Talk:Homeopathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Please read before starting

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia's homeopathy article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made by newly arriving editors is that this article presents homeopathy from a non-neutral point of view, and that the extensive criticism of homeopathy violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

&WP:OR The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the Content forking guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Homeopathy FAQ.

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of homeopathy. See WP:NOT. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of homeopathy or promote homeopathy please do so at google groups or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
The Wikipedia Community has placed homeopathy and pages subject to related disruption on probation (see relevant discussion).
Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.
An arbitration case, reviewing the results of the probation and various editors of homeopathic articles is currently ongoing. If you would like to participate, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeopathy article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35
Good article Homeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35


Contents

[edit] The Lead

sorry to have 'hit and run' a bit with my editing above - but I still feel that the suggestions at Talk:Homeopathy/Lead are better than the lead we currently have... will try and work some of the suggestions above into the sandbox - and also try and merge the two suggested versions, with a view to replacing the lead before too long - I'm afraid I consider the current version rather weak. Privatemusings (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I am looking forward to getting a new, more concise lede here. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The book Snake Oil and the debate about Fundamental principles

In the book snake Oil [1] there is a foreword written by Richard Dawkins. In the foreword Dawkins says that homeopathy defies fundamental scientific principles. I don’t have access to book so if anyone has the book it would be very helpful if you could take a look in the foreword and quote the few lines from Dawkins where he mentions homeopathy. (I know that the book is POV-pushing. However the quote is from the foreword and I think that the claims by Dawkins could be accepted as a reasonably RS.) MaxPont (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It can be found here. Brunton (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It might make sense to include such a statement if it is attributed to Dawkins and we don't give the impression that we embrace it. But the sweeping statement that "homeopathy defies fundamental scientific principles" is over the top. Similarly to the incorrect claim in the current arbitration that "homeopathy can be uncontroversially described as pseudoscience according to academic consensus" this is not based on fact, and the strong belief in such claims is probably a result of confirmation bias. There are fringe and pseudoscience topics that are so bizarre and unimportant that nobody bothers to debunk them, but homeopathy too notable to be considered one of them.
"Homeopathy" does not "defy fundamental scientific principles". For instance it is plausible that due in part to homeopathy's scientifically unplausible claims and structural similarities to religion and magic, homeopathic placebos are much more effective than conventional placebos. As far as I know there were some old (probably biased, because this kind of thing is awfully hard to get right) studies proving exactly that, and while some recent studies suggest that the placebo effect in general is much less than scientists believed until recently, I can see no reason 1) why these new studies should apply to homeopathy as well (where it's nearly impossible to test if we assume that most homeopathic remedies are placebos for all intents and purposes), or 2) why they should apply to the placebo effect of physicians in the 1950s as well as the modern physicians who were tested. Modern physicians generally have less time for their patients and presumably less interpersonal skills than their predecessors, who often had only the placebo effect to rely on and healed a lot of people anyway. And, of course, their patients really trusted them because they had phantastic new tools, like antibiotics!
I got an edit conflict with a link to the foreword. After a quick glance at it I would say that Dawkins completely ignores the points I mentioned. One could say that he shares with the author of the book a strong belief that the only thing that counts in medicine is the purely mechanic aspects of healing. In this mindset spontaneous remission is a big nuisance that must be prevented rather than encouraged. Our article about Richard Dawkins says: "According to Dawkins, faith—belief that is not based on evidence—is one of the world's great evils." I agree with that statement, but where applicable I apply it to scientists as well as to theologians. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide any evidence for the assertion that there are people who consider that spontaneous remission is something that should be prevented, rather than something that needs to be taken into account when assessing whether a therapy works?
As for the suggestion that the magical and religious overtones of homoeopathy might mean that homoeopathy produces a greater placebo effect than conventional treatment, I can think of at least one proponent of homoeopathy who asserts that orthodox treatments have a greater placebo effect than homoeopathy: "But the main thrust of Goldacre's argument is the role of the "placebo effect". Yes, this works. And, yes, it is without doubt present in every homeopathic intervention; but it is far more powerfully present in orthodox medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar campaigns."[2] Brunton (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean my statement about spontaneous remissions literally. Here is a more moderate way of expressing the same idea: "Until recently, the placebo effect has been regarded as a nuisance effect in medical research. Indeed, its study in the context of double placebo-controlled trials has given the mistaken impression that it is a fixed quantity in the clinical situation. However, in the surgery, the placebo effect becomes the healing effect of the doctor, which will vary according to his skills and which may extend beyond simple good common sense and oldfashioned bedside manners." That's from a 1999 discussion paper (so not really scientific) in the British Journal of General Practice. [3] Modern medicine doesn't want to withhold the placebo effect from patients any more than patriarchal societies want to withhold self-determination from women or modern societies want to withhold a sheltered childhood from their children. It's collateral damage.
Of course most homeopaths won't agree with what I said, although I guess most wouldn't go as far as the one you quoted. I wouldn't go to a homeopath who thinks he is administering placebos. But if I ever get seriously ill I will at least consider going to a homeopath who believes in what he is doing. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
We're drifting a bit off-topic here, but "modern medicine" doesn't withhold the placebo effect from patients. The only way for it to do this would be to convince the patients that "modern medicine" doesn't work, and I don't think it even tries to do this. The question of "collateral damage" doesn't arise. The source you've cited merely describes it as something that needs to be taken into account in medical research, not something that needs to be eradicated from medical practice. Brunton (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right, we are drifting off-topic, so perhaps we should stop (in which case you are wolcome to the last word) or continue elsewhere. But I think the fact that we are in a discussion on the merits now, where both sides can see that the other's position is at least plausible (or are you just being polite?), shows that MaxPont's blanket statement about "homeopathy", which is easily read as referring to the therapy form, rather than to homeopathist's beliefs is problematic. However, the entire question seems moot anyway; at least I couldn't find any succinct statement about homeopathy in the foreword. Just a lengthy discussion explaining double blind placebo studies to the layman and a claim that homeopaths are not trying to prove the water memory effect because they don't believe in it. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brunton, the quote is: "After all, if the double-blind trials of patient treatments came out reliably and repeatably positive, he would win a Nobel Prize not only in Medicine but in Physics as well. He would have discovered a brand-new principle of physics, perhaps a new fundamental force in the universe." I don't know if it was that good. MaxPont (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually quite a lot of sources for that:
  • [John Maddox] (1988). "When to believe the unbelievable". Nature 333 (6176): 787. doi:10.1038/333787a0 - points out several ways in which claims that dilutions beyond the Avorgado limit violate fundamental principles of Chemistry.
We've been through this one before, too. (Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 35#Basic understanding) The only "fundamental scientific principle" that he mentions is the law of mass action, and that was in a rhetorical question. Not all the editors found that statement to be such a good source, either. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)91055-X Says Homeopathy is "absurd" and "wishful thinking", and specifically says that its claims about dilutions above the Avogadro number are one of the major reasons for belief in it being delusional.
  • And, of course, that old standby position paper by the Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67149-8, which says Homeopathy is thoroughly debunked. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This editorial says homeopathy has been shown not to work ("150 years of unfavourable findings"), which is not the same as saying it "defies fundamental scientific principles". There are lots of things that don't defy fundamental scientific principles, but still don't work. But anyway, what's your point? We don't have that language in the article anymore. Are you suggesting we should put it back? Or are you just talking? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you are still trying to cram even more wholly negative stuff into this article, then? These points have already been covered very adequately in the article as it stands. Why go even further? Don't you think this article is sufficiently negative about homeopathy already? That book by John Diamond, Snake Oil, is only reputable to the most way out anti alt med types, skeptics and folks like that. You should read his insane ramblings from the 90s in The Daily Mail; even weirder and more histrionic. It is hardly a reputable source. IMO. God knows what Nigella Lawson saw in him. Peter morrell 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was more about sourcing material already there. That "diametrically opposed to modern phramecutical practice" was always pretty weakly sourced, and we could do a lot better with something else. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, they were talking of the Richard Dawkin's foreword and not of the book itself --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually agreee with Peter Morell that there is too much negative stuff in the article and would gladly see some of it be reomoved. The way to satisfy both sides would be to insert something about "defy fundamental principles" from a reputable RS and then leave it to the readers to come to their own conclusions. MaxPont (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

