Talk:Homeopathy

Archives

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 1 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 2 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 3 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 4 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 5 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 6 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 7 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 8 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 9 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 10 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 11 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 12 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 14 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 15 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 16 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 17 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 18

Overly Broad Criticism?

Earlier I tried to raise the issues of whether Hahnemann’s views are representative of modern homeopathic practise, and of how much diversity there is in modern practise. I think these are relevant to the NPOV discussion.

For example, IF SOME modern homeopathic treatment uses low dilutions and does not depend on the idea of the “memory of water”, then all of homeopathy should not be criticized as being based on this idea.

However, I see in the article, in the Medical and scientific analysis section:

“Homeopathy has been unsupported by scientific research since its inception. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations, which would often leave none of the active ingredient (no atoms, ions or molecules), is inconsistent with the well observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. The idea that the water contains the "memory" or "vibration" from the diluted ingredient is also counter to the accepted laws of chemistry and physics. Thus critics contend that any positive results obtained from homeopathic remedies are purely due to the placebo effect, where the patients subjective improvement of symptoms is based solely on the power of suggestion, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. “

“Thus critics contend...” only follows from the preceding sentences in the case of highly dilute preparations.

To try to be very clear, I am NOT saying lower dilutions are effective. I don’t know if they are. I am saying that spreading a critique over an area of homeopathy where it does not apply is careless and leads to statements which are not-NPOV. Wanderer57 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter would be a good person to answer this, although all the modern homeopathic approaches I have come across use hugely diluted preparations, I don't know if there is a tiny minority of modern homeopaths who use remedies in undiluted or slightly diluted (10-fold 100-fold) levels. Peter? Tim Vickers 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What % of homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted? Based on my reading, I would say the vast majority. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Many modern homeopaths use the LM scale (such as LM1 LM2 LM3 etc) which are all below the Avogadro limit so your precious theoretical molecules are actually present. But many use 30c and above and they are pure space! does this help? both views need to be stated I think. Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, doesn't LM5 hit the Avorgado limit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, dunno, please show us the maths on that one Adam. thanks Peter morrell 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

50000^5 = 312,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 3.125 * 10^23. Which is near enough the Avorgado limit for there to be a good chance of no molecules remaining. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted earlier, I have a supply of tablets that are sold as a homoepathic treatment for insomnia. They are lactose containing 3X dilutions of three other ingredients. Wanderer57 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a good source on this, it states:

"The problem is that most homeopathic remedies are diluted out of molecular existence."

Milgrom LR (2007). "Conspicuous by its absence: the Memory of Water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy". Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 96 (3): 209–19. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.002. PMID 17678819.

I've cited this in the article. Tim Vickers 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear

Adam your latest edit...what does it mean? According to Avogadro's number, there are only 6.022 × 10²³ particles per mole, with a mole of substances used in homeopathy ranging between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. Comparing the level of dilution to the number of molecules present, the chance of any molecule of the original substance being present in a 15x solution is very small, and the chances of a single molecule of the original substance remaining in a 24x or 12c dilution would be roughly 1 in 2 billion. please enlighten us. it reads much worse than before. Peter morrell 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to make sure not to confuse the common reader. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam I will contend that you have no idea what you are doing and are completely out of your depth here. This sentence is meaningless twaddle: A mole of common substances used in homeopathy ranges between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. please explain what you are up to. Peter morrell 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what he's trying to say, but bringing in moles and Avogadro's number, while more rigorous, isn't going to help the average reader. Also aren't we talking about 15 sequential 100-fold dilutions in 15C, rather than a 15-fold dilution? Tim Vickers 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rigorous? please, Tim, that is rather gratuitous I think. I have tried to correct the problem. 24x is equivalent to 12c and 6c is 1,000,000,000,000 dilutions = 12 zeroes. does that now clarify? thanks Peter morrell 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, now! I agree the sentence could be improved, but "meaningless twaddle" is a bit harsh. Wanderer57 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of general 'sweetness and light,' OK I withdraw the twaddle word! however if you read what he wrote, esp. the grams stuff, well I'm sorry but it was a bit unintelligible to put it mildly. Mischief now managed. Peter morrell 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, 6C is six successive 100-fold dilutions? Is this right?

1C = 1:100 2C = 1:10,000 3C = 1:1,000,000 4C = 1:100,000,000 5C = 1:10,000,000,000 6C = 1:1,000,000,000,000

The problem with using a "24x" is that some people might read that as 24-fold, since "x" is commonly used in chemistry to denote concentration/dilution (in this usage a 2X solution is two-fold more concentrated than a final 1X solution). I removed this to avoid the dual meaning. If we stick with just explaining the "C" notation this might be less confusing to the reader. Tim Vickers 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about the mole/Avogadro sentence either. A non-specialist isn't going to understand that a protein, for example, is going to have a higher molecular weight than a simple salt, even after reading the mole and Avogadro's number articles. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tim, for each centesimal potency you need two zeroes on the scale so 4c is indeed 100,000,000. I thought you were the chemist! ;-) cheers Peter morrell 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could just put 1:1e10 that would be simple, it's working it out into numbers I have problems with! Are we all happy with this bit? Tim Vickers 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I explained this all VERY carefully on the talk page of the draft in the sandbox. And it was summarily rejected. But it can all be made quite clear if necessary. I still think it belongs someplace in Wikipedia to make this disgusting dilution nonsense more transparent.--Filll 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I get tired of basically swimming in molasses and getting caught in an unproductive morass. --Filll 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A foot note with the mathematics would be a good solution. Allowing readers who want to see where the conclusion comes from read it while not scaring away the rest. Tim Vickers 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the article need to cover all the different notations for dilution? There seem to be a lot of them. Wanderer57 23:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (I agree about the molasses - some dilution would be good.)

I agree completely. If we do nothing else in this article but very very carefully explain, once and for all, what X, D, LM, C, etc potencies mean, and how they relate to regular scientific understandings, we will have accomplished more than any of the thousands upon thousands of nonsense articles on homeopathy that litter the internet. I think if we can just make this mumbo-jumbo clear, it will stand us in extremely good stead. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and a reference manual for all kinds of people all over the world. We are not supposed to be shills for pseudoscience and promoters of incoherent nonsense.

It would be extremely valuable, IMHO, to straighten out these matters of confusion, even if they seem overly technical to some. Because the first thing a scientist or regular pharmacist or a doctor wants to know is, what the heck do those potencies and this nonstandard nomenclature mean? And how do they relate to each other, and how do they relate to what is common knowledge in science? And of course readers cannot easily find anything except confused mumbling from people deeply steeped in mythology and magic, who are almost purposely not explaining it clearly. So let's make some unique contribution here. Let's correct this lacuna in exposition. --Filll 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know WDM will disagree, but I think this is another prime candidate for a supplementary article. Always with the understanding that the main article refers to the supplementary article and only summarizes its content, so that redundancy is minimized. I think explaining the nomenclatur and giving details on various dilution and succussion procedures is definitely too much detail for an overview article. On the other hand there is plenty of material available and sufficient interest to justify a separate article (perhaps a short one, but more than a stub). --Art Carlson 08:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly believe that it would be enough info to be it's own article. I think that this could all be explained in a single paragraph if done properly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do dilutions make things work better?

Do we have any sources for why homeopaths believe that dilutions make things stronger except for the Hahnemann theology? I mean are there homeopaths who actually claim to understand the physical mechanisms behind water memory? Or do they just take it on faith? And if they take it on faith, do they admit it? ScienceApologist 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it reduces the toxicity of the remedy. Beyond the Avogadro limit, effectiveness may be an extraordinary claim, but otherwise, not so much. Whig 01:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't not taking the remedy at all be the logical conclusion of that argumentation? ScienceApologist 01:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps at high enough >11C dilutions, yes. At lower dilutions, what's the physical problem? Whig 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a logical problem. If your goal is to reduce the toxicity of a remedy to its lowest level, then you wouldn't give the remedy at all. Otherwise, there must be another goal in mind. What is it? ScienceApologist 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just sophistry. The goal is to provoke an allergic response, but without overtaxing the body's ability to cure itself of the toxin. Whig 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an optimization problem that needs a boundary condition or external parameter to solve which you have glibly summarized as "without overtaxing". The problem is what determines the amount of allergic response that is too "overtaxing"? Does the homeopath endeavor to measure allergic responses or does the homeopath use another method of optimization? Obviously it's not the optimization considered in most of medicine otherwise this would be the article on effective dose. ScienceApologist 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of this argument, I neither know nor care. I am not making any claims about effectiveness or optimization theory. Whig 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, you've conceded it is no longer a physical problem or a logical problem, only an optimization problem. Whig 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't conceded anything. What we have is a dead end in your argumentation. Basically, according to you, homeopaths are trying to optimize the benefits of an allergic reaction without measuring the response or relating the amount of the toxin to any sort of response. Instead, the bald assertion is made that their method works through the mechanism you propose without any evidence or argumentation to back up the claim. Therefore, it is clear that your attempts to argue this point are nothing more than a smokescreen for ignorance. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A reminder that this all original research and so not very relevant. Do we have a reliable source that discusses homeopaths saying this? If not, it doesn't matter. JoshuaZ 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not OR. This is just simple math. Whig 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been no math mentioned in this section. You are beginning to sound like a one note samba. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And as far as finding out what homeopaths themselves say, you won't allow us to quote them because you don't consider them a reliable source. Catch 22. Whig 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopaths are reliable sources as to what they believe, but they are not reliable sources in describing reality. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What role does the intention of the homeopath have in influencing the effectiveness of the remedy? -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever: "I have often had physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with the wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy." [1] Dr James Tyler Kent MD (1849-1916) Homeopath. Peter morrell 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He was apparently unaware of the value and purpose of blinding....;-) A real experiment would have (and practically always have) proved differently. -- Fyslee / talk 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC/User in regards to participant in this Talk

Since I have been named in an RFC involving discussions here in Talk:Homeopathy, it would be good to let participants know in case they have any comments to add. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2. Whig 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes on homeopathy

Very interesting reading:

• Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions, by Oliver Wendell Holmes

also

• Hahnemann's Homeopathy, by Dr. William E. Thomas, MD

-- Fyslee / talk 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these considered primary or reliable sources? Whig 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The article by Holmes definitely is. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly notable. Whig 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Fyslee / talk 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV under dispute

I think that NOPV issues have not been addressed properly. Examoles : [2][3] [4]

It is obvious that there is not consesus here and therefore the under dispute sign must remain on the article. I will mark the article

* and I will ask Mercury to protect the flag since it reflects the reality in the talk page. I m sure he will do it.

Best wishes.

