGleng 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above portion is far more appropriate than the present one, and more informative, so I have no problem with it. I think it also shows the weakness of its own methodology: quoting one positive study (to show that there has been an effort at proving efficacy), discrediting it, at leaving it at that - as though there are no other studies on record. / I think that you and perhaps others are associating evidence with scientific support too strongly: from the fact that there are several high-quality studies of homeopathy that are not easily criticized on internal, methodological grounds [this is both a premise of the following and an alleged statement of fact] it does not follow that they cannot be criticized on external grounds such as lack of mechanistic support, being part of a research enterprise allegedly shown to be susceptible ot various biases, absence of reproduction, etc. A proper presentation of the debate, then, begins with a balanced, about 1:1 presentation of positive and negative data (roughly mirroring the relative number of good positive and negative studies counting meta-analyses), followed by commentary concerning the above 'external' factors, including the Lancet 2005 paper, the AMA quote, etc. but also some references to mechanism-of-action studies (in reply to the "there's no mechanism" criticism). This will explose the dialectical nature of the ongoing debate, without in any way privileging homeopathy - the experimental evidence is far too tentative to be the determining factor in people's beliefs for or against homeopathy. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who based his beliefs about homeopathy on the experimental evidence - everyone's decision-making takes place within a far larger sphere (personal experience, metaphysical beliefs, view of science, temperament, etc.). Incidentally this very idea was expressed in the subsection "the status quo" of the previous incarnation of the section, which stated that neither side was likely to be swayed by the evidence in its present state. Davidnortman 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem though; the AMA statement is indicative of the consensus view that there have been no studies that withstand a critical analysis, hence the problem - any study quoted as evidence for invites rebuttal as the consensus is that they are all flawed. Hence the policy statement, as a terse summary rather than a systematic recounting of the flaws in studies indicating an effect. A balanced presentation of studies showing a positive effect and those showing a negative effect will not eflect the consensus - the consensus is that there is no effect of homeopathy beyond placebo, so even one unanswered study would not accurately reflect that consensus. However, you might choose studies to cite and then let them be followed by criticicsm of them. Gleng 08:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

ACSH presentation
American Council on Science and Health states that

I am removing the pseudoscience category.


 * Firstly, this one article writen by one man who appears to be quite biased on the issue. This is not official policy.


 * Secondly, it is disputed. He is talking out of his ass.


 * Thirdly there is a difference between ineffectiveness and pseudoscience. If homeopathy does work it is still a pseudoscience. Check the definitions of the words. Jefffire 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed by whom? You? The article appears as an official statement on the ACSH web-site.

Your last comment reminds me of the scientist who claimed bumblebees couldn't fly; he'd checked the physics of it quite thoroughly and they were simply too heavy. The difference between pseudoscience and revolutions in science are that both go outside the current paradigm, but the former doesn't 'work' -- can't make effective predictions or technological innovations -- while the latter does. If homeopathy is in fact effective, then by the standards of evidence-based medicine, it is scientifically valid. Hgilbert 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a diference between an indivial article and an official statement. Additionally even if homeopathy were to be shown to work, it would still be a pseudoscience. Furthermore, this single article couldn't in any way be used as a justification for overruling all other opinions on the maker. Please read the definition of pseudoscience before trying to make this point again. Your point about the bumble-bee is a pretty weak straw man attack. Noone has ever said bubblebee can't fly, only that they use principals different to aeronautics. Jefffire 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are saying that you want to call homeopathy a pseudoscience even if there is evidence it works, I can't really argue the point any further. Certainly you have the right to do so. I think it is a marginal point of view, however; if it can be said of homeopathy that


 * It is undisputed that homeopathy in the area of stronger potency can achieve effects pharmacologically and toxicologically.

as the ACSH website does say, most people would call that scientific proof. Can we have some more editors contribute their say? (Note that the case for homeopathy is not limited to this citation; I have cited other journal articles that also support its efficacy and noted that it is taught in 8 French medical schools as a professional specialty.)Hgilbert 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is possible to say anything about homeopathy, that doesn't make it right. One single article does not overturn the scientific consensus. Please read the article on science for clarification of why you are incorrect. Jefffire 08:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is definitely not a statement from ACSH. It is an article by David Ramey, a vet (specializing in horses). I know Dr. Ramey and he definitely doesn't believe in homeopathy, on the contrary. (Neither does ACSH.)