*I have been following the discussions on this Page for sometime now. I wonder why this article on Homeopathy is so critical while all the other articles on Alternative Medicines are not.

  • The 'introduction', more importantly, seems to be a bit too long--Homoeopath (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
Frankly, there's a lot of bad, not-NPOV articles on other alternative medicines, and it's going to take a long time for Wikipedia to fix this. That doesn't mean we should rush to break this article. And, MaxPont, I'm afraid I didn't see Peter morrell saying negative things should be removed, only that no new negative material should be added. I might be able to agree with the latter (presuming we don't add new sections or something similar), but not the former. At this point, what we need to do is get things better sourced, and begin moving towards FA. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that Dawkins is a reliable source. His early works were good but he seems to be over the hill now. For example, I found his book The God Delusion to be very thin stuff and gave it away. And we really don't need more overt POV-pushing here. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 11 May reverts

I have reverted a pile of undiscussed edits until they are discussed here first as per established policy on this article. thanks Peter morrell 09:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For people to see what reverts were done and discuss if necessary: combined diff of reverts --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All you and your shoemaking friend have to do is propose the changes and say why they are needed...or is consensus a dirty word with you two? Edit wars have repeatedly resulted from exactly that type of behaviour: undiscussed unnegotiated edits with non-explanatory edit summaries. Peter morrell 17:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about, Peter :P I regularly do this sort of stuff to encourage discussion of edits on talk pages, often with edits done by anonymous editors on IPs. I had nothing to do at all with the edits themselves or with its discussion --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I am guessing that what provoked Peter is that you linked to the "combined diff of reverts", when it would have been more natural to link to the [diff of Shoemaker's undiscussed changes] – the exact opposite. Linking (only) to the reverts makes it look as if the reverts were the problem, when the real problem was Shoemaker's use of the BRD method for a controversial change to an article where this is likely to cause disruption. I am also guessing that you didn't pay attention to this very fine point and that you consequently don't understand why Peter is "counterattacking" you. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I answered on Peter's talk page. P.D. Well, doh, he just deleted my post without replying [4] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. The section on Shang's metaanalysis had expanded into a coatrack, using obscure and biased sources in such a way to make it appear that the response to Shang was wholly negative. I removed it as such.

Also, since we can't use the same paper in the lead that was being used there, I replaced the quote from it with a quick summary of Maddox's editorial from Nature (a much higher-impact journal). This all basically boils down to WP:UNDUE - the reaction to the shang pasper was being made to look wholly critical, but the only sources were the head of the societ of homeopaths and a piece in a very obscure journal. That's just not on.

Anyway, I'd have thought you'd have liked the changes to the lead. They specifically set out the scope as the higher dilutions, instead of treating all homeopathy as such. Frankly, I'd find studies of, say, a 6X dilution having a pharmacological effect as believable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You and your sidekick have still not explained this change you made to the article yesterday: Claims that these could still have a pharmacological effect greater than placebo violate, among other things, the Law of Mass Action, a fundamental principle of chemistry. what other things are you on about o, tag team of two? Peter morrell 05:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Have a read of the Nature editorial being referenced. It says there are many things that high dilution causes problems with, then gives the Law of Mass Action as a detailed example. Speculating what other things that the Nature editorialists might have written would be OR, but they were very clear that the example given was one of many possible ones. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Place the answer here then, or revert the unwarranted edit. Peter morrell 05:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if the RS says the example is one of many possible, waht's wrong with saying that it's one example of many possible? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I take it then that you do not know and the edit will be reverted as it is clearly unwarranted. Peter morrell 05:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you want a concrete example, how about Atomic theory? Methodological naturalism, perhaps? But this is completely and totally OR. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand you, Peter. If the source says "among other things", why can't we? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Simple really: because we don't know what these alleged 'other things' actually are. They are just empty allegations or imputed 'things;' that is not sufficient. Until we do know, that should be fact tagged. Peter morrell 15:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Peter. One editorial opinion is not enough for us to write that the claims of homeopathy really do violate any fundamental principles of chemistry, or even that the scientific establishment thinks they do. I think that even the claim of Maddox that homeopathy would violate the principle of mass action is internally too inconsistent to be included in the article. If we want to quote Maddox' opinion, that's another thing. And as a point of order, the wording here has been hashed out before and something like a consensus has been reached. Proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page first. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

section was cut at this point to create "violation of fundamental laws" section

[edit] violation of fundamental laws

[edit] Shang

The section on Shang's metaanalysis had expanded into a coatrack, using obscure and biased sources in such a way to make it appear that the response to Shang was wholly negative. I removed it as such.