• The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article

--Sm565 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, Mercury you have to intervene and restore the under dispute flag and take further action as you said. User gave non reason for removing the flag and did not answer the specific questions. --Sm565 07:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note explaining why I will restore the POV under dispute flag

I will ask again the editors who disagree to respect that there is non consensus in the article. I will give another example. There are many exmples explained in the talk page. If the editors read they will see that the sources dont support what the article says.[5] Please make sure you read the example. --Sm565 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You have NO support. Please note the following WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. You especially have not developed a full understanding of NPOV. Any further tendentious editing, slow edit warring, making a point or violating NPOV will only serve to lessen your impact on this article. I would suggest you get a consensus to place a tag. One editor placing a tag (along with another one that quit doing so immediately after being subject to a block). So take a deep breath, and stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin just made two reverts of the POV tag. Whig 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

he did not reply to my questions either. I mtrying to discuss here. I wonder why he disagrees with the above example. Adam agreed with me.

Please Mercury ask him to participate in our discussion before he reverts something.thanks--Sm565 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so much agree as didn't think it worth fighting over. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if you check the history log, Orangemarlin has made additional reversions in the past 24 hours. Whig 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

POV: 1

This article is totally POV. You have to be more objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftilos (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that a brand new user, Naftilos (talk|contribs), immediately after registering, made four edits: 2 to Talk:Homeopathy and 2 on Homeopathy regarding the subject of a current dispute? Those four edits occurred over a span of twelve minutes and no edits have been made since. I'm sure it's just a coincidence and we'll be seeing a lot more from Naftilos. — DIEGO ^talk 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith, Diego. —Diego's sockpuppet 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's it, you were on your last warning the pair of you, you're blocked for that. - User:Diego's admin sockpuppet 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is one of you guys a ventriloquist? Wanderer57 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes happens.I remember another user quackgur or something who did the same. We never heard of him. I dont remember you either the last montth- I dont see you anywhere in the talk page.--Sm565 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you "remember" me or not, or whether I have made comments on this talk page is irrelevant. I am obviously not a new user. I didn't create myself 30 minutes ago just to immediately make an edit to an article that is in the midst of an edit dispute. By the way, User:QuackGuru has made 3688 edits in the last 10 months (but only 1 on Homeopathy), so he hardly compares to User:Naftilos, who made 4 edits in 12 minutes (all on Homeopathy or Talk:Homeopathy). User:QuackGuru had a long edit history before and after his random edit on Homeopathy. In your experience, is it usual for new editors to go straight to the talk page of an article, make a comment (using terms like "POV"), then immediately insert POV tags in an article, then stop for the day? — DIEGO ^talk 09:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well....you just appeared after him without giving any reasons at the right time as well. Where were you the last 2 moths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just "appear", and I did give a reason. User:Naftilos literally just appeared. This user did not exist 2 hours ago. Homeopathy is on my watchlist and I noticed User:Naftilos's suspicious edit, which I immediately reverted. Why was his edit suspicious? Because it was out of character for a new user (I checked his contribs before reverting). The editing behavior was odd (i.e., registration followed by an immediate cluster of edits that display rather advanced knowledge of Wikipedia (POV tagging, etc.) and a clear opinion on the article (which just happens to be the subject of an edit war over POV tags), followed by silence from the editor. If you don't think that is odd, fine. But please don't imply that I have no business pointing out questionable edits on a talk page (in the interest of maintaining neutrality and the integrity of the consensus process) just because I haven't previously been involved in any discussions on this article. I think people deserve to know if something potentially fishy is going on. I simply don't have time to get involved with any homeopathy discussions. I'm too busy rubbing HeadOn^® directly on my forehead. — DIEGO ^talk 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it odd at all. Somebody interested in Wikipedia and homeopathy wanders by and watches the circus a while, in particular the POV tag that comes and goes. He decides he wants to put in his 2 cents, so he opens an account to do so. Maybe he had already been editing anonymously for a while. Perfectly natural, but neither here nor there. --Art Carlson 10:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right Art. There could very well be an innocent explanation for this. I hate to jump to conclusions, but my BS alarm is going off, so I have requested a checkuser to clear things up. [6] Feel free to add any additional insights you might have. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

under dispute POV: 1

I think that an adminstrator must intervene and protect the under dispute sign here.It is obvious that there is not agrement. Maybe another administrator must intervene. [7] --Sm565 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile the under dispute flag must be there until we decide about the changes.

Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]

I think this is a not accurate. Some metanalyses conclude that "The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo."[8]--Sm565 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with the confidence interval set to 95%, one would expect about 5% of studies to show such a result by chance. Cherry picking a positive result is flawed science. And even in this cherry-picked study, you've failed to quote the remainder of the conclusion: "The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies." And you've failed to note that there was no effect when the data was restricted to the methodologically best trials. Results that fail to convince researchers from the "Center for Compementary Medicine Research" publishing in the "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" are not going to convince anyone else. - Nunh-huh 09:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is unethical to hide published studies. Just show them all and allow to the readers to decide. We dont live in the dark ages. Dont you think?--Sm565 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unethical, is selectively quoting an unfavourable study in order to misrepresent its conclusions... just as you're doing here. Unethical, would also be trying to present a skewed scientific consensus in favour of homeopathy, by loading that article down, with studies of dubious rigour, when properly conducted tests show at best minor positive results well within the bounds of what could be expected on purely statistical grounds... just as you're doing here. I find, that you're in a rather poor position to pontificate to others about "ethics".  – ornis⚙ 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot present all studies, so we must present only those that are most significant. Editorial choice is not "hiding" anything and is not unethical. As per your question, I don't live in the Dark Ages - mostly because of the rather thorough job that empiricism has done on the superstitions propounded then, and the significant progress made since vitalism hampered scientific understanding - and real hiding was going on. As to whether you live there - you'll have to decide that yourself. - Nunh-huh 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what seems to be "cherry-picking" to one person is "presenting only those that are most significant" to another. How can we decide on the most significant? We don't want to do "original research". Wanderer57 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just wrong. Looking for only positive results-Sm565's procedure-is cherry-picking by anyone's definition, just as looking only for negative results would be. - Nunh-huh 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Studies that are published in the most reputable publications, have the most citations are generally more notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would the use of the particular journal's impact factor be an acceptable way to objectively guage which studies to include (i.e., which ones are most notable), while avoiding any perception of cherry picking? Just a suggestion. — DIEGO ^talk 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Double yes. We need more rigor in this discussion to keep from going around in circles. I would like to see - on the Talk page, not necessarily in the article - a table of all reviews, meta-studies, and statements from professional organizations, including the wording of their conclusions, any potential conflicts of interest, impact factors or other measures of respectability, and any other indicators of quality. When that is on the table, it should be easier to come to an agreement about what to include and how to summarize the state of the debate. (Individual studies would be too numerous and too difficult to evaluate, i.e. we need secondary sources, not primary sources.) --Art Carlson 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing to note: negative results are much more difficult to get published than positive results. One should always expect publication analysis to be skewed towards positive results in the literature. We need to be able to characterize what a secondary analysis for a topic that had absolutely no legitimacy would look like (it would not have zero evidence in favor of it as pointed out). Thus, we should have a control standard for a similarly poorly-considered medical claim (e.g. faith healing). ScienceApologist 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article on publication bias presents this nicely. I believe there have also been a few studies of publication bias specifically concerning homeopathy, and I expect any decent review or meta-analysis to confront this problem, so we shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources. I have zero problem with stating that x% of double-blind studies have shown a statistically significant positive effect of homeopathy over placebo and citing whatever information we have on publication bias. I am not afraid of letting the reader draw his own conclusions (even if half the time the git will get it wrong). I also hope this would be the kind of presentation that we could get consensus on. --Art Carlson 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

about boxes

I deleted this box:

because it relates to writing about fiction. Homoeopathy may well be idiotic, but it's not fiction. Please don't go in for silly point-scoring in this way. PiCo 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but it's also the nearest box I could find to the problems in that section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made some edits to that section that I think solves the problem anyway. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it helps the problem, but I'm not sure it's completely solved. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What specific problems do you see with it? I read it and don't see any POV or suggestion that he was right in his assumptions or conclusions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bach flower remedies

I notice the article on these products is in the "homeopathic remedies" category. The article doesn't discuss these products, should we add them or are these not really homeopathic and the article miscategorised? Tim Vickers 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - I see Peter has written an article on this link. Tim Vickers 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my this is a difficult one! Strictly speaking they are not the same thing for a number of reasons: they are not proven, they are often used in mixtures, they are not potentised. That essay was requested because the German Govt were thinking of re-classifying BFRs as homeopathic (not sure if they ever did that) and so I was asked to see if I could 'construct a rationale' for their recognition as homeopathic remedies. This I did and found the case fairly convincing for the reasons I give in the essay. However, many homeopaths disagree with my appraisal of that topic and believe them to be different. So take your pick. Hope that clarifies. Peter morrell 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We could add them as a sub-section in the types of remedy, with a note that their classification is controversial. The article should cover this, if only that the two are commonly sold in the same places and people may be confused as to the difference. Can you hunt up any good sources of homeopaths arguing that these remedies are not homeopathic? Tim Vickers 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find them just as easily as I can. Besides I am busy right now. I don't think many homeopaths actually have a very strong view about this. In fact they are probably assumed to act by initiating the same self-healing mechanisms that homeopathic remedies and acupuncture do. cheers Peter morrell 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go. Tim Vickers 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You could slim down that "flower remedies" section a bit though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tim Vickers 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Miasms

The section on miasms isn't very clear to me - I'll still left wondering what exactly a miasm is, and how it operates. I gather from it that homeopathy regards misams as the fundamental disease-causing agent; if this is so, it needs to be stated, together with a description of just how it's supposed to cause disease. PiCo 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The miasm is an inferred or imputed entity and is usually described as 'a defect in the vital force.' Do you want refs for that? thanks Peter morrell 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, can you rewrite it a bit. I just read the section and it's a bit confusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain it as clearly as I could, but I guess I failed. Perhaps Peter could clarify it a bit. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look at it a bit later on. thanks Peter morrell 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV: 2

Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]

is not supported by the studies. Not accurate. See above why. Sentence should be modified. --Sm565 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You made this false assertion above, where your claim was pretty much demolished. Repeating it for a second time lower on the page isn't going to make it truer. - Nunh-huh 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm, with all due respect, please stop repeating yourself after your arguments have been refuted. You've been doing this on ANI and other places. We're willing to work with you, but not listening to other editors' objections isn't going to get you anywhere.

Also, if anyone hasn't read it yet, I suggest reading this closely. This essay contains the reason why the majority of the editors here are insisting that the scientific view be given prominence. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Zicam

In my opinion, the sentence is not presice, the sources are there. I will come back to it.

My question is: according to the version of the mainstream view which is adopted in the article 2x dilutions have any effect on cells or not?--Sm565 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a good source to deal with this, it states:

"The problem is that most homeopathic remedies are diluted out of molecular existence."

Milgrom LR (2007). "Conspicuous by its absence: the Memory of Water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy". Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 96 (3): 209–19. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.002. PMID 17678819.