Hgilbert is really scraping the bottom of the barrel in a desperate attempt to find some kind of scientific "support." The article contains reports from metanalyses which are filled with statements against homeopathy, and in all of that, the only thing that can be misinterpreted in a positive way isn't even positive. In homeopathy, a "strong potency" dosis wouldn't even be homeopathic! It would have too large a quantity of active ingredients, so much as to be measurable, and therefore not diluted at normal homeopathic dilution levels:


 * "It is undisputed that homeopathy in the area of stronger potency can achieve effects pharmacologically and toxicologically."

Of course! With a measurable amount of ingredients, it can have pharmacological and toxicological effects. It's not even homeopathic.

Hgilbert will have to do better than desperately grabbing at (the only available) straws that turn out to mean the oppositie of what he thought.

Homeopathy is not only a pseudoscience, it is a test of the ability of a person to think logically or not.

Dr. Ramey's close partner in anti-quackery efforts (homeopathy is as quacky as it comes), is another veterinarian, Dr. Robert Imrie, who has compiled the following list:


 * Homeopathic Research

For more:

-- Fyslee 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * HomeoLinks


 * Incidently the story that "physics proves the bumblebee can't fly" is just that, a story. If I remember correctly Mr. Physics (or Andre Sainte-Lague) failed to take into account that the bee's wings are mobile vice fixed. A non-sequitor in homeopathy, for sure; it just bugs me when urban myths are used as part of an argument, erm, dialetic. I know that's POV, but if this urban myth/straw man tactic isn't nipped in the bud, pretty soon it will be said that George Washington was to tell a lie about the illegal logging of local cherry trees.   Modusoperandi 07:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Modus. I think the bumblebee story could have its own article.  Or just place it with urban myths.  Its even used in some anti-science literatures.  Its just an excuse that is used as a scientific soundlike coverup.  Hylas Chung 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every so often, I feel compelled, despite my better judgement, to say something on this page. Why does homeopathy need to be proven to have a page on Wikipedia, that is free from all this POV, heated argument, regular impasse etc.? I see no way forward if it cannot be agreed to have a simple, low-key, explanatory article on the page, stating the rationale that Hahnemann and followers have used, without either supporting or contradicting that rationale. I would be happy to write one, as I've said several times. There need be no promotion or support of homeopathy nor this determined onslaught. A worthwhile article can be written WITHOUT claims of efficacy. I bet there are hundreds of articles on WP, which explain something that has no basis in modern science (as we know it). :-) :-) :-) - Ballista 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC) P.S.: There is a h--l of a lot of modern conventional medicine that is not 'EBM' - that's no reason to have an edit war or a bloody battle on the talk page! (I have repeated this message, at the (current) bottom of this page, so that it will be seen.) - Ballista 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC).

The unending controversy - a deadlock?
What is the real issue here? It seems to me that Wikipedia SHOULD have an article on homeopathy. Homeopathy exists and, as such, any encyclopedia worth its name should describe it. However, there should be no POV material (a fundamental Wikipedia tenet) from either 'side' in this dispute. If the article were simply to describe the basic principles of homeopathy, without either making claims or drawing conclusions, surely that could be permitted to exist without this constant 'war-cloud' hanging over it. A great many editors have put tremendous effort into this article, which is to their eternal credit but is it perhaps time to say 'enough' and do a rewrite, from the bottom up, without any 'contentious' comment, whether 'for' or 'against'? Impartiality should be the by-word of Wikipedia. The article could even carry a comment to the effect that "homeopathy does not fit in with contemporary scientific views and remains unproven by those standards". The notion that almost anything could be possible is a fundamental tenet of true science. I quote from Goethe: "God could cause us considerable embarrassment by revealing all the secrets of nature to us - we should not know what to do for sheer apathy and boredom". Thomas Edison said, in his laboratory: "Hell, there ain't no rules around here; we're trying to accomplish something!" If science becomes hidebound by rules, pre-conceived notion, prejudice etc., it will surely die. If science knows all the answers, it's high time that all the expensive scientists went home! Acknowledging that this idea represents a heap of work and recognising the tremendous efforts of those who have gone before, on this task, I would be happy to do a re-write to submit before the 'jury'. I believe I could do it without causing offence and would not publish it without first running it past this page. What does this hard-working segment of the Wikipedia community think? Is there another way out of the apparent deadlock? Ballista 05:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Science" doesn't know all the answers, you're thinking of "religion". Science involves the scientific method which is; making an observation, coming up with a hypothesis and running experiments to see if the theory is proved, disproved or needs to be modified. (For any scientists in the audience that got a shiver up their spine when I just mangled scientific method, I'm sorry.). Homepathy has not been scientifically proven; to say that's POV is frankly, POV.
 * Other articles, like faith healer, have criticism so why is it bad if this one does too? Whether or not we are "recognising the tremendous efforts of those who have gone before" is just part of the story; you can spend hours "pushing" a "pull" door, but the end result is just proof (or a least evidence) that the theory of "push" doesn't work on a "pull" door. Saying that experiments that disprove the "pull" theory of "push" door opening are POV and should not be included would be considered odd, to say the least.
 * Homeopathic cures are statistically similar to placebo effect. Homeopathy is therefore no more valid than placebopathy, no matter how much work people have put into the theory. That is valid criticism.
 * Is there something special about this particular discipline of which I am not aware that makes it so contentious? Or are there edits that disappear so fast that I never see them? Am I the only one here who is giddy that I just made up a new "system of alternative medicine", placebopathy?   Modusoperandi 07:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the great rhetoric but the question I'm asking, which I am probably at fault for being too verbose and not making it clear is;