Also, since we can't use the paper in the lead that was being used there, I replaced the comment from it with a quick summary of Maddox's editorial from Nature (a much higher-impact journal) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well OK but you should discuss things first before making savage edits without prior notice. This has been the establishe dprocedure for a long time now. It is designed to win consensus and so head off edit wars. Pity you can't be so positive about changes to include positive studies...every change made to this article adds yet more criticism. Why can't you add some positive stuff just for a change? Then your claim of NPOV might be a bit more believable. Peter morrell 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derogatory and snide comments about other editors

Peter, your comments above are getting a bit over the top. Try to limit your comments to the issues and subjects rather than including snide and derogatory comments about other editors. It would sure help the editing environment. Your comments are uncollaborative and are violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. You should be above this kind of behavior. Please do what you can to make editing here more enjoyable. -- Fyslee / talk 06:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also

I have added a few 'see alsos' to the article the last one being a bit suspect, but I didn't know how to format it...it is a bunch of studies that Tim dumped on my talkpage because they were gonna be deleted: User_talk:Peter_morrell/Selection_of_studies If anyone can reformat that to make it look better then please do so. It is in such a list that folks should look to find some positive studies of homeopathy which ought to be incorporated into the article at some point. Many such studies are listed and discussed in Bill Gray's fine little book Homeopathy: Science or Myth thanks Peter morrell 08:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that we could better explain why homeopaths think they have a scientific case. At the very least, this is interesting sociology, and helps present the homeopathic views. But I'm not sure this list is the right place to work from - It's a list created by a now-banned [and I believe non-notable?] editor, and I'd rather look at statements by homeopathic organisations and take our cue from what they say and cite. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter who put the studies together: they exist. Nor does it matter where they came from. The point is that positive studies exist and have been consistently excluded from this article by you and by others. If you are going to make any credible claim to NPOV, then some of such studies should go into the article. That is a very simple matter. But yes, you can also use those sources you mention as well; no problem with that. Whether they are RS or not is another question! But the overriding point is that the article currently probably needs a few positive studies adding in somewhere. Where they come from is not the main issue; putting them in, is. IMO Peter morrell 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

:The word Quackery means "pretence to medical or other skill" and it is offensive to call a Qualified N.D., D.O. or M.D.(Hom.) a Quack, which is what there is now in the 'introduction'.

I read on somebody's Talk Page that the sceptics here have never tried Homoeopathy and that they are just theorising it doesn't work.
Peter, I read somewhere here that 398 studies which prove Homoeopathy works have been mentioned on this Talk:Homoeopathy Page (but I couldn't find those studies), so shouldn't you and the others consider those studies and change the introduction? — Homoeopath (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
Please stay on topic. I can see no connection between the word "quackery" and the present discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about the 398 studies. Why 398? I have a quote somewhere which I will dig out about such studies and why 300 or even 3000 will never be enough; the anti- folks (who BTW control this article) will just pull them to pieces anyway as they have 'sheer disbelief' and 'ridicule' as their chief weapons, not to mention 'intimidation' and the semi-mythical 'power of numbers' on their side. But on a more positive note, it is a lively talk page. Peter morrell 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the word 'quack' or 'quackery' is used in a properly-cited, reliable source, and if we are responsibly and neutrally presenting a mainstream view on the topic, then there shouldn't be any problem with using the word. Homeopathic therapy and its practitioners are widely criticized by mainstream science and medicine, frequently with exactly that sort of pejorative language.
Whether or not any particular editor is skeptical of homeopathy, or whether or not any particular editor has tried homeopathic remedies, is entirely moot. We're not supposed to be presenting anecdotal reports or personal testimonials on Wikipedia—policy here demands that we supply proper, reliable, external sources. I, personally, have never been involved in a hysterectomy, trepanation, or the impeachment of a President, but that does not bar me from editing those articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you truly believe that the logic in your first two sentences is correct, then I recommend replacing "homeopathic therapy" with "homosexuality", and "'quack' or 'quackery'" with suitable pejorative words, and to try amending homosexuality accordingly.
And the word is not just offensive, it's also technically incorrect; we have no obligation to report accusations when we it's evident that they are over the top. A considerable percentage of qualified European medical doctors learned homeopathy as part of their training, and are applying it occasionally. Are they all quacks? Is the UK National Health system paying for quackery? Is the German public health system paying quacks? Perhaps if very notable sources in at least one country (presumably a country like the US, where this medical tradition was virtually non-existent for half a century) consistently said homeopathy was quackery, then we should report it. But look at our sources for this claim: A paper by a biomedical researcher, a letter to the editor in very specialised journal (written by a geneticist), and a paper in a Nigerian journal which deals exclusively with the situation in Nigeria. If these are the best sources, then this word has no business in the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you see, Homosexuality#Etymology_and_usage has a list of peyoratives and it doesn't feel the need to use any reference to source it, and Homosexuality#Prejudice_against_homosexuals makes a list of all the bad things that homosexuals are called, and some are sourced and others are not. If we were to use the standard from that article, then we should add way more adjectives than just "Quackery" and we wouldn't be so picky with sources. To clarify, it's obvious that homeopathy is being called quackery by many people, so stop asking for unnecessary sources, and take example from Homosexuality, where the guys from WP:LGBT don't feel the need to contest every single negative thing said against homosexuality and don't feel the need to raise the bar on sources. Indeed, it uses a ohio crime service site and a anti-gay and anti-lesbian site to source negative claims against lesbians, while here we are avoiding sourcing quackery claims from scicop.org and similar sources, which is exactly the place where we would more evidence for the usage of "quackery" on relation to homeopathy.
Not only homeopathy is listed at quackwatch.org (how non-quackery medicinal practices get listed there?), but homeowatch.org even has a 1854 report about dissolving the connection of Homoeopathists(sic) with the Massachusetts Medical Society[5], which shows how the use of quackery to describe homeopathy is not a recent usage and was used on the US. There have also been debates on the accucacy of the termpaper on the debate streaming video versionpage at National Center for Homeopathypubmed link(this might actually be a reliable source to source the quackery thing), Randi being interviwed by BBC's Horizon on quackery[6](another reliable source?). This is not a problem of not reliable sources, it's a problem of editors rejecting any negative claim unless it has impecable sources by the most stringent standards. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What? You are not comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing babies and serial killers. Compare:
Pejorative terms in English include queer, faggot, fairy, poof, and homo. Beginning in the 1990s, some of these have been "reclaimed" as positive words by gay men and lesbians, as in the usage of queer studies, queer theory, and even the popular American television program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. However, as with ethnic slurs and racial slurs, the misuse of these terms can still be highly offensive; the range of acceptable use depends on the context and speaker.
The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[15] and its use of remedies without active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience;[16] quackery;[17][18][19] or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."
Some differences:
  • Pejorative terms for homosexuality are discussed in a section on the (very real) problem what word to use to refer to homosexuals. – The word quackery is used and provided with a justification in the lede of homeopathy.
  • The homosexuality article discusses this in the context of prejudices against homosexuals. – The homeopathy article tries to establish the pejorative term as professional opinion of the scientific community.
So let's reverse this:
The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting salubrity of this lifestyle and its association with non-purposive sexual acts[15] have caused homosexuality to be regarded as perversion;[16] sin;[17][18][19] or, in the words of a former Catholic Pope, "bewilderment at best and mortal sin at worst".
Pejorative terms in English include quack, diluter, placebo doctor, organist, and homeo. Beginning in the 1990s, some of these have been "reclaimed" as positive words by homeopaths, as in the usage of dilution studies, placebo theory, and even the popular American television program Placebo Pills for the Allopath. However, as with ethnic slurs and racial slurs, the misuse of these terms can still be hightly offensive; the range of acceptable use depends on the context and speaker.
See the difference now? --Hans Adler (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right that it wouldn't make same sense if they were worded the same way. However, the reason that they are worded so differently is because the pejoratives on homosexuality are actual pejoratives from ideological groups that are against homosexuality, while the statements of quackery come from doctors and medical journals, and are statements of facts based on evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see it either, Hans, I think you need to take a few deep breaths. Does the article call homeopaths quacks? It most certainly doesn't, it only reports that some very notable people do. (If you get down to it, when Homosexuality talks about "misuse of these terms", it is taking a moral stand. "use of these terms" would be more neutral.) Would the article be more neutral or more informative (or even less offensive, if that is a criterion here) if it cited the four sources without giving the justification? I don't see how. It is hard to pin down the "scientific community", and the statement in question fortunately (i.e., on the basis of a hard-fought consensus) does not try do do so, but it is in fact the "professional opinion" of an important fraction of the scientific community that homeopathy is quackery. I think part of the inflammability comes from the connotation that quacks are deliberate frauds. The definition, however, includes the possibility of ignorance. I think most critics would agree that most homeopaths sincerely believe they are healing their patients. We could try to work that in somewhere, but right off I don't see where it would fit. Are you proposing to cut this sentence entirely? If not, perhaps you can propose an alternate formulation that gets the information across without being unnecessarily offensive. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
(How about adding "However, the use of the term "quack" in reference to a homeopath can be highly offensive." ;-> ) --Art Carlson (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be POV editorializing, which isn't proper or necessary. The wikilink to quackery is enough. Offensiveness is a non-issue, as offensive content is totally allowed here. We are uncensored and say what the sources say. If someone is so sensitive that they are easily offended, they should go elsewhere. -- Fyslee / talk 06:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite right. WP:Non-offensiveness is, for good reason, not a policy of Wikipedia. The closest it comes is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for articles and WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks for discussions among editors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Art Carlson (talk • contribs) 07:42, 16 May 2008
Notice that the sources are using the term "quackery" without any matizations about its definition, and all three sources appear to be referring to the "fraudulent" part of the definition of quackery. We are simply being NPOV when reporting that the sources define homeopathy as quackery without making any further indications:
  1. ""miracle cure"-peddling quack pretending spectacular properties for worthless tonics"[7]
  2. "the unethical nature of highly implausible health practices (...) According to the National Council Against Health Fraud, in 1983 a naturopath in Alberta (...)"[8]
  3. "Homeopathy, in particular, is a medical quackery per excellence and should be banned (...) various professional bodies should not hesitate to sanction their erring members who deviate from acceptable practic (...)"[9]
I can't see part of the sources, I assume the rest is on the same tone --Enric Naval (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree very strongly with these replies, and I think they are symptomatic of extreme prejudice (aka "POV"). But for the next couple of days I don't have time to reply in detail. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the Webster Comprehensive dictionary (hard copy version) there are two definitions of Quack. 1...A pretender to medical knowledge or skill; or 2...A charlatan. As an adjective it can mean; 1...pertaining to quacks; or 2... ignorantly or falsely pretending to cure. Quackery is defined as; Ignorant or fraudulent practice. A trained and qualified medical practitioner who practices homeopathy can not be said to be a pretender to medical knowledge but in their practice of homeopathy they are not practicing medicine and they are in fact either pretending that homeopathy is medicine or, (out of an involuntary ignorance) believe that it is. It is debatable whether someone who believes in homeopathy is falsely pretending but certainly they are acting ignorantly. In the UK and in Australia, anyone can set themselves up as a homeopath; no training required. There are private registration boards but there is no compulsory legal requirement for registration. BUPA, a British private health insurance company says on its web site...There is no set organisation for registration of homeopaths, so this limits the control of homeopathy and your legal rights if you do have any adverse effects; they also say.... The best evidence fails to prove that homeopathy cures illnesses. Research shows that no homeopathic remedy has a clinical effect greater than that of a placebo for any medical condition.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