I've cited this in the article to support the sentence - "However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in the final remedy." Tim Vickers 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is minor issue in comparison with the reading of the sourses but if the article adopts that 2x "dilutions" have no effect on cells then the Zicam issue contradicts this whole point of view. If it was the 2x dilution which caused the damage then voila a tiny example that 2x dilutions might have an effect. Therapeutic or the ..opossite. If it was the mechanism of the bottle which caused the damage then the example is totally unrelatated if additonial explanation is not given. Perhaps I miss something here. objections? --70.19.106.170 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)--70.19.106.170 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely true that if the large majority of homeopathic remedies are chemically identical to water, there must be a small minority that are not so diluted. Considering the toxicity of the substances used in preparing homeopathic remedies, the generall excellent safety record of these products probably reflects how rare these "non-water" products are. Tim Vickers 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont disagree with this. Just the way it is written implies that the medecin caused the problems something highly impropable -accordign to chemistry. Shouldn't for that reason the sentence be rephrased or .....vanished?

If 2x dilutions could have an effect we could ask for our million from Randi - right?) --Sm565 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A 2X dilution is just a 1:100 dilution, enough to take a 10 mM solution to 100 uM. That's nothing surprising - I do 1:100 dilutions in the lab all the time. I've moved this material to the first paragraph where there is an introductory sentence to give it context. Tim Vickers 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of it all

Tim Vickers, I have made some slight wording changes to make it more clear. Of course when dilutions of a substance are made, all the original molecules of the substance are still present in the whole mass of water used to make the dilutions, but there is basically too much room "in between" those molecules to have much of a chance of any of them being in a small dose of the remedy made from the dilution.

Now to illustrate the absurdity of the situation I'll just grab a number out of the air. (I should probably say 10 marbles, but I'll be generous and say 100 marbles.) We're basically talking about 100 marbles thrown out into space which then distribute (dilute) themselves in random orbits in an area encompassing the content of a sphere the size of the orbit of the moon around the earth and they fly around at random in that space. Then we take a thimble, close our eyes, and stick it up in the air hoping to catch one of those marbles, and then we empty the contents of the thimble into a bucket. What chance is there that a marble will fall out of the thimble into the bucket? Is it impossible? No, because there really are 100 marbles flying around somewhere out there. Is it likely? Well, when hell freezes over and the sun has burnt out, maybe by then it will have happened only one time.....;-) It's about the same chance (except on a much larger scale) of winning the lottery. Someone who buys a lottery ticket and someone who doesn't buy one have about the same chance of winning, but the one who doesn't has absolutely no chance, while the one who does has a chance in many million. But with homeopathy the chance of getting even one molecule can hardly be calculated, it's that far a shot. And to top it off, if even one molecule of the strongest poison known actually was in the remedy, what effect would it have. Zilch! (Remember that I am just illustrating here, so don't shoot me for some inaccuracies. Few illustrations stand on all four legs.)

What homeopathy does is violate the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics, as well as the modern scientific observations of dose-response relationships that have been demonstrated by pharmacologists. "The dose (still) makes the poison." Interestingly enough, in everyday life and in every other area, believers in homeopathy follow these rules of logic. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to function, carry on a normal conversation, pull up their own zipper, or balance their checkbook. But when they are talking about homeopathy, they suddenly suspend their logical thinking and enter a metaphysical fantasy realm where all things are possible, including the impossible. Go figure. -- Fyslee / talk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Homeopathy has not discovered a mechanism which could completely explain its theurapeutic effect. This is a fact. The effect exists though. Scientists discover aspirins mechanism some years ago but tt was the most frequently prescribed drug in conventional medicine.

Homeopathy would not become more and more popular if it were only a placebo effect. Many people use it after they have used conventional medecin. The problem is that it is not regulated and it is not practiced by Mds or licensed prectitioners - the only way in my opinon it would protect homeopathy from quackery.

Even most of the metanalyses which are cited in the article call for more researsh since they find a positive trend. If something is a sort of quakery how scientist suggest further well designed reasearch? Do they recommend the same for ....astrology?

sm565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.106.170 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

sm565, I will comment on your last mention of metaanalyses. The explanation for such puzzling conclusions that are contrary to the actual results of the study, or at least are noncommittal, is rather simple. The studies are usually performed by believers in homeopathy (at least the many studies I have seen) who are reluctant to simply admit that the experimental results did not confirm their beliefs, so instead of "telling it like it is," they mention some vague "positive trend" (which is statistically insignificant and meaningless, otherwise they would write a totally different conclusion) and suggest further research. It is rare for believers in pseudoscience to actually admit defeat, but it does happen on rare occasion. -- Fyslee / talk 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that a psychosomatic effect can be greater than ordinary placebo. Whether due to the power of suggestion or belief, or whatever. I am not saying that this is explanatory for the purported successes of homeopathy, only that it is one possible consideration. Whig 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between a psychosomatic effect and a placebo effect? Cheers, Skinwalker 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference, but some placebos may be better than others, i.e., more prone to produce a beneficial placebo effect in some patients. Nor am I contending this is the case for homeopathy, only that it is a possibility. Please see placebo for more on the subject. Whig 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Magnificent editing

This is very nice work, Peter. Whig 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Placebo effect and annimals

There have been no rigorous scientific demonstrations of therapeutic effects of homeopathy in veterinary medicine and a German review of homeopathy in veterinary medicine has stated that the medical effectiveness of homeopathy in higher dilutions is not verified and that giving an animal a placebo can play an active role in influencing the owner to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[86] [87]

How possible is this? Placebo by proxy? I guess telepathy could play a role.... I read the sources. My opinion is that if there is no rigorous studies for whetevever topic - it is more honnest to write nothing or state there are no studies available .Right? --Sm565 21:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read about tendentious editing. It's getting close to requesting you be blocked from this article. If you want to participate, you cannot repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You have not brought one valid point to this article. Please STOP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is one valid pointOrangemarlin. [9] If the majority of the editors believe that I dont contribute to this project- please feel free to ban me for ever. best.--Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC) One more : [10]----

The Owners imagine that the homeopathic remedy is working because they interpret imagined changes in the animals behavior or disposition as being related to the remedy that the animal was given. For instance if I believe in homeopathy and give my dog a homeopathic remedy, I might imagine changes in the dogs behavior and thus interpret these imagined changes as being the effect of the medicine. This is actually a HUGE reason for the success of homeopathic medicine in other animals aside from humans and I think that this info should be in the article in one way or another. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim. Not serious studies no comment.--Sm565 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was edited - by Tim I think - "The use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is regarded as controversial, as there have been little scientific investigation on if it has any effects in animals and current research in the field is not of a high enough standard to provide reliable data.[87] Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[87]"--Sm565 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists. I m almost sure that most of the editors would consider this sentence unsupported. Did you read the source? [11]--Sm565 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on introduction sentence

These sentences below are included in the conclusions of 3 out of 5 the metanalyses cited in article. I would like your opinion on this:

[12] 1. "This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.". 2.Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. 3.Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.

1.How the introduction, which summarizes the results of the metanalyses on homeopathy", reflects these suggestions? 2.How these suggestions about replication of existing promising studies are compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a pseudoscience not worth researching. ( Before you answer please consider that no such suggestion for astrology (or other form of quackery we know of) has been recorded in any scientific journal or metanalyses.)--Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments and/or answers

The words are "homeopathy" and "researching", if you can't even spell the subject you are trying to discuss, I see little point in taking you seriously. Tim Vickers 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind suggestions. I did correct them. Feel free to comment on my english. I always want to learn. Now, if you have an answer or comment on the real question, please let me know. --Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

--Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As a tip for learning, you still have three different spellings of the word homeopathy in the above paragraph. Try reading through it carefully. Tim Vickers 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

not me; that I just copy and paste from the original studies. I will correct them though. Thanks again.I really want to know what everybody thinks. It is not attack,you know.I have proved that I respect everybody here (I cannot claim easily the opposite ).Best. --Sm565 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You changed it to "homeoopathy" - but apart from that you're almost there Tim Vickers 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Tim Vickers 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you dont want to give an answer to the real question. You dont have to.--Sm565 00:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone spells perfectly. When spelling errors exist in the article text, they need to be corrected. When spelling errors occur here in Talk, they might be mentioned in order to prevent the error from being replicated in the article text, but otherwise it is not constructive to mock and disregard editors for their spelling. Whig 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I m sure Tim did not intend to be unkind. Whig I would like to hear from you too. BEst--Sm565 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As he said, Sm565 is grateful for any correction of his English, which is not his first language. It is doing people learning a language a disservice to ignore their mistakes and deny them the opportunity to learn. The reply to your question Sm565 is that the introduction does indeed summarise the results of the metanalyses. These comments are not part of the results so they are not summarised. Tim Vickers 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

They are part of the conclusions even more important.

Do you think that if the specific scientists regarded homeopathy as a sort of quackery they would have suggested in the conclusions more research using phrases promising studies and positive trend?--Sm565 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. I had the sense before that Sm565 was feeling underappreciated. I hope his participation will continue to be welcome. Whig

Double negation is confusing. The question is whether it is appropriate to include in the summary, and whether it is inappropriate to exclude. Whig 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)::thanks.

I think we cannot say that homeopathy is quackery. We can quote someone notable who called it quackery, however. Whig 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that in the introduction the metanalyses summary should be rephrased in order to include this conclusions ( promising studies positive trend request for more research) as well. Otherwise the sentence's meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy which is false- according to the actual studies. Opinions ?--Sm565 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I think whig has the skills to propose a version like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not totally clear on what Sm565 is attempting to have this sentence say, I have asked him to follow-up with me on my Talk page, so we don't clutter this forum with markup on a single sentence that may need rewriting. Whig 01:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is sad. It is embarassing. Homeopathy is pseudoscience with no and I mean NO scientific or medical evidence to back it up. Nothing. Nada. To try to pretend otherwise is just pure nonsense. So stop playing word games in a language you do not understand and please go away to harass someone else.--Filll 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not obvious pseudoscience, particularly at lower potencies. Whig 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That "homeopathy deserves further study' is an opinion, not a conclusion. It's what researchers say when they fail to achieve the significant results they would have preferred. It's filler; it's verbal throat-clearing; it's not a conclusion of the study; it's meaningless, and would seem meaningful only if someone were desperately searching for support for his position rather than actually understanding what the study means. - Nunh-huh 01:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy"? "Further research on homeopathy is warranted" "Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies" is a verbal throat-clearing ???? which is included in the final conclusions? Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions sentences for others forms of quackery? Examples?Please ?--Sm565 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was no need for any study whatsoever to say "we should study homeopathy but not in the slipshod manner we've been doing it." An opinion, not a result. Almost every study with less than earthshatteringly conclusive results suggests further study is needed. It says nothing whatever about the matter being studied, only about the inconclusiveness of the published study. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

inconclusiveness? Then the summary must state that: We have no clue whether it is working or not.--Sm565 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit of a truism to say that if you are going to study homeopathy then at least you should design your trials properly. Tim Vickers 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You refuse to read the CONCLUSIONS. "is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy" It is a suggestion which is clear. "Promising studies".It does say something. But you didn't answer:

Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions for further research for others forms of quackery? Examples??--Sm565 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem intent on reading conclusions that simply aren't there. And the study did not address quackery, so your final questions are...peculiar. - Nunh-huh 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there? [13]

It is one of the current article's conclusion that Homeopathy is a sort of quackery based on these results. You just refuse to read the conclusions of the studies. [14] I just have not heard scientists to waste time on studying any form or quackery and after that to suggest further studies and in their conclusions to use expressions like there is a poditive trend is legitimate case for research and promising studies. Have you?--Sm565 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The study you are citing was not designed to test this article's conclusions. I've read the studies "conclusions", and they say nothing of any significant import. And yes, scientists suggest further studies whether or not there are positive trends. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientists suggest further studies on any form of quackery ? Writing about "positive trends" and "promising studies" ? Examples? --Sm565 05:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting further studies is not a pronouncement upon efficacy. That's the answer to your question. Repeating it won't make it a more sensible question. - Nunh-huh 06:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that it is a pronouncement upon efficacy. I said that the suggestions of the conclusions for further studies because of the findings of positive trend and the considerations that there is "legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy" should be included in the summary of the meta analysis, otherwise the meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy and it does not reflect what the conclusions of the studies really say.