Can we not have an article on homeopathy that makes no claims of efficacy, no claims of science etc., without stimulating a deluge of vituperation, indignation etc. (call it what you will) and without attracting screams of 'pseudoscience'? I have no wish to enter into an 'efficacy' argument or a 'science' argument, simply a practical wish to see a simple article, free of this incredible ping-pong that's been going on, which has elicited special textboxes warning everyone about keeping tempers etc. I even proposed a 'scientific disclaimer' but that seems not to be satisfactory. What is it about homeopathy that stimulates apoplectic reaction in so many people, as it has for 200 years? Ballista 13:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it does not follow the rigourus procedures of scientific testing it is a pseudoscience (I've said this so often I think we could do with a template). To omit the description of it being pseudoscience is POV in the extreme, so your proposal is utterly unacceptable. Jefffire 13:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably no, we can't have an article like that. I don't really see how you can have an article that excludes all claims that it has any benefits for health. WP has a special responsibility for articles that may be seen as promoting unsubstantiated claims for particular medical treatments. We must ensure that the policy of NPOV in WP is applied, and in accordance with this policy, make it crystal clear what the medical and scientific consensus of opinion is. There really is no doubt at all about what that consensus is, all that remains is how the dissenting view is represented, and this is not a problem so long as it is clear what the consensus view is and that it is the consensus.

Why would you want an article anyway that didn't tackle the most interesting things about homeopathy - the beliefs, that most scientists think are ludicrous, the claims, that many medics think are irresponsible and potentially dangerous, the promotion of homeopathy, which many skeptics believe is fraudulent, and the history, which is fascinating but bizarre. What exactly is left?Gleng 16:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean - Sorry, I think I've expressed my concept badly. I was trying to find a way of simply telling the homeopathic story without opinion, i.e. how it is used and how it is perceived by its users, plus adding a textbox to the effect that the rationale is not accepted by the modern scientific community. I shall bow out again - I had a feeling I shouldn't have waded in. Sorry to muddy the waters. Ballista 20:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The scientific method is not at all what is described above, this is just a fiction reiterated enough times to have become dogma. The so-called scientific method is just one small (yet essential) step in an endeavour which is far more complicated and contingent on human factors than described. Read Kuhn, David Hull's "Science as Process", and just about anything in the past 40 years of philosophy of science (and I am excluding post-modern theories). The scientific method step of scientific activity is shared by homeopathy which has a hypothesis (homeopathic diagnosis) and testing/verification (giving the remedy based on the diagnosis observing the results, and adjusting the theory accordingly). It is in the wider framework that conventional medicine and homeopathy diverge widely (e.g. what is a valid hypothesis, what constitutes permissible evidence, what is a valid observation, what theoretical concepts can be invoked, etc.).