::::*Enric, Kenneth, I repeat, the word Quackery means "pretence to medical or other skill" and it is offensive to call a Qualified N.D., D.O. or M.D.(Hom.) a Quack, which is what there is now in the 'introduction'. The allegations made by people who haven't conducted trials according to Homoeopathic principles (i.e. using the individualisation process) should not be acceptable. I am an employee of the World's largest chain of Homoeopathic Clinics' and I can provide testimonials of thousands of people who've been cured (I believe web-sites aren't allowed a mention here, but if it was, I could have given you the web-site url, to see for yourselves). There are also lots of 'studies' which prove that Homoeopathy works (398 have been mentioned here already - vide archive 35)! --Homoeopath (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Correct place is Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_34#How_to_choose_from_the_398_reviews_and_meta-analyses (so people won't try to change above comment to correct it) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cut sentence

Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that most of these studies suffer from serious shortcomings in their methods.[1][2][3]

This is all well and good, but I don't think it goes anywhere useful. Think it used to be followed by a description of Shang, if we're leaving that out, may as well leave this out of the lead as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

: Why don't you people remove Para 2, 3 & 4 from the introduction (it can certainly be put somewhere lower down)? Para 2 is only 'Criticism' anyway (which is against Wikipedia principles - it is not NPOV) and it shouldn't be part of the introduction! —Homoeopath (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Um, no, actually,t hat suggestion is the one contrary to Wikipedia policies. The lead is supposed to be self-contained and present all views, removing the scientific view would violate WP:FRINGE (and WP:LEAD). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::*So, according to that rule, the sceptics 'Fringe Theories' should not be acceptable and the whole of Para 2 should be removed! —Homoeopath (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

...Um... No... I'm afraid homeopathy is the fringe theory. That's why mainstream medicine is not another term for homeopathy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

*TenOfAllTrades, Shoemaker......How can Homeopathy be the 'Fringe view' on the Homeopathy article? If that was the case, the article on 'Islam' should also be considered 'Fringe view' and the Criticism of Islam should be on the article on Islam rather than on the 'Criticism of Islam' Page. At WP:FRINGE, there is a section, titled, "Sufficiently notable for devoted articles", which mentions, 'Creation science', 'Apollo moon landing hoax', 'Time Cube' and 'Paul is dead' which are false allegations/rumours, so the allegations made by references 16 to 19 are not acceptable and so the whole of Para 2 must be removed from the 'Lead'. In fact, Para 1 is more than enough for an introduction.—Homoeopath (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Hey Jhingaadey, nice to have you back. So you have read about those 398 "studies", and you also want to remove paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 from the introduction. You are not very smart, are you? 190.20.201.100 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

::::I wonder if this is a compliment or sarcasm?Homoeopath (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