And of course these conclusions do not support the final statement in the introduction of the article:

The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.

because no scientists would support further studies on subjects which are a sort of quackery. --Sm565 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting original formulation, but of doubtful validity. The study you're citing is in fact part of the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy. The statement you're quoting is, simply, true. It doesn't say "the absence of a scintilla of supporting data on efficacy", it merely says "the lack". - Nunh-huh 07:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can homeopaths tell water from remedy?

Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis. Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jul;90(3):126-30. (link)

The answer is that 60% identified the correct bottle while 40% identified the wrong bottle. The results did not differ significantly from what you would predict from chance. Unfortunately the sample size is rather small. Do people think we should include it? Tim Vickers 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that a statistically significant result or not? Whig 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

From the summary:

“ In this study a promising trend was observed that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. A multi-national, large-scale trial will be required to investigate this phenomena with adequate statistical power. ”

Whig 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, 75% in this trial would be the 95% confidence interval. As I said, this is within the range you would predict from pure chance. Tim Vickers 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The result was no different than a guess. Whig 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A very inconclusive result. If I wanted to use this study to argue in one direction, I would mention the "promising trend". If I wanted to go the other way, I would point out that more than 80% of the homeopathists approached stayed out of the experiment. Wanderer57 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps 80% of homeopaths know they would just be guessing? Tim Vickers 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted. And we were doing so well with consensus. :) Whig 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use this study in any direction, it has no statistical significance one way or the other. Whig 02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not really true. It does demonstrate that the effects of homeopathic medicines must be marginal, as the paper says the best we can say is that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. Tim Vickers 02:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No. They failed to reject the null hypothesis, but they did not confirm the null. (This from my wife, a statistician). Whig 02:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all three of us agreed that this was not a significant study and was not worth including. Couldn't we just leave it at that? Wanderer57 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found it deeply amusing that homeopaths apparently can't do better than flipping a coin when trying to identify these "highly potent remedies". Must have come as a bit of a shock to the four out of ten who confidently identified a drug only to be told it was water! Tim Vickers 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still asserting the null hypothesis. Whig 03:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, of course. If you fail to show a non-random effect then Occam's razor applies, the simplest explanation for results that you would predict from chance is that they are the results of chance. That's pretty standard, ask your wife. Tim Vickers 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I already told you what she said. You are mis-stating. Whig 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It says plenty. Except for those who want it to say otherwise.--Filll 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you want it to say? Whig 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I follow William of Ockham. And I think the 80% figure is significant as well.--Filll 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The study wasn't statistically significant. If it holds some personal significance to you on account of some allegiance, then fine. Whig 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the 80% (actually 82.4%) is significant. And even statistically significant at some reasonably impressive confidence level. However, I would have to study the matter more to say anything more conclusive.--Filll 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are POV-pushing if you think you can make a statistical wash significant. Whig 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are confused I am afraid, and this is bordering on trolling.--Filll 05:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dose-response relationship

Yesterday someone added "the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics" to a paragraph about the dose-response relationship. Today I removed it and two people have reverted me.

Chemistry/physics are relevant in explaining why there is probably no active ingredient left in a homeopathic remedy, but this paragraph is about how homeopathy says that more diluted solutions are more powerful. The scientific concept that contradicts this is the fact that dose-response relationships are almost always positive, which is a concept in pharmacology, not chemistry or physics. --Galaxiaad 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Is he by any chance a physicist? Whig 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He is an MD, but who cooperates with, consults, and quotes physicists as necessary. -- Fyslee / talk 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So we cannot take him as a primary source on physics, at any rate. Whig 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We can use the reference which quotes an outstanding physicist. -- Fyslee / talk 07:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

By citing to that physicist, as quoted by Barrett, certainly, as long as he is a trustworthy source. Whig 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting note about Barrett while we are on the subject, when he was payinh himself to act as his organization's own expert witness while suing a Homeopathic remedy manufacturer, the judge, in conclusion, had the following to say of Barrett's alledged expertise with Homeopathy: Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs ... As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area ... Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. [15] The proceed was from Section IV, Subsection B of this document. For more enlightenment on the credibility of Barrett in the world of Homeopathy, see Section IV, Subsection C where the judge states that Barrett's testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Would someone like to support his credentials against this charge? Whig 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should cite peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals to support all the factual statements made in this article. Opinions can be cited to individuals only if these individuals are notable. We can cite Barratt for opinions, but not facts. Tim Vickers 15:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

New Study on Homeopathy in 2007

Please read and comment on this study.I think it could be used.

Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting

Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [16] Best.--Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's interesting. I'd like to hear objections. Whig 06:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd like to hear objections to a non-blinded, non-randomized clinical study in which the outcome is determined by the patient's self-assessment? Seriously? - Nunh-huh 06:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-assessment is a pretty good indicator with some conditions. Lack of blinded control and other issues make this a difficult study to use, but rather than eliminating it altogether, we might critique its methodology. Whig 06:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-assessment in this case includes assessment of children by parents. Self-assessment by unblinded patients who choose their treatment based on their beliefs about its efficacy is meaningless. It's a worthless study, and even its authors note that they can draw no firm conclusions about the efficacy of homeopathy based on their data. Nunh-huh 06:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a fair objection. Whig 07:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, bringing up non-randomized, non-double-blinded studies is just a waste of everyone's time. This one wasn't even single-blinded, and was inconclusive, to boot. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage Sm565, which means taking his contributions seriously. Even if they don't pan out, giving him the reason his proposal was rejected was very helpful to maintaining a good dialogue here. Whig 07:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent > Who are you to encourage anyone? This sort of worthless nonsense spewed on the talk pages ad infinitum discourages real productive editors and destroys Wikipedia as a project. You have made it evidently clear you do not know the rules of NPOV, you do not understand Wikipedia, you are unwilling or unable to be able to learn about WP and NPOV, you do not know science, you do not know scientific protocol or medicine or really anything except how to troll and make other more reasoned and reasonable editors disgusted with your antics. I would ask you to please try to control yourself here and give it a rest. Or better yet, please edit something else.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the way to help is to discourage indiscriminate posting of junk studies. He'd be better off if he could distinguish junk studies from meaningful ones, and agreeing that we need consider only double-blinded randomized studies with statistically significant results would seem to be the best way to achieve that. Continually bringing up worthless studies as though they were meaningful isn't going to make anyone more likely to take his contributions seriously; in fact, it seems more likely to have the opposite effect. - Nunh-huh 07:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with this statement.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that double blinds are the only valuable studies. With that said, when the authors of a study are not confident in the outcome, it is probably not very good. Whig 07:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Do not embarasss yourself Whig further with this kind of nonsense.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

When someone is apparently unable to tell good studies from bad, adopting the position that only double-blind studies are worth considering would keep the noise level down, and thus be worthwhile, even if someone more scientifically literate might be able to tell which other studies might have yielded good data. - Nunh-huh 07:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> It is reaching the point where Whig's comments should be summarily removed from the talk page on sight because of trolling concerns.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I presume everyone is educable, if they aren't trying to disrupt. And we can always use more good contributors. Whig 07:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> You are among those who is disruptive here Whig, sad to say.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, not everyone is willing to be educated, and we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to be tutors to the unwilling. We would be glad to welcome good contributors, but people who are scientifically uneducated and yet continue to make ill-founded objections on the basis of their misunderstandings of what useful evidence might be, it must be said, are not those good contributors. - Nunh-huh 07:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sm565, if you don't have a reasonably good basis to believe that a study is credible and clearly indicative of some outcome, positive or negative, it is probably not useful. Whig 07:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion: 1 The limitations of the study are stated by itself. It is not a discovery. 2. It is not the editors job to evaluate metanalyses according to the methods used. The study falls into the wikidedia critiria for sources.I think. (Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and scienceand) It is large, and published in a respected publishing house.[17] All writers are scientists employed by universities. Why it should not be used? --Sm565 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh..... Q.E.D. - Nunh-huh 07:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I think Sm565 is correct. It is a large study, therefore notable. Whig 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do not know science, please do not make such worthless comments.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Largeness and notability are not equivalent. Largeness makes a study more likely to pick up on smaller treatment effects, therefore a large study which fails to desmonstrate such an effect is in fact less supportive of those who argue for that treatment's efficacy than a small study which also failed to demonstrate any effect would be. - Nunh-huh 07:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You continue to evaluate a paper as you are assigned to accept it or not for publication. This not our job here. Since the paper is accepted and qualifies with teh criteria of wikipedia it should be included and criticized it if you wish. But we cannot reject it. It qualifies. We have no excuse other than we dont like the results. --Sm565 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that your POV has blinded you to reality.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot possibly include every study ever published, and so we absolutely must determine what is important to include. An inconclusive study is not important. That we do not "like" the results cannot possibly be the reason, as there are none. - Nunh-huh 08:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel qualified to disregard this study, however. I would await a more detailed analysis. Whig 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you are unqualified, you clearly have no business being here at this article. Please edit something else. Or just wait until you are eventually the subject of administrative action. Please do stop trolling.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are unqualified to assess the science, you can accept the authors' word that no firm conclusions are possible. There is no need to reference this study, as other studies which actually draw conclusions are available. Wikipedia articles are not compendia of inconclusive studies, as such studies elucidate nothing. - Nunh-huh 08:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Our goal should not be to support or refute the claims of homeopaths, but to document those claims and how they have been tested with what results. Obviously we cannot use every study, but large international studies like this deserve perhaps some discussion even if they are ultimately inconclusive (and it should then so state in the article). Whig 07:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No - Our goal is to present what all the sides say and report all the qualifying supporting studies with its criticism. This is an objective approach which is common sense. Anything less than that is not appropriate.

