User talk:Friarslantern/HomeoIntroDraft

It's pretty good. The first paragraph especially.

At one point you say, "homeopaths believe" -- this is not permissible to say. We can't say what a whole collection of people believe, you can only cite to a particular homeopath or organization which said it believes it. Whig 18:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the last bit
The first part reads very well, I think.

QUOTING : "Many have pointed to meta-analyses which, they contend, confirm the fact that any benefits of taking homeopathic medicine are due to the placebo effect; apparently positive studies of homeopathy have been criticized as being flawed in design. These findings, they say — along with the common practice of homeopaths to proscribe their patients from receiving conventional medical treatments for a given malady while being treated for it with homeopathy — argue for labeling homeopathy as a brand of quackery,[12][13][14] reliance on which could effectively endanger the patient's health."

"confirm the fact that" makes it a fact. I think it should be "show that" or similar.

"apparently positive studies of homeopathy have been criticized as being flawed in design." This is twisted around. How about: "Some apparently positive studies of homeopathy are criticized as being flawed in design." I'm not sure of this. It is just a suggestion.

The last sentence is long and compklicated.

"common practice " is it really common practice?

How about this:

They say that these findings, plus reports of homeopaths advising patients against receiving conventional medical treatments for a given malady while being treated for it with homeopathy, argue for labeling homeopathy as a brand of quackery,[12][13][14] reliance on which could endanger the patient's health."

Wanderer57 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)