I have put a label on his page about suspecting him a sockpuppet, and several diffs to check it [10] --Enric Naval (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::A 'sock puppet' is an alternative account used deceptively. I have never used any 'account' here before nor am I the said person you are accusing me of being. I did copy something from other pages, but this is ridiculous! Why don't you people answer my Question instead? Moreover, if "Arsenic Toxicity from Homeopathic Treatment" is possible, vide reference 22, how can Homeopathy be called 'placebo therapy' in the previous sentence?--Homoeopath (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Oookay... look, lad, at this point, it really looks as if you're trolling. If you aren't trolling, you really need to calm down a bit, because you're not really making anything like a rational argument. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently he's been indef-blocked as a trolling sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and how wonderful that is! you got what you wanted. Pathetic. Who in hell cares who or what he was? except you folks. You banned Dana and now I'm gone too. Hope you are satisfied. goodbye, good riddance, let the dogs take the whole goddam article. Does it really matter? Peter morrell 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 ? Do you mean that as a defence of Homoeopath aka Dr.Jhingaadey? Do you really think that he was helping improve this article in any way? --Art Carlson (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Art, open your eyes man to what is going on here for chrissakes. Look how degraded things have become. Did you not even check Dana's arbcom? The dogs got what they wanted. goodbye Peter morrell 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this reference to Dana's arbcom. As I understand it, this is still pending. I would be surprised if it went against Dana since the action is so clearly malicious. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ummm....it's not going so well for him. [11] A couple more votes and he's banned for a year. -- Fyslee / talk 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
We'll see. I'm more interested in the proposed Sourcing Adjudication Board of credentialled experts which sounds like a revolutionary idea. Wonder how they will get that to work when the credentialled experts on Homeopathy are people like Dana. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is always difficult to find an expert in something that doesn't exist.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Theologians?! -- Fyslee / talk 02:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter morell driven away from the article

Peter morell obviously lost his temper the last week. However, one of the involved ArbCom parties from the pro science camp Shoemakers Holiday mentioned Peter morell from the pro homeo camp as a reasonable user [12]

Now Peter morell has lost his temper, given up and left the homeopathy article [13] [14]

Several other reasonable god faith editors from the pro science camp have also left the article in protest (I don’t have the time to find diffs for that). This is really bad. MaxPont (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes, he said so above. It is to be hoped he comes back once he calms down, but I don't know what good can be done by rehashing it. Which editors left in protest, though, and, er, what were they protesting? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemakers Holiday was obviously wrong (forgetful and overly magnanimous?) when he "mentioned Peter morell from the pro homeo camp as a reasonable user [15]". (It was very kind of him.) Peter has at times been a reasonable user, but has commonly reverted to primitive and vociferous attacks on other users and exhibited an intolerant approach to others whom he considered not as informed as himself, thus exhibiting an uncollaborative ownership attitude. It is sad when users who actually do possess such knowledge about a subject (which Peter undoubtedly does) are so wed to their beliefs that they can't be objective in their editing. -- Fyslee / talk 15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame that Peter morell left. He had shown a great capacity for working with others to better the articles. But I can't agree with many of his statements about how the "dogs" got what they wanted in the current ArbCom case, especially in regards to Dana. If he honestly can not recognize the problems with Dana's editing patterns and how they hurt the article, then I may have to rethink my evaluation of Peter. I do hope he comes back but a return without recognizing the problems presented by being unquestionably loyal to homeopathy will just cause the same problems over and again. Baegis (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not coming back so forget it. It is not a decision I have taken lightly or in anger as others pretend. It is simply that I am too busy and the dogs--for that is exactly what they are--just won't shut up and you now have the article once again controlled by a tag team of two who call all the shots and are a total waste of time. None of the current editors know what they are talking about. They know nothing about homeopathy and yet all you see every day is them crowing from the rooftops and shouting down and intimidating everyone else. I'm sick of that and it is time to leave that very miseralble scene behind me about which I am ecstatically happy. It was the right thing to do to make more productive use of my time on wiki and pursue my other interests. I have no intention of ever coming back so get over it. Peter morrell 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What really annoys me is that Peter thinks that I am the sidekick :( --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that there are also pro science editors who expressed frustation and have abandonded the article. (My memory is not that good but I think that Filll was one of them). MaxPont (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
While I regret Peter leaving, as he is undeniably an expert on the subject, and takes a generally constructive attitude which has on other pages allowed a reasonable consensus to be reached, I can't agree with his attitude that critics of homoeopathy "know nothing" about it. Many people who are highly critical of homoeopathy have made considerable study of it (it isn't necessary to be a believer to do this, and study of homoeopathy doesn't automatically make one believe). Brunton (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported contradiction

The lede currently says "Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] While advocates point to positive results reported in high-impact journals..." This is illogical - we are saying flatly that there is no support but immediately going on to discuss such support. I will therefore try a new wording for the first sentence: "Findings of efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect in scientific and clinical studies are disputed." Colonel Warden (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that sentence would then be saying the exact opposite of what its refs say. Better to say "the weight of scientific and clinical evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The new wording is not satisfactory since science is not a matter of weighing the evidence as if it were sacks of potatoes. But let's get more input from other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I always favored something along the lines of "There is no clear/compelling scientific or clinical evidence for any effect of highly-diluted homeopathic remedies." --Art Carlson (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentences weren't actually contradictory: while there are some studies reporting positive results, the weight of evidence is heavily towards there being no effect, and taking the weight of evidence into account rather than cherry-picking individual studies is important (p<0.05 means that there is a one in twenty chance that a given result is a false positive, for example). The current version of the first sentence (including the words "collective weight") makes the position clear, and should be retained. Brunton (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the editors defending the position that the studies that point effectiveness of Homeopathy are unacceptable only on the grounds of present knowledge of science, are not really to be blamed. They are just playing to the tune of multinational drug companies, that stand to lose if Homeopathic medicine gain more acceptance. Since when the scientific knowledge of a particular time was the last word. Was it before Galileo succeeded in puting forth the idea of helio centric solar system. Let's face it knowledge that is dubbed as scientific is never ultimate, one has to constantly look out for fresh evidence. But unfortunately at present almost the entire medical literature is dominated by the interests of drug companies, who understandably are not very comfortable with the idea of facing competetion. The influence of these companies can be felt across the academic world simply because most of the so called scientists are too gullible and easy prey to the crubs thrown by multiinational drug companies, they ensure that any reasonable research in a system that may compete with them does not find reasonable space, just like the church that was dominant at the time of Galileo. Hallenrm (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Do *not* use the talk pages for WP:SOAPBOXing about multinacional drug companies, *don't* disqualify the opinions of editors who disagree with you by saying that theur "playing to the tune" of drug companies, *don't* wikilawyer about how we should discount current scientific knowledge because it might change on the future, and *don't* make victimistic comparisons like comparing homeopathy as Galilio being judged in front of the church. Comment striken out, and user warned for soapboxing. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The point of our discussion is to determine what goes into the article. We should certainly say something about the general suspicion of "evil drug companies" which leads people to look for alternatives such as homeopathy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if we can find reliable sources for that perception increasing the reliance on homeopathy, then we can make a nice addition to the article. Unfortunately, it seems that Hallenrm's comment had nothing to do with improving the article with that information, and had all to do with ranting about stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In tha case how about the evidence provided by references on the following link? http://kulisz.com/how_does_homeopathy_work.htm . I am sure wikieditor editors of this article, who are thoroughly convinced of their present POV and are not ready to shed it even if heavens fell, will dispute it quite understandably. For them improving the article only means going along with the POV of the establishment!Hallenrm (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Above comment is making comments on other contributors and not on their contributions, I stroke out part of it. I'll let it to editors more experienced on the topic to evaluate the source provided. Hallenrm, you should make specific suggestions on where on the article the source should be used, and how, and what parts of the source to use. That would help a lot towards getting changes introduced into the article. Cheers. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The article is on probation so editors who behave in an unreasonable way will be blocked. We're digressing from the point of this section though so I'll start a new section below. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Why don't we all ask for the page to be edit-protected for, say, two weeks, and have a little break from all the drama of the last couple months =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This would be contrary to WP:OWN. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed tag