Wikipedia articles are not compendia of inconclusive studies, as such studies elucidate nothing. - Nunh-huh 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It qualifies according to the written critiria. What else more clear could be added? .--Sm565 08:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What written criteria? Just because it doesn't qualify for automatic exclusion does not mean it should be included. Whig 08:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I take Nunh-huh's point, it is inconclusive. So it does not merit inclusion. Whig 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the criteria. [18] Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications--Sm565 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are adequate sources, and if this study had generated a result that was not inconclusive, it might merit inclusion. Whig 08:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The study has a conclusion whether we like it or not. Include it and criticize it. Exclusion cannot be justified according the above criteria.--Sm565 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [56] Best.--Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How much clearer could the authors be? The study draws "no firm conclusions" "about the efficacy of homeopathic treatment". It therefore cannot be used, as you wish to, to support the efficacy of homeopathic treatment. - Nunh-huh 08:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Although no firm conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy of homeopathic treatment... Whig 08:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not part of the conclusion. No study reports firm conclusions even the negative ones.The say we found insufficient evidence far way from firm conclusions. It is a study with a positive result, it qualifies and there is no excuse to not report it with its criticism. --Sm565 08:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition. This is not a "firm conclusion" but it is reported.--Sm565 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor. Can you take this to my Talk page, and you can try to persuade me there? Whig 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would do that.But U think it is very clear.--Sm565 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss it. And moreover, the overall problems with this article right now, which are in my opinion still vast and not remotely worth fighting over a single study unless you think it is the most important study ever that absolutely must be included or the world will end. Whig 08:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow .--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Excess crit

This article STILL contains vast baggages of criticism and this needs to be trimmed back to a bare minimum IMO. The title of this article is homeopathy and that is what it should predominantly be about NOT one long skeptical rant from the true believers of the 'american church of science,' which is very clearly what it has become. thank you Peter morrell 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm British. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A useful comparison might be found with the article Intelligent design. Jefffire 11:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, after months and months here, I am afraid you do not really understand Wikipedia yet. Because of the WP rules for WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, [[WP:UNDUE}] etc, this article HAS to have a large measure of criticism. In fact, according to some interpretations of the rules, it might need to have the same proportion of criticism as there is in the medical field. That is, the overwhelming majority of the article should be written this way. From the POV of science and conventional medicine. Sorry. --Filll 14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, this is quite wrong. The article should not be a criticism of anything, but an objective assessment of facts. Not the facts of "why I think homeopathy is quackery" but about homeopathy: what is it? What do the practitioners of homeopathy say? What do the detractors say? What is the proposed method of efficacy of homeopathy? What does classical medical science respond to that? If you are writing a criticism of homeopathy, then you should not be editing this article. You should be contributing information about homeopathy. docboat 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, some good articles to have a look over to get an idea of how Wikipedia treats these controversial subjects would be Intelligent design, Holocaust denial and Animal testing, these articles follow the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, with the section of this policy on undue weight being particularly important. All the best Tim Vickers 15:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim - I think you misunderstood the main thrust of my comment. The approach used by Filll and his ilk is from a basis of antagonism to the article. That cannot ever make for a good encyclopaedia, no matter how much they may fulfil the "requirements" of Wikipeadia guidelines. Biased observers can certainly ride the guidelines well enough, but still the resulting article is POV and hence inaccurate. The article should be about homeopathy, NOT about anti-homeopathy. But yes, your points in general are valid. docboat 23:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on intelligent design is a good example. It does reveal the position of the Discovery Institute, but it also makes it clear what the mainstream view is as well.--Filll 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK for comparison, why has the article on medicine got no endless pages of critique of its methods and concepts? it should have; let's be fair. Peter morrell 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what the WP:UNDUE deals with. If most of the reliable sources about subject X are not critical then most of the article should not be critical. However, if most of the reliable sources on X are critical, them most of the article should be critical. Tim Vickers 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The significance of statistical significance

There is a misconception that came up again and again in the discussion above. There is no way even in principle for a study to prove that homeopathic remedies have no effect at all. A positive result can state with a certain degree of certainty that remedies have an effect. A negative study can only say with a certain degree of certainty that the effects, if there are any, are not larger than such-and-such. It is meaningless to say that a negative result is not statistically significant, you can just say that the sensitivity is too small to be of interest (e.g. in comparison to other studies that are more sensitive). Because of this, if remedies have no effect, studies will always be fluttering near the current level of sensitivity - proponents will always see a promising trend that justifies larger studies, and opponents will see the results as consistent with the null hypothesis. (The way I see it is, the studies have gotten sensitive enough that, if there should prove to be a barely measurable effect, it is so small as to be clinically uninteresting. It would be a scientific revolution, but to discuss that we have to get into the chance that the world has been built in such a weird way). The consequence for the article is that we need to concentrate more on the sensitivity of a study than the results (given that no studies show block-busting positive results.) In most cases we are spared evaluating individual studies (primary sources) in this way because there are several reviews and meta-analyses (secondary sources) available. --Art Carlson 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. To be more precise if something is "statistically significant" this is just a way of saying that the results are unlikely to come about by chance. You can work out exactly how unlikely any one particular result will be and when the results cross this border they are deemed "significant".

For example, take tossing a coin. You can work out how likely any one string of heads or tails will be. Toss the coin twenty times, if a head is +1 and a tail -1 then the numbers will follow a normal distribution centred around zero. Statistics says how likely any other result would be. If 95% of the numbers will fall between +2 and -2 then we call this our 95% confidence interval. Getting a +5 might be a one-in a-hundred result, and random, but would be "statistically significant".

So to test if the coin is really random, you toss it 100 times, add up the numbers and say "My null hypothesis is that this result is random." Then compare the number you get to the confidence interval and say "The result is +1, my null hypothesis is not disproved, since the results are not statistically significant." Alternatively, you can say "The result is +100, this result is statistically significant and my null hypothesis is disproved, the result is not random. Hey, I wonder if this is a two-headed coin?" Tim Vickers 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you toss the coin a hundred times and it comes up Heads 60 times, does that confirm or refute your null hypothesis? Whig 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If your 95% confidence interval was 55 times, a result of 60 refutes the null hypothesis and you can say with 95% confidence that the coin is biased. Tim Vickers 17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And if you tossed the coin 40 times and got a result of 24 heads? Whig 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends what the confidence interval is, smaller numbers of tests give wider confidence intervals since there will be greater random variation around the mean. This is why small studies mean so little. Tim Vickers 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct answer is that the null hypothesis is neither confirmed nor refuted in this case, precisely the same results as in the study we were discussing. Whig 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure from this exchange whether there is still a misunderstanding or not. It is meaningless to say a null hypothesis has been confirmed. If a coin is unbiased, the chance of getting at least 24 heads on 40 tosses is about 13%. This is usually considered likely enough to be consistent with the null hypothesis (50% heads), but it is also consistent with the hypothesis that the coin produces heads 60% or even 70% of the time. But if the coin produced heads 75% of the time, then the chance of getting only 24 heads (or less) is just 1%, so this result rules out the hypothesis that the chance of heads is 75% or greater. Applied to the study, we can't rule out that the homeopaths get the answer right more often than wrong, but we can conclude that they get it wrong at least one time out of four. (Calculations done using Binomial Probability Distribution Calculator and a spreadsheet.) --Art Carlson 08:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Live NPOV dispute

This article is not NPOV. Asserting the POV tag is not vandalism. Whig 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

correct.with all the respect for the other editors.--Sm565 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have protected the page for a day due to revert dueling. If consensus is achieved prior to one days time, let me know. If revert warring continues, I will issue blocks to prevent disruption. I'll not continue to protect and protect.
• I looked, and I was unable to find... has RFC, or mediation, any form of dispute resolution been tried here? Mercury 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum - Please keep in mind that if clear consensus has been established, and folks are editing over consensus, this is also disruptive and blockable. Mercury 17:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you assume anything like that looking at the talk page?--Sm565 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As a second admin looking over the page, there appears to be a single editor who is using the NPOV tag as a bludgeon to have his views adopted against consensus. Raymond Arritt 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they are 2 at least.--Sm565 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a nice civilized discussion just consensus has not been reached. --Sm565 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(To the group) Can anyone link a discussion where consensus has been achieved? Mercury 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(Whig) Why are you adding weasel words, and particular reason you going against the manual of style? Mercury 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I accidentally clicked the wrong button and never meant to revert Whig's addition of the NPOV tag as vandalism. The real discussion is over the wording of the one sentence in the lead, which has been explained as containing weasel words, which I reverted once and which Whig continued to add. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is often described" vs "many scientists describe"

Both are weasel words. I was trying to make it apparent, in order to fix this language. It needs work. Whig 18:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. This is an NPOV dispute. Every edit that I make must be taken in the context that I am trying to point out the inherent POV of this article in order to replace it with something conforming to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Where weasel words are used, I will make them more obvious. This is homeopathic editing, perhaps, but if it causes the sentence to be properly analyzed and discussed and fixed, then it is effective. Whig 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to word that with active voice and make is less opinionated? I think that may solve one issue. Mercury 18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Making them (read: the weasel words) more obvious, instead of fixing them, is not good, fix them, but don't make them worse, more obvious. To do so, is disruptive. Mercury 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not disruptive. It is correct editing practice in my opinion. Whig 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So if I am understanding you correctly, to deliberately go against a content guideline is correct editing practice? Mercury 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The content guideline is already being violated. I did not violate it. Whig 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But as you state, you are making the weasel words more obvious. The equates with aggravating the already existing problem. And aggravating existing problems is disruptive. Mercury 18:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, I disagree. Whig 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"I disagree" is not a helpful or constructive response. Raymond Arritt 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to help you understand that I will block you if you are disruptive, and I see your making the weasel words more obvious as disruption. Mercury 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. What will be my recourse? Whig 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To avoid this, try the options in the dispute resolution. Once blocked, your recourse will be explained to you on your talk page, if you choose that path. Mercury 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see current RfC. I would be interested in your comments. Whig 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My only comment would be, please take in what everyone has to say, right, wrong, indifferent. If it applies, it is useful insight to your editing behaviour. The RFC is designed to give you some outside views, so that if you need to change, you will. I won't comment directly to the RFC. Mercury 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We have been trying to summurize the metanalyses conclusions objectively. --Sm565 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is often described"

Do we at least have general agreement that these are weasel words? Whig 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it passive voice? Mercury 19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Here is the full sentence:

“ The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.[22][23][24] ”