I would like to reiterate what I think is the main problem here: that people who know very little about homeopathy think that they know enough about it to become authorities on it, and as a result the article gets overcorrected (for fear of deceiving the wikipedia reader, who is presumed to be quite dumb and naive) and degraded. The article is biased toward critical or dismissive presentation of the homeopathic material instead of allowing it to be presented as an ideology (in the neutral sense of the word) side-by-side with the ideology of science in reference to homeopathy; this is not a problem in itself as much as an obstacle to achieving the aim of the article; for now we are getting the warts without the homeopathy. What is most interesting and distinctive about homeopathy, and the aspect which most people remain ignorant of, is not its scientific status (which is a separate issue from clinical efficacy [important: used here exclusively in the sense allowing for it to be due to placebo] which is undeniable based on multiple observational studies as well as worldwide patient satisfaction), its promotion (which is at times fraudulent just as can and does occur in conventional medicine), or the history (which is similar enough to other fringe phenomena); what is most distinctive about homeopathy is its detailed theory of disease and the reality that the alleged truth of this theory implies. This aspect cannot be learned from a textbook presentation of the theory, but only from experience: cases read, seen on video, seen live, or personal experience. Otherwise this is not different from debating the beauty of piano-playing without ever having heard a piano played well, which is what is the case here for most contributors. Of course people will say that what I am asking is for you to observe a unicorn flying, but I challenge you to look into the telescope nonetheless so as to break the stalemate. Davidnortman 20:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think that Ballista has a point; any encyclopedia article should be primarily devoted to factual material, not POV strife. If the bulk of the article was along the lines s/he suggested, soberly explaining the principles, history and therapeutic orientation, there could be an (even substantial) demarcated section discussing efficacy (including all POVs). Most of the article should be able to be presented in a non-POV way, and I'd be interested in seeing Ballista's draft. Hgilbert 06:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am an internist with an interest in homeopathy. My interest developed because I have seen it work, and although I am completely mystified about why it should work I have decided to suspend my disbelief and approach the subject in an openminded way. I have undertaken some systematic study of the topic (and believe me, I know how to study!).  I have edited other pages on wikipedia and have looked at this page a few times over the last few months.  A few times I have thrown even a sentence or even a word or two into the ring to try to begin to contribute, and I have been wholesale reverted.  I've experienced the attitude of some of the editors who are the most active here as intellectually superior and dismissive one.  There is a lot one can read on homeopathy that is useful.  This page, however, is not among those sources and under these circumstances will not be.  It is certainly not living up to the potential of Wikipedia.  elizmr 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In science anectodes such as "I have seen it work" are not considered to be reliable evidence. Only proper statistical studies, which would work no matter what the "causes" were, barring supernatural contrivances (which some homeopaths advocate), are considered reliable evidence. We don't mean to be dissmissive or superior, it is simply a fact that homeopathy does not meet the standards required. Jefffire 14:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The point Elizmr is making is that homeopathy is much more than something which ought to pass specific standards of evidence. Homeopathy is also a weird form of medicine that works in the hands of people who are mystified by it and do not believe in it but find themselves obliged to suspend their disbelief for the sake of better helping their patients - people who are in fact dealing with patients in their daily reality. The approach that looks no further than statistical analysis fatally degrades the whole notion of clinical observation which is the primary and ultimate reality of medicine - something which non-practitioners simply cannot understand until they encounter the reality of the clinical setting. The trouble with this way of thinking and with the rigid caricature of science as equable with the scientific method is that it starts with a correct observation - that non-systematic, individual observations are often incorrect - but incorrectly generalizes from that to the claim that they are fundamentally unreliable - even as we continue to rely on those allegedly unreliable observations every moment or our existence. Claims for the status of science in our lives have to be consistent with the rest of life - we cannot climb the tower of science, kick the ladder from underneath us, and claim that in never was there in the first place. Davidnortman 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * J--this is a talk page, and I was introducing myself and my interest in homeopathy and how it developed to add context to my statements. I was not making any assertations about homeopathy itself, I was addressing the state of the page and why I personally haven't been able to do anything productive here.  I am quite familiar with evidence based medicine and practice it on a daily basis.  I fail to understand why my remark provked the content of yours, but your reply actually underscores why editing on this page has been problematic.  elizmr 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that articles should present facts, but that includes facts about notable opinions. NPOV doesn't mean that we excise those opinions; it means that the article should report all of them fairly without adopting any of them. JamesMLane t c 23:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the stuff on J T Kent be lifted as it is irrelevant to modern homeopathy except the use of high potency, of which he was a prime advocate. His quasi-religious views on Swedenborg included here have not become accepted as core dogmas in homeopathy and thus do not add anything of substance to the discussion. Peter morrell 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I further suggest that the entry about vaccination be re-edited as it does not convey the real epistemological disparities between homeopathic and allopathic views of the nature of disease and the alleged role of "germs" or indeed "vaccines?" This cries out for a more subtle and detailed account, as does a proposed new section detailing the scientific credentials of Hahnemann within the German scientific community BEFORE he chanced upon homeopathy. Comments on these proposals are welcomed. Peter morrell 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Both above seem sensible to me - suggest movong material on Kent to article on KentGleng 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with Gleng to move stuff about J T Kent to the article about him. Peter morrell 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)