  • This tag has been removed without recent discussion or consensus. I still consider the article to have an unnecessarily hostile and offensive tone by comparison with other encyclopedic treatments. I am therefore reverting this change. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It may be useful to have a good example of a NPOV treatment, to indicate where we need to get to, in order to remove this tag. I recently found that the National Health Service has a good encyclopedic A-Z of medical topics on their home page. I just looked at their entry for homeopathy. This introduction tab corresponds to our lede. You will notice that it has milder tone and neither extols nor condemns the therapy; it just explains its origins and essentials while indicating that it is "outside of conventional medicine". Here is the text, which we should take as a model:

Introduction

Homeopathy is a complementary therapy. This means that it is one of a group of health-related therapies that are considered to be outside of conventional medicine. Other complementary therapies include osteopathy, acupuncture and chiropractic.

Homeopathy (meaning similar suffering) was developed by a German physician named Samuel Hahnemann at the end of the 18th century. Unhappy with the conventional medicine of his day, he began to research alternative treatments.

He began a series of provings, giving repeated doses of common remedies to healthy volunteers and carefully noting the symptoms they produced. This research led him to discover that swallowing quantities of some common substances would produce certain symptoms that mimicked those of medical conditions.

For example, herbalists claimed that Peruvian bark cured malaria. Hahnemann swallowed a quantity of Peruvian bark and began to experience the symptoms of malaria itself such as fever, intense thirst, drowsiness and agitation.

Eventually, Hahnemann formed a theory that like cures like, calling it the Law of Similars. His theory claims that if a substance that causes a symptom is taken in small amounts, it can cure a medical condition with the same symptoms.

Homeopathic remedies are said to work by stimulating the body's own healing processes to treat the individuals condition. Homeopaths claim that homeopathy doesn't just treat a person based on the symptoms of their condition, but is holistic, taking into account the persons mind, body and spirit.

Colonel Warden (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • In case it is not obvious, discussion of the therapy's effectiveness are found deeper in their treatment. Again the tone seems good, indicating that clinical proof has been difficult to obtain but not going over-the-top with extravagant debunking. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Another point. The NHS example generally seems more accessible than our version - the text is light and readable, while ours is cluttered and turgid. Since we are supposed to be writing an article for a general audience, just as they are, we need some vigorous pruning. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you give examples of where you think this article is unduly negative in tone or confusing, and suggest alternatives? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just did so above. I suppose you mean that I should start fussing over the fine detail. I'm not going down that road because working upon this article is clearly a huge waste of time. This became clear when I looked at the very first version of the article from nearly seven years ago. This was not perfect but was better-written than our current version. It seems better to flag the article as the plaything of POV-pushing fanatics so that readers may understand its provenance and look elsewhere for a balanced presentation. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree, CW. You need to point us to specific examples of places where the article needs pruning, that editors can take as a reference to solve the POV issues. Specially places where "going over-the-top with extravagant debunking" happens, since that should be able to solve if it's really non-neutral over-the-top, and not just plain statements of debunking and criticism from reliable sources. Also, I'm afraid that doing a wholesome comparison to an article on other website and saying that it needs to follow the same style is not helpful, since I don't think they have the same style guidelines as here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's easy. The entire second lede paragraph must be rewritten before the tag can be removed. It's way over the top. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Uh, isn't this the one that kept being reworded and that its references were being challenged and improved all the time? Looking at a random version from 500 revisions ago, I think that it was expanded because of complaints that the claims on the paragraph were not correct, and every claim was picked apart and sourced by separate, I didn't follow all the discussions. (P.D.: I mean that there are probably good reasons for why it became so long, but it would require me to dig thought several archive talk pages to find them before I can find them) (P.D.D.: Notice that I don't oppose on principle to reducing the size of the paragraph, but it's a landmine that has been built after several disputes. I can't opinate without first looking at what caused it to grow so much) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The statement that this "the plaything of POV-pushing fanatics" is clearly breaking the terms of the article probation, does not assume good faith, and is unworthy of a wikipedian. It is also not a valid reason for the tag to be placed. The article is a mess as it has too many references in the lead (demanded by Ullman and his ilk), and too much explanation to support the valid statements. The article is fair, it just needs a good copyedit now. I suggest the tag is removed and CW is appropriately censured for this statement. --83.171.151.158 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's quite a strong statement from a coward who comments using the TOR anonymising service. It is also so obviously inappropriate that I will refrain from further comment unless you choose to log in to claim responsibility. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience requires us to explain how mainstream science views homeopathy, that's not going to change. If you have SPECIFIC points with it, then we're open to talking, if you think it should not exist, or should not say anything negative about homeopathy, then this article is not for you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The policy page you are quoting is adequate. Your interpretation of it is not. It doesn't say that the reader of a Wikipedia article on a pseudoscience topic should see the foam around the mouth of the article's author. It doesn't say that Wikipedia articles on pseudoscience topics need to be in the same tone as Skeptical Inquirer articles. It does talk a lot about objectivity, balance, and NPOV. Also note that it quotes an Arbcom decision: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Homeopathy in Europe has a slightly smaller following than psychoanalysis (the US situation is special), but it is extremely similar to it in most respects. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placebo and scientific plausibility