Whig 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may suggest, without getting involved into the content itself; "Reference so and so describes Homeopathy as quackery" "Reference so and so questions the efficacy" so that you are attributing the opinion or action to a particular reliable source. You may want to balance out opinions, to add balance, so as to adhere to a neutral point of view. I'll say again that I am not up on the content here, I'm just offering a style suggestion. Mercury 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mercury. I agree with you completely. Whig 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Both "often" and "many" are weasle words unless the source says exactly that. How Often? How Many? These variables aren't defined and thus are ambiguous. Does "Often" mean 50% of the time? 70% of the time? 99% of the time? Does "many" mean a lot? Does it mean most? Does it mean 99% of scientists? What does it mean? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. Whig 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the article is full of this kind of broad and often inaccurate generalization, as multiple editors have pointed out. Whig 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So fix it.(when it's unprotected) And cite the relevant guidelines in the edit summary. If it's reverted then take it to the talk page and explain your reasoning in details. Don't call people who revert you "abusive". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is abusive to revert my change when it did not cause a violation of the stated policies. Whig 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. You need to AGF. Your revert also was reverting into a weasel word so it was also unjustified. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to explain to Whig that calling other editors "abusive" in edit summaries isn't constructive. Do you want me to stop discussing policy with him totally or just here? The discussion is actually relevant to the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not see this thread being particularly constructive. I think we can all agree that edit summaries are not the best place to directly communicate. The preferred method, is to use the article talk page, or the editors talk page. But this thread seem to be degrading in constructiveness, with all respect. Mercury 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

form of quackery ?I have also argued against that above. It is not supported by the conclusions and suggestions of the cited meta analysis.--Sm565 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As I keep telling you, it is not for us to say whether it is or is not. We are only supposed to quote or paraphrase and cite to notable people or organizations who have said things one way or the other. Whig 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. If someone calls it quackery then we say "is sometimes described as a form of quackery" and then cite who called it quackery. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not "is sometimes" Try "such and such describes" active voice. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how many describe it as such. If we can find dozens of people who call it "quackery" and they can all be referenced, we can't say "Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, etc, all call homeopathy quackery." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We could also find dozens of people who dont call it "quackery" but a succesfull form of alternative therapy and they could also all be referenced. Call it controversial and be consistent with wikipedia's description. --Sm565 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that would be serving two opposing point of views, making it neutral. So long as all sources are reliable. Mercury 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you.If you can stay to moderate the discussion I see a consensus very soon. --Sm565 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I might can do that. There are other players who might not be online yet, would like to see them contribute here. Additionally, as soon as we are done with this aspect, we need to address the POV tag issue, as a separate issue. I may extend protection for that as well. Mercury 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fair. --Sm565 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As you say, "is sometimes described" is a subjective style. Perhaps "14 references describe...[12][13][14..." It might be best to balance that point of view however. Just a style suggestion. Mercury 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) There are no reliable sources that describe homeopathy as a "successfull (sic) form of alternative therapy". Any version of the article that describes homeopathy thusly would be in gross violation of NPOV and undue weight. I am willing to address some of the pro-homeopathic editors' concerns, but I cannot agree with this line of reasoning. We need to take the same approach to this article that has worked on articles like Intelligent design and Global warming, for example. Skinwalker 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that I agree with Mercury's proposal of naming exactly who makes allegations against homeopathy - e.g. the NSF, the FASEB editorial board, contributors to The Lancet, etc. Weasel words are bad, mmkay. Skinwalker 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is one reliable source -One could report and criticize its findings ( using references) [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs)

I think we determined that was inconclusive, and I would review it on my Talk page. Whig 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconclusive, to put it mildly, I agree. As several other editors have explained, it is a uncontrolled, non-randomized, and non-double blind study published in an obscure journal. Not a reliable source. Skinwalker 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Obscure journal? ????? It is recommended .....I think. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) It is a metanalyses by: 1Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy, Graz, Austria 2University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Integrative Medicine Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA 3HomInt, Karlsruhe, Germany 4Complementary Medicine Research Unit; Primary Medical Care, University of Southhampton, Southhampton, UK 5VSM Geneesmiddelen, Alkmaar, The Netherlands 6ClinResearch GmbH, Cologne, Germany 7Tilburg, The Netherlands 8Institute for Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland --Sm565 21:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT a metanalysis. It is ONE study, not a study of other studies. Do you really understand what you're writing here? Skinwalker 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right "Data of 1,577 patients were evaluated in the full analysis set of which 857 received homeopathic (H) and 720 conventional (C) treatment" . But it is still significant and should be included. --Sm565 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is NOT significant, and it will NOT be included. I am the third or fourth editor to tell you this. Why do you persist in presenting the same argument over and over again, after you've been refuted? What you tell me three times is not automatically true. Skinwalker 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not being randomized is pretty much a fatal flaw in studies of this sort. It is not significant. Wanderer57 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Being randomized is not one of the wikipedia criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications According to these criteria it qualifies. Every good faith editor can see it. --Sm565 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. We've already put this study in my Talk. It shouldn't be discussed here further for now. Whig 23:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC):: They asked me,I answered.--Sm565 23:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• As an aside, good folks, please stop using edit summaries to talk to each other. Mercury 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to worry about how to cite many sources calling homeopathy quackery. We don't have even a single such source. The 3 sources cited do not use the word quackery or anything similar in the abstract, and I seriously doubt they use it in the main text. The intro now clearly states that there is a "lack of evidence supporting its efficacy" and that it takes a "stance against conventional medicine". The last sentence of the introduction adds no new content and uses a formulation that is not supported by the sources. Unless some other sources can be found, where notable people or organizations call homeopathy quackery, the sentence should be stricken. --Art Carlson 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV / POV TAG

I'm going to try and keep this one simple as well, so I don't get confused. Why is the POV tag on the article? Mercury 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is written from a "mainstream scientific" POV without allowing the subject even to be fairly described. It is a condemnation of Homeopathy from beginning to end. Whig 20:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because its main point of view is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Editors refuge to include studies from reliable sources which shows that Homeopathy has a therapeutic effect. [25] The interpretation of the cited sources is not objective. I have documented all these above. --Sm565 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Comment: I agree with the first sentence of Sm565's statement above. Whig 21:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with whigs statement.--Sm565 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for the POV tag. The article is supposed to be written from a mainstream scientific tone as that coincides with WP:WEIGHT. The areas aside from the scientific analysis of homeopathy do a fairly well job of describing it and if it doesn't, then that has nothing to do with "Scientific tone" getting in the way but rather poor wording, etc. This isn't a POV issue but a style or wording issue. I have no objection to including studies showing that Homeopathy has a therapeutic effect, as long as they are mentioned in the context of the fact that the vast majority of studies show now medical effect aside from placebo. The interpretation of the sources is not a POV issue either. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT? BBC reports this controversy differently if the editors want to consider it as a reliable source. ( They already use it to condemn homeopathy.) [31]I had suggested for reaching a concencus -no comments just report the findings as stated from all meta analyses and /or studies upon agreement and this will be NPOV. And its critisisms.

Really simple. --Sm565 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are linking to the BBC where they are writing about James Randi. Whig 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Read at the end of page about WHO.--Sm565 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can take one paragraph out of context like that. Whig 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WEIGHT requires we give prominence to the mainstream view, not that we omit the minority view. Whig 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)::::If they are reliable sources which define the mainstream view ..yes. But so far most ofthe cited sources they say the subject and studies are controversial.[32]--Sm565 21:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the current sources are mischaracterized? Whig 21:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost. Not all of them though. Read and decide.It is above. --Sm565 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well we can do that in time. My concerns are not the same as yours, apparently, though we both agree there is an NPOV problem. Whig 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What you are stating is part of my objection and -of course I agree.--Sm565 21:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)::: We have the time to do it properly. Serious articles take time especially if many editors are involved.--Sm565 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Your objections hold no water. WP:UNDUE is simple in this regard, and the mainstream viewpoint is clear and well sourced. Furthermore, one can easily supply additional sources if one bothered to backing up the mainstream view. JoshuaZ 13:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag resolution

I think if we can get that last sentence of the LEAD straightened out, there may not be a POV tag needed for the whole article. We can identify sections that need work as appropriate. I think this article is a lot better than it was a week ago. Whig 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opininion the meta analysis summary is not accurate as well. Other studies should be included not only the negative ones. Critisism of the cited studies is not included but it exists. I will try to work on that this week.--Sm565 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You've said that, but if we can correct the LEAD then we can work on the rest of the article. Whig 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure.--Sm565 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Strategy

I think the strategy here is obvious. Two or more POV warriors want to change the definition of NPOV and WP policies for this article and remove every negative statement about homeopathy. They want to remove all criticism of homeopathy from the article and violate all WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE guidelines. They want to stretch the definition of WP:RS and WP:V sources.

To exhaust the regular WP editors here, they have engaged in a massive campaign of talk page commentary. This is transparent. It is pointless. You know who you are. We know who you are. You are single topic accounts meant to cause chaos and disruption. And you will not succeed. Please reform your ways and do not force the hand of the community.--Filll 13:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That is such pure fantasy! Where did you dredge that up from? As I see it, they do not want that. I think they want the article to be fair and balanced which it isn't at the moment. A fair and balanced account of homeopathy, and the trials, etc, which also includes the critique of the anti-homeo lobby. Presently about 50% of the article is criticism which many editors do not think is very fair at all. To reduce that does not mean to eliminate it completely. Such an idea is preposterous because everyone knows that the criticism of such a contentious subject is 'out there' and needs to be mentioned in the article. The argument here is really about how big that mention should be. Well, that's my ten cents; the editors you refer to can doubtless speak for themselves. thanks Peter morrell 13:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You have almost completely destroyed your credibility with that statement. 50%? Do you realize we actually have ways to measure this? I suggest you retract this statement before I measure the actual figure. And use intelligent design as a guide. It is probably more than 50% negative, as scientific consensus and the mainstream view demands according to NPOV and FRINGE and UNDUE. --Filll 13:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please Filll stop your destructive tactics. Please do present your measurements. Please understand that scientific consensus is not a measure of accuracy, it is one of the measures of a scientific article, but it is not the only measure of an article. After all, Semmelweiss was right. And he most certainly did not meet the current standards of scientific consensus. Your anti-homeopathic POV is transparent and pointless. Please contribute to an article about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy. Intelligent design is a good article, but it is NOT the measure of an article. docboat 15:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

With views like these, you should not be editing this article, which falls under the purview of science and medicine. You have to learn the WP policies that are operating here or else you are wasting your time. Intelligent design is indeed a good example of what WP strives to be in controversial areas. It has achieved FA status, a status this article is far far away from because of its blatant biases and other problems. So use intelligent design or evolution or other FA articles as models and guides.--Filll 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, Filll - your tactics are obvious, and you are damaging your credibility with these attacks. But that is OK, that is where you are, and we have to deal with it. However, the encyclopaedia merits excellent editors, so one can but hope you rise to the challenge of maintaining NPOV. In the meantime (and you will note I have made no edits on the article, just observations on the talk page) I shall continue to monitor these efforts. WDM is doing an excellent job, so I see no need to jump in and edit. Whatever gave you the impression I had been editing this article? It is these lapses of observation and judgement which detract from your contributions, so I do hope you take time to reflect. Am I being too hopeful? docboat 06:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's neutrality policy everybody's got a POV. However, the reliability and verifiability of scientific consensus on the point that homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience is apparent and does not deserve sidelining. ScienceApologist 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Under dipsute sign POV

Why the under dispute sign was removed?--Sm565 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a problem that the final sentence of the LEAD remains in passive voice expressing POV. Per the resolution we discussed earlier, this must be fixed before any consensus that the POV tag be removed from the article. Whig 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem the sentence in question is: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery." and is cited by three different citations. Is there anything dishonest about the statement? ScienceApologist 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dishonest? No. POV? Yes. We don't say that homeopathy is "often described as" a form of quackery because it violates WP:WEASEL. Place this sentence into active voice and attribute the description of homeopathy as a form of quackery to someone or some organization specifically, placing references to support the quote or paraphrase. Whig 16:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying it is not "often described" that way? What is the weasel word in particular? Attribution is fine when we are quoting someone, but when summarizing an idea that is acknowledged by almost everybody (that homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery) appealing to particular attribution as you are doing is just a way of preventing summary style. ScienceApologist 16:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. No citation supports "is often described as a form of quackery".Also: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy", is not totally accurate.Sources interpretation problematic again. Please read above. I explained.--Sm565 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do any citations actually call homeopathy a form of quackery at all? Whig 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No citation supports "is often described as a form of quackery".Also: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy", is not totally inaccurate.Sources interpretation problematic again. Please read above. I explained.--Sm565 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do any citations actually call homeopathy a form of quackery at all? Whig 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the statement is accurate. It's not an issue of "sources interpretation" at all. There is a lack of evidence supporting its efficacy. This is seen in the citations already in the article. ScienceApologist 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources which equate homeopathy with quackery:

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] etc. etc. etc. ScienceApologist 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/5/12 ????????

If I remember well when you did non want to include a large published study reporting positive results on Homeopathy you said that : www.biomedcentral.com is an obscure journal. I think so.--Sm565 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not a source which equates homeopathy with quackery. It is a study you keep trying to insert and which has been repeatedly declined, and it will continue to be declined when you keep trying. Whig 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just showing you how widespread the understanding is. I am fine with the current citations and am just showing you that there are plenty of others which admit to the characterization. ScienceApologist 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem isn't the citations themselves (though I might ask about whether they are all reliable sources), but are any of them quoted as saying homeopathy is a form of quackery, directly?

Which of those is most notable and says explicitly something about homeopathy being a form of quackery? Can we extract that quote? Whig 16:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

thats one study...where did you get often?--Sm565 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now added two examples from the scientific literature that directly describe homeopathy as a form of quackery and have also attributed the opinion to a prominent group that has repeatedly made this assertion. Tim Vickers 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good progress, Tim. I agree the POV tag can be removed for now. 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig (talk • contribs)

How biased is the article?

I have taken the liberty of removing all "anti-Homeopathy" material from the article and making a "pro-Homeopathy" article at [38]which is now 59,911 bytes, compared to the original size of 93,074 bytes, so the current version of the article is at least 64.4% "pro-Homeopathy". This is well above 50%.

I will note that this is a bit misleading since most of the high dilution material is not really anti-homeopathy at all, but I called it that anyway. Not all of the scientific testing is anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. The historical discussion of controversy is not really all anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. So at a minimum, the article is 2/3 pro-homeopathy, and the true figure is likely far higher. --Filll 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean 64% "pro-homeopathy"? Tim Vickers 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes obviously that was a screw up. Thanks.--Filll 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Viewing ScienceApologist's further edits to the file, it is quite interesting to me which parts he believes are actually anti-homeopathy which I do not perceive to be negative at all. Perhaps we all should do our own version of a "pro-homeopathy" edit of the present article. I am somewhat surprised with some of SA's alleged anti-homeopathy pieces of text, frankly.--Filll 18:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My pro-version (currently up at Talk:Homeopathy/pro) got a pro rating of 59.6%. I tried to be as much of a devil's advocate as possible -- anticipating all possible negative comments that could be made about the text I removed. ScienceApologist 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke or what. We aren't supposed to make a pro- or anti- article here. Just the facts. Whig 18:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously are not paying attention. Please read the material above. And no, this is not an article that I would put on WP. It is a test case and a strawman to see what the exact balance is. And try to understand where it should be. It is for discussion. We have to measure the alleged problem to know if it really exists. --Filll 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Which facts get summarized and described in the article is the issue. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. ScienceApologist 18:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Aw, jeez, we could make it much more pro than that -- all one needs to do is ignore the facts, or make them fit the desired outcome. ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Like the lead and history section here: [39] ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've moved jim's proposal to talk:Homeopathy/pro2.  – ornis⚙ 22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I have to admit, I am much more impressed with the balance between the pro-homeopathy and the anti-homeopathy material in the article than I was a few weeks ago. I was pleasantly surprised to do this measurement and find that there is a good solid measure of anti-homeopathy material in the article. This is necessary for NPOV. Perhaps we need more. Nevertheless, I think the article looks better than it did a few weeks ago in this regard. I also think that the LEAD looks much much better than it did; more compact, and a good solid fraction of it cautioning the reader that there is no support for this practice. I might read it a few more times, but I am ready to suggest I think it might be ready for GA status again. I will consult with other editors first, of course for their input.--Filll 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A few points. Firstly, This article contains no "pro-homeopathy". Zero. The article contains "explanations" of homeopathy, but that doesn't count as "pro homeopathy". Secondly, If you look at the article as it was when it first came out of the rewrite, you will find that the proportions between criticism and explanation are pretty much the same. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

National Council Against Health Fraud

How notable are they? Whig 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears this is an organization run by Stephen Barrett, MD. His credentials have already been questioned above. Would someone please verify that he is a reliable source. Whig 18:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of this organisation have been cited in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Tim Vickers 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jarvis WT (1999). "Quackery: the National Council Against Health Fraud perspective". Rheum. Dis. Clin. North Am. 25 (4): 805–14. PMID 10573757.

Prominent members of the council have also published studies on alternative medicine in JAMA, a highly-prestigious medical journal.

Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S (1998). "A close look at therapeutic touch". JAMA. 279 (13): 1005–10. PMID 9533499.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I don't think that's relevant. Just because members of an organization have published, does not mean all of the organization's writings are publication quality. Whig 18:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly notable though. I was answering your question. As a question for you, why have you added a note identifying just one of the co-founders of this organisation? No other organisation in this article has that level of detail about its membership. Tim Vickers 18:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because we need to make clear to our readers that Stephen Barrett is really the source we are relying on for that opinion, as he has made his opinion known throughout the article. I don't think his organization can serve as his proxy without disclosure. Whig 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of an organisation are not the same as the opinions of its vice-president. Should we attribute US government opinions to Dick Cheney? Unless you have a better reason than that I'll remove your aside. Tim Vickers 18:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No, but this is not an organization in which Stephen Barrett is merely a member, he is a founder of the organization, so his voice is presumably predominant in its views. Whig 18:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to rephrase my aside, or move it to somewhere more appropriate, or redo the sentence in some other way. The point is we can't have one source speaking with different voices without it being noted. And I don't think this organization is necessarily a reliable source, nor even whether Stephen Barrett, MD is a reliable source, as his credentials have been challenged and not supported yet. Whig 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is your presumption about this organisation backed by any reliable sources? Or is this a personal opinion? The organisation is not used here as a reliable source about facts, it is used as an example of a set of prominent critics and cited to show that this is their opinion. Read WP:V and WP:NPOV again, you might have missed the sections discussing attribution of opinions. I'll remove this addition for now, until you can find a better reason for listing one of its members but not the others. Tim Vickers 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is a statement upon which reliance is being made, it must be a reliable source. The sentence now reads, "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why..." and proceeds to cite to this source. That is reliance. Rephrase to say that they have an opinion, and it is fine if they are notable. Whig 19:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just awkwardly phrased. I will take a break for awhile and come back to look at it fresh. Whig 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I could add back the citations in the sentences above that deal with lack of efficacy. These were the original references for this sentence. I've also removed a later quotation of Barrett in the high-dilution section, we have better refs than his opinion for dose-response. Tim Vickers 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the same sort of problem we've gotten at other pages when people try to cite things involving Barrett. Proponents of fringe and pseudoscience really don't like him and see him as sort of the center of all evil. We've even had an ArbCom case over it. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. That ArbCom however only referred to Quackwatch as possibly problematic and even then the problem existed only when Quackwatch was used a source without attribution in the text (i.e. Saying "X" and referencing quackwatch rather than something like "According Quackwatch, X"). So in this case since we are dealing with an even more reliable organizatoin than Quackwatch there shouldn't be any problem. At worst simply saying, "According to the [[National Council Against Health Fraud" and then continuing would be acceptable, and even that seems unnecessary. In any event, I agree with Tim that we have better refs than his opinion for the dose-response matter. JoshuaZ 19:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah! A very simple remedy, I just changed it to "This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, to make it clear that the first part of this sentence is a summary of the material discussed in the previous sentences. Tim Vickers 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is actually little to no difference between NCAHF and Quackwatch. All one has to do is look at their respective articles here on Wikipedia. They are both the voices of Barrett. NCAHF tries to give itself an air of national recognizability with it's slick name, but it is just another operation which Barrett started up to push his opinions. (Read the Quackwatch article here and see that it was started off originally by Barrett calling it the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, then he renamed it to Quackwatch and concurrently started the National Council Against Health Fraud. Same-same.) My issue here is not so much that we are using an unreliable source (unreliable and partisan; as the ArbCom above describes), but that we are giving a lot of page space to Barrett's various soapboxes - we mention and link to Homeowatch, NCAHF, and Quackwatch - all of which are Barrett's sites and represents his POV. (Look at the three sites, they are all templates of each others and are all hosted on the same server, and all have the same webmaster - namely Barrett). Anyhow, isn't this exactly what WP:Weight warns us against. Having this much (internal citations and external links) from essentially one source most certainly presents a Weight issue. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is much better now. The second reference (Loudon) is still a bit sticky, though, since it is not a free site. Could we leave it out, or at least quote the relevant passage from the full text? (And we don't seem to be done discussing the notability of NCAHF yet.) --Art Carlson 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And here I thought you were referring to the Devils of Loudon. Somehow fits the homeopathatic mindset, no? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for your insightful and timely sense of humour! which lightens this dreary talk-page up, not for the first time. Loudon is a retired GP self-appointed medical historian and he knows nothing about the history of homeopathy; it is in truth the most outrageous nothing of a so-called article. Please do not use it as a source. In simple terms, it is crap. thanks Peter morrell 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to paraphrase this entirely reliable source - Efficacy of Homeopathic Arnica A Systematic Review of Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials" E. Ernst, MD, PhD, FRCP(Edin); M. H. Pittler, MD Arch Surg. 1998;133:1187-1190. which states in the introduction:

"It is in particular the use of highly diluted material that overtly flies in the face of science and has caused homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

As "This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, are the reasons why homeopathy is often regarded in conventional medicine as at best a placebo response, and at worst a form of quackery."

Hope a paraphrasing of the Archives of Surgery will be acceptable to everybody. Tim Vickers 21:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's back in passive voice. Whig 01:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because I'm an academic you grammar Nazi. :) I've swapped it to active voice:

This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, are the reasons why conventional medicine regards homeopathy as at best a placebo response, and at worst a form of quackery.