I'm proposing a modification in "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible" to "Homeopathy beyond placebo effect is scientifically implausible". The rationale is that if the proponents of homeopathy accepted that it is just an elaborate use of placebos, then there would be no disputes over its scientific plausability. In other words: homeopathy is scientific implausible only if it claims effects beyond placebo. (Note 1: please notice the "if" above; it's just a hypothetical argument to show the contradiction in the original statement. Please refrain from disputing whether homeopathy is just placebo or not. Note 2: placebos have their valor, i.e., placebo is much better a therapy than nothing at all.) Fgnievinski (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, since it fits perfectly with the later quote of "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ditto for me. It's a necessary caveat. It may help to streamline the scientific consensus paragraph to combine the placebo effect clauses and separate them from the claims of violating the basics of chemistry & whatnot. — Scientizzle 18:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, to modify my previous statement...Adding any form of "beyond placebo effect" to the above sentence actually makes the paragraph more redundant, as the first sentence states "Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence". Clearly the lead is a bit jumbled already... — Scientizzle 21:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you make it "Homeopathy, beyond placebo effect, is scientifically implausible" or "Any beneficial effects of homeopathic preparations, beyond possible placebo effects, are scientifically implausible", and wikilink if needed. Also, the grammar in general is a bit of a mess. And the lead is a bit long - partly due to all the unneeded refs for things that are referenced later. --78.54.120.62 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I tried something that may help with the clarity of that paragraph. Feel free to improve or revert. — Scientizzle 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, OrangeMarlin reverted the essence of Scientizzle's edit, removing "greater than placebo" in the sentence "claims that these treatments have a pharmacological effect greater than placebo are considered scientifically implausible" [16]. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Placebo effect may be as scientifically possible as homeopathy, meaning, not at all. Placebo effect implies that there might be some causative value, even psychological. There's no scientific proof for this. It is clear that a random subsection of any population will either get worse or better with a non-therapeutic action, and by random probability the placebo effect just happens. Making it appear that homeopathic potions actually have any beneficial effect, even psychological, is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.[4] OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that your contention concerns the placebo effect itself, not whether homeopathy is at least as good as placebo, which is the point under discussion. While such contention is conceivable, it pertains to the article about placebo, not homeopathy. Regarding the actual point under discussion, it seems to me that there is enough evidence indicating that, indeed, homeopathy is at least as good as placebo. I might even dare to say that there is consensus in the body of original research regarding that position. (For references, please see each and every occurrence of the word "placebo" under homeopathy.) Fgnievinski (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, homeopathic lotions and potions lack any effect whatsoever. Even stating that it has a placebo effect, which has no scientific backing, is giving it medical credit, where it deserves none. BTW, there is no "consensus" in science. That's a canard that has no real meaning. Scientists do not sit around a room, debate for a few hours, then build a hypothesis and theory. Let's stick to the current statement. It doesn't do anything. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
By consensus I meant that there is not even a single piece of original research denying placebo effects to homeopathy. Please prove me wrong indicating any contradictory reference. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that you have an opinion about the value of homeopathy ("[it] deserves [no medical credit]"). You're entitled to. I might even share it. But it seems that you are further proposing that such opinion should be pushed down to the reader. I disagree with that; wouldn't that violate NPOV? Fgnievinski (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no controversy in medical science that the placebo effect is for real. There are tons of studies to show that patients respond in a positive way to an empathic practitioner, a friendly atmosphere and positive suggestions (e.g. I am a doctor, I have authority, I am here to listen to your problems, I know that this drug will make you much better"). The ubiquitous placebo effect is the main reason to use the expensive double-blind studies. MaxPont (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we are getting confused here about what scientific implausibility refers to! It is the theory behind the practice of homeopathy which is biologically, chemically and scientifically implausible. There is nothing about placebo in the founding theoretical hypothesis of homeopathy as far as I know. When we talk about placebo effect we are refering to the experimental results of real world testing. To say that placebo effect is scientifically implausible is of course untrue as there are plausible psychological theories to explain this effect. To say that "Homeopathy beyond placebo effect is scientifically implausible" is a mixed metaphor so to speak. The theory behind homeopathy is scientifically implausible. The theory behind the placebo effect is very scientifically plausible.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with your conclusions! But it's not clear to me whether you agree or disagree with the proposal -- it seems you'd be in favor of a third option, is that right? If so, how would it be? Fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the proposal since it mixes together two separate issues which should be kept distinct. You might say...The hypothesis forming the foundation of homeopathy lacks scientific plausibility. However homeopathy is claimed to provide benefit through the placebo effect. However I would even then argue that even the possible placebo effect benefit is not enough to out weigh the harm that homeopathy does to the overall health of a community... see below.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to re-state my point in yet other words: homeopathy is no worse than placebo. Does anybody dispute that? If not, then we should make the proposed caveat under the original statement. The rationale is that placebo might be significantly superior a therapy than nothing at all, and that denying even that slight benefit to homeopathy wouldn't be NPOV.Fgnievinski (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Homoeopathic remedies are a bit more expensive than standard placebos, but are no better or worse than regular sugar pills, since that is what they are. Another alternative is to say "The ideas and claims of homoeopathy are scientifically implausible." Tim Vickers (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with the similar statement "the ideas of homeopathy (meaning the theory about how it works) are scientific implausible" provided that we make the caveat "but its results (and for that matter, of any placebo treatment) are plausible". I hope I'm not stretching the point here -- I'm trying to be fair. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I might have stretched the point a bit too far at this time. I'm taking it back, to avoid it attracting undue attention, in detriment of my other comments above, which I still hold. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy can be significantly worse than placebo. First example... The substitution of homeopathic vaccines for the real thing can and does result in signifficent avoidable illness and sometimes permanent disability or death. Second... Much needed medical treatment and diagnosis can be delayed while homeopathic treatment is being given, particularly if the homeopath is not medically trained. We are dealing with peoples health and lives here, not some life style choice.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I consider that Kenneth Cooke made a significant contribution to clarify the issue. I agree with his distinction about the scientific plausibility of the hypothetical mechanism of action versus that of claimed results of homeopathy. I also share his worries about the harm that homeopathy (and any placebo treatment, for that matter) can have when it denies otherwise necessary treatment.
Yet I think that to be neutral we must tell the whole story, just like we are doing here in the discussion page. May I therefore suggest something along these lines:

On one hand, the claimed mechanism of action for homeopathy lacks any scientific plausibility. On the other hand, the claimed benefits of homeopathy, as long as admissible under the placebo effect, are still scientific possible. Of course, beyond placebo, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which homeopathy fails to provide.

Please notice the usage of the word "scientific"; as it tends to give such strong credibility to any expression that it is attached to, I'm using it to support both positions (provided its usage is not untrue, of course).
My motivation is that the current version of the article gives the impression that homeopathy is a completely useless rubbish; assuming good faith on what homeopaths report, I don't want to deny the possibility of it being a sometimes useful placebo treatment (think of hypochondriacs). It's unfortunate that homeopaths themselves tend to make extraordinary claims regarding its mechanism of action (shooting themselves in their feet, in my opinion) and sometimes regarding its benefits beyond placebo (e.g., malaria), which is criminal in my opinion. Fgnievinski (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It kind of has to be "scientifically implausible", a naked implausible would be very hard to support. As for your objection because it might be useful as placebo, find a few reliable sources saying that and we'll talk about homeopathy as useful placebo. I don't think it'll make the homeopathy supporters very happy, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the qualifier "scientific": I was concerned that we'd be quick to use it to attack homeopathy, but reluctant to use it to support homeopathy (provided that support position is not untrue, of course). Fgnievinski (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You are asking for reliable sources stating that homeopathy might be useful as placebo; right in front of the article, in its lead, we have it very very clear: "in the words of a 1998 medical review, '[homeopathy is] placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst.'"
Now I revert your question: show me reliable sources denying homeopathy as placebo. Because that's what the current version of the article is doing: it's giving the impression that "homeopathy is quackery, period." Fgnievinski (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. We call it like science sees 'em. We also spend a lot of time detailing the proponents' views, but the general view, with the Lancet and Nature editorial boards coming out and saying so, is that it's at best very shaky, and cannot work better than placebo without rewriting most of science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You're saying that (i) representative science journals affirm that homeopathy cannot work better than placebo, which I agree. But you're also saying that (ii) the current article reflects that scientific view, which is the whole and only point of my contention.
To restate it once again: the article should imply "Admittedly, homeopathy can be as good as placebo (which is not insignificant)."; as of now, the article is implying "Homeopathy has no value at all, not even placebo." Fgnievinski (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be stated in the article that the effects of exposure to a homeopathic preparation are in accordance with those expected from exposure to a placebo. However, I don't think it should be worded in any way which puts a positive spin on this angle. The placebo effect is the expected background effect which would be observed if any population were given any inactive substance and told that it was a powerful remedy. The effect can be separated out as unrelated to the actual substance administered, meaning that the make-up of the placebo has no effect on whether or not it is perceived to help. The fact that homeopathy is practiced suggests that it is claiming some benefit beyond placebo, that the specific substances which are diluted are potent irrespective of the placebo effect. What is the point of the diluting and shaking if the final product is no better than tap water? The wording should clearly reflect that homeopathy is implausible, that the mechanisms of action offered thus far to explain how it would work if it did work are implausible, and that any perceived activity has been shown to be the same as that observed after administration of any inactive substance (i.e. the placebo effect). Suggesting that a homeopathic preparation somehow evokes the placebo effect is misleading, as the effect can not be shown to to be dependent on the nature of the placebo itself. It occurs in the mind of the patient (best current theory), not through any pharmacological response. Perhaps:

Perceived positive effects after administration of homeopathic preparations have been shown to be no more prevalent than those expected from any other placebo and can not be attributed to any idiosyncratic properties of the preparation itself.'

I'm certain the appropriate references are already in the article.

Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the words "any other": not all placebos are equal, with those involving a greater apparent intervention tending to produce a larger effect. The homoeopathic consultation process, which involves the patient and homoeopath talking about the patient's health, lifestyle etc. generally for over half an hour (cf. a GP spending an average of about 8 minutes with their patients) makes homoeopathy quite an effective placebo. Brunton (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point of what the placebo effect is. Indeed, the consultation and talking to the patient is all part of the process. But after that consultation, the administration of any substance, even tap water, will have the same effect as long as the patient thinks they are getting a powerful medicine. For most people, the simple notion of speaking with a doctor is suggestive enough to bring about the placebo effect, regardless of the duration and depth of the consultation. The big problem is this: who do you want administering your placebo? Someone who has the training and insight to determine if there is any better treatment which will have a real and needed effect, or someone who's sole goal is to get you to take a placebo regardless of whether or not they actually have any idea of what is wrong with you? Based on the evidence already cited in the article, I think it is imperative that the article be clear on the fact that homeopathic preparations have no benefit beyond any other placebo. However, since every imaginable substance has not been tested as a placebo, this wording may be unwarranted. Any other thoughts on this?Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "High-impact journals"?

The second paragraph refers to "high-impact journals." I am unfamiliar with the term; somebody please explain. Plazak (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to Impact factor. It's a measure of the quality - or at least the importance - of a journal. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] expanding a source to explain the models on scientific studies

I changed this text[17] to reproduce better what this source says on the abstract. Can someone read the body of the article and explain what are the solutions that the study proposes to solve this problem with models? I think that this could be expanded into a paragraph explaining the models used on scientific studies of homeopathy, which I think that would be a good adition to the research section. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I might be able to get hold of a copy (the library catalogue I've been looking at isn't entirely clear about holdings of this journal, but I think it has it at this date), but it might be a few days before I can get there. Brunton (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate references

Some of the references quoted are not accurate vis a vis the article they refer to. For example in the subsection Research on medical effectiveness, the last line says "Dr. Jack Killen, acting deputy director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, says homeopathy "goes beyond current understanding of chemistry and physics". He adds, "There is, to my knowledge, no condition for which homeopathy has been proven to be an effective treatment."[15]" which is not what the article referred to in Newsweek says.

Secondly some of my edits to include a reference to an article published in New Scientist magazine were reverted, because it is not a primary source. Isn't that biasedHallenrm (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of the New Scientist was completely incorrect. That's why I reverted it. No need to assert bias. — Scientizzle 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. But, may I ask what led you to believe that my characterization was completely correct. Just as the Deputy director of NICCAM is quoted from an article published in the Newsweek, i just gave a reference to a news item published in the New ScientistHallenrm (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed! (sorry, I think you mean incorrect...) I reverted your last edit as the statement is clearly in the source (just search for "in sum", it's above the rest of the quote.) Generally I think the page is pretty good, but there is a preponderance of sources in the lead; there are too many references! I guess this is because of the previous disputes, but so long as the sentiments of statements appear sourced in the article, is this really necessary? SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hallenrm, here is your addition that I reverted. You attributed to this article the claim "that despite the spate of skeptism Homeopathy is indeed found to be much more effective than a placebo". Compare that to the actual text:

4 Belfast homeopathy resultsMADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.
In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These "basophils" release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.
So how could it happen? Homeopaths prepare their remedies by dissolving things like charcoal, deadly nightshade or spider venom in ethanol, and then diluting this "mother tincture" in water again and again. No matter what the level of dilution, homeopaths claim, the original remedy leaves some kind of imprint on the water molecules. Thus, however dilute the solution becomes, it is still imbued with the properties of the remedy.
You can understand why Ennis remains sceptical. And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. But the Belfast study (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p 181) suggests that something is going on. "We are," Ennis says in her paper, "unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon." If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.

Your addition was inaccurate & hardly neutral in tone. Furthermore, my reversion referred to this misrepresentation, as well as the long-standing practice on this page of avoiding the use of primary studies to make specific claims, preferring reviews and meta-analyses...two separate issues. — Scientizzle 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I would also question the description of David Reilly as "an avowed skeptic regarding homeopathy", considering that his entry in Who's Who says that he's been a MFHom since 1983, 3 years before the earlier of the two studies referred to. Brunton (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hallerm, I don't want this to come off as an attack on you, but a quick warning: Those two references are ones now-topic-banned editor DanaUllman was trying to promote, and the description is very similar to his preferred, rather inaccurate descriptions. Hallerm is a relatively inexperienced editor, and it may be chance, but I'd suggest being careful about who you take suggestions from =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for explaining. I understand nowHallenrm (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History from 1920 to the present

The main history section in the article peters out in 1920 with the closure of the last homeopathic school in the USA. This