Better? Tim Vickers 02:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But you can't cite "conventional medicine" as your source, state the source. Whig 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, this is a paraphrasing of the sentence quoted above, the source is the citation. What do you mean? Tim Vickers 02:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The reader is not expected to click the reference to know who is making the statement. By making the statement in the active voice you are attributing the statement to "conventional medicine" now, in spite of the reference which is a specific source. Whig 04:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another interpretation might be that the reference backs up the statement as such, which is to say it is authoritative on what conventional medicine believes and why. Whig 04:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm treating this just as other sources are treated:

Such measures often made symptoms worse or proved fatal.[29]

This later became known as the "Law of similars", the most important concept of homeopathy.[1]

Hahnemann found as early as 1816 that his patients who he treated through homeopathy still suffered from chronic diseases that he was unable to cure.[49]

For this purpose, Hahnemann had a saddle maker construct a special wooden striking board covered in leather on one side and stuffed with horsehair.[59]

This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, are the reasons why conventional medicine regards homeopathy as at best a placebo response, and at worst a form of quackery.[22][23]

This is just like the remainder of the article now. A source makes a statement that is cited to support the statements in the text. Do you wish to add specific attributions throughout the text identifying every one of the citations as parts of the text? Tim Vickers 04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

According to X, such measures often made symptoms worse or proved fatal.[29]

According to X, this later became known as the "Law of similars", the most important concept of homeopathy.[1]

According to X, Hahnemann found as early as 1816 that his patients who he treated through homeopathy still suffered from chronic diseases that he was unable to cure.[49]

According to X, For this purpose, Hahnemann had a saddle maker construct a special wooden striking board covered in leather on one side and stuffed with horsehair.[59]

According to X, This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, are the reasons why conventional medicine regards homeopathy as at best a placebo response, and at worst a form of quackery.[22][23]

I see your point, but this is different, because the fact assertion being made is what conventional medicine believes. Is your source authoritative on that? Whig 04:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if you had a statement from the American Medical Association, you could substitute that for "conventional medicine" and it would be pretty convincing. Whig 04:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's tough to paraphrase a source using active voice when the statement in the source is passive voice. "We" believe that lots of people, at least from the establishment, consider homeopathy to be quakery, and it's good to have a source that backs up this generalization. On the other hand, I also think it is a good idea to back up the generalization with two or three well-chosen references in the footnotes. Jarvis is good, AMA would be better. I rummaged around and found some interesting hints. The AMA created a "Committee on Quackery" in 1963 and published info on CAM in 1993 that "portrays many CAM therapies as being quackery". This publication is apparently

Zwicky JF, Hafner AW, Barrett S, et al.
Reader's Guide to Alternative Health Methods: Scientific Perspective.
Chicago, Ill: American Medical Association; 1993:3-13.

Can anybody track it down? --Art Carlson 07:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Barrett S cited in the AMA reference above the same Stephen Barrett, MD? Whig 08:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You can be assured. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The relevant question is whether this book represents an official position of the AMA, whether it is in some weaker sense sanctioned by the AMA, or whether they have published it but disclaimed responsibility for its contents. --Art Carlson 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a "Reader's Guide to Alternative Health Methods" from 1993 written by Stephen Barrett, MD, likely represents an official position of the AMA. Whig 08:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The FDA says this about what other groups say:

The American Medical Association does not accept homeopathy, but it doesn't reject it either. "The AMA encourages doctors to become aware of alternative therapies and use them when and where appropriate," says AMA spokesman Jim Fox. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has no specific policy on homeopathy.

--Art Carlson 11:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Legal precedents

Tracking down legal precedents of health fraud claims against homeopathy, I have not been able to find any ruling against homeopathy claims, by the contrary I found this: [40] ℒibrarian2 08:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Quackpotwatch. I do believe it doesn't qualify as an RS. Shot info 11:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, most of those so-called 'homeopathic organizations' listed at the end of the article are in fact just anti-homeopathy blogs. Why are they listed, what function do they serve, should they be discussed or even deleted? thank you Peter morrell 11:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the blog links twice now. While they flatter my point of view, they are not acceptable external links. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The source (Quackpotwatch) is not presented by its opinions or research but because of the html copy of a Court ruling, the same copy can be found at other websites for ratification or a copy can be requested through library request and uploaded eventually ℒibrarian2 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This court ruling is unacceptable as a reference for a number of reasons. In a general sense, legal venues have recognized that they are exceedingly poor at interpreting scientific evidence, thus the reason for the US Supreme Court's creation of the Daubert test. We cannot and will not allow a court ruling to trump peer-reviewed science. Specifically, the ruling holds that the plantiffs (NCAHF) did not meet the burden of proof in this specific case. It does not hold that homeopathy somehow works. Furthermore, it says that the plaintiffs failed to show that King Bio's products were not safe and effective. This is true on its face, until you realize that the FDA does not require that manufacturers of homeopathic drugs prove that they are either safe or effective - since they are invariably composed of water and only water, they are inherently safe as far as the FDA is concerned. In summary, a court of law could rule that the law of gravity has not been proven true - this would make no difference at all in your local acceleration. I will be reverting a second time after this, please discuss your reasons for including this material. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, WTF is up with WP:TIMETRACE? I've noted a number of pseudoscience articles where members have been tag-team reverting. Skinwalker 12:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I was called the attention to your comment here. Please keep any edit war or disagreement to the participants. Do not extend it to unrelated WikiProjects and please read WP:CIV, WTF is not a welcomed expression. WikiProjects members are free to review each other contributions as they see fit and that doesn't involve any WikiProject they pertain to, please refrain from this line of action, thank you for your understanding Daoken 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. This needs discussing. But in the interests of neutrality and balance, readers of this article SHOULD know of this ruling and so it should appear somewhere in it, yes? thanks Peter morrell 12:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be useable somewhere, but definitely not in the lead and most certainly not as a vindication of homeopathy. That can only come from scientific studies. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting content based exclusively on POV. This is a court ruling and must be available to readers, expose your opinion and reasons if you disagree but do not warr the contributions ☤'ProfBrumby 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please address my specific concerns above. You, in fact, are edit warring, as you are insisting on adding this material without a consensus. I'm willing to listen to your objections, and I won't revert again, but the usual contributors to this page are not going to look favorably on this material. Skinwalker 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The obvious place for a discussion of a legal ruling on safety is in the "Safety issues" section, which could be renamed "Legal and safety issues". However, as a note there is no point in adding an entire paragraph on one ruling in America to an article that is supposed to address this subject from a worldwide view. Tim Vickers 13:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone look at Lexis Nexis (sp?)?--Filll 14:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism own section

As it was proposed, I removed the legal ruling and the criticisms of fraud it was related to, away from the introduction and into a new section of its own ☤'ProfBrumby 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's... way against consensus, not to mention WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV, etc. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Cuerden, you surely know who I refer to when I say that I have seen that editor war editing and reverting based on his own POV in many articles, all related with an obvious agenda, and also acting when one of his tag-warriors have exhausted his reverts for the day, so which should be the purpose to discuss? I hope that the editor I am talking about do as he always do, to use his admin privileges to sustain his agenda and make commas and small changes after a revert for difficulting other reverts, that is what I have seen him doing all around, so by all means, please let him do, the eyes of others more experient than me are on him already, so please let him enjoy as long as he can, all the best ☤'ProfBrumby 13:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam, you are edit warring, man, please let's get a moderate and sound consensus on this new material. It has to go into the article somewhere. Why do you just delete delete delete and tinker about with anything new? go steady; please desist until it has been discussed. thank you Peter morrell 13:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Adam is sufficiently experienced that he can do without the lecture. Raymond Arritt 14:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote for linking to critical blogs. Squid87 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy votes otherwise. Raymond Arritt 14:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the blogs again. They fail WP:SPS/WP:EL. JoshuaZ 15:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs do not belong in this article. Tim Vickers 15:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565

There is a request for comment initiated concerning User Sm565. Anyone interested in commenting, please visit the RFC here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565. Thank you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For those of you who have tried and failed to convince this editor to stop edit warring, please sign under the "users who have tried and failed to resolve disputes" and also "Endorse" the statements by me if you support my summary of the problem. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I certified it. Now that he's been indeffed, it may be a moot point, other than to show community support for the block. Skinwalker 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that indef block won't last. In case it doesn't, I think this RFC should continue. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags

As it is obvious, this article is:

• Unbalanced
• Many citations are at incorrect places providing erroneous meaning
• The article is not NPOV

etc Please collaborate in addressing each of the issues ℒibrarian2 16:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these tags and this recommendation. Whig 16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's deal with the simple one first. Please list below the citations that you believe do not meet the criteria for WP:RS. Tim Vickers 16:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically the "NPOV" tag and the "Unbalanced" tags are redundant. There is actually no consensus at all for either one of them as has been discussed on this talk page. If you BELIEVE that there is a need for the tags then please clarify exactly why you believe they need to be there, in details. I echo Tim's comments, Let's start with the RS tag. What specific sources do you believe are not reliable? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A simple one would be to correct the last sentence of the LEAD where you use a citation to back a claim regarding what conventional medicine believes, where that citation is not authoritative as to what conventional medicine believes, as discussed above. Whig 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article in the Archives of Surgery is an reliable source. It makes this statement. I have cited it as a source and paraphrased the statement it made. What exactly is your objection? Tim Vickers 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing. As I have said above, the reader cannot be expected to click the reference to find out who is making the statement. You need to state the person or organization making the statement, and in no case is the person or organization synonymous with what conventional medicine believes, as those are vague and undefined and probably violate WP:WEASEL. Whig 16:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim is right. The article clearly says "It is in particular the use of highly diluted material that overtly flies in the face of science and has caused homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst." The source is about as authoritative as you can get. Published by several experts on Homeopathy and published in a peer reviewed reputable journal. This is the reliable resource of reliable resources. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if it quoted the source directly and used it as the sole reference for the section? Than readers could be in no doubt as to where the quote came from. Tim Vickers 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be fine to quote the source directly, mainly you must attribute the source and not conventional medicine claims about the beliefs of which are unsupported by the citation. Whig 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK - This lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against modern scientific ideas, have caused, in the words of a recent medical review, "...homeopathy to be regarded as placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst." Acceptable? Tim Vickers 16:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Better. Whig 16:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Any other sources you are unhappy with? Tim Vickers 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll let others bring up their objections for awhile, I didn't introduce these tags this time. Whig 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't you? ;) Tim Vickers 16:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I'm just participating in Talk. I'm not editing the article itself at all. Whig 16:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Librarian2 added the tags. Whig is [blocked from editing] this article for 6 months. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tags and RS

In the totality of references, 87 are from clear criticism and from sources opposing homeopathy even some are used as citations about descriptions of homeopathy just because of their secondary content influence. So, first of all:

• In descriptions of homeopathy must be used homeopathic practice sourcing, and not sources that oppose that practice as obviously cannot claim exactitude or inside knowledge and less than all NPOV.
• In criticism may be used opposition sources of course. However, among those 87 sources many are from activists websites and some are direct attack from title to bottom, showing no scientific or other evidence more than their own saying. A clean up is needed ℒibrarian2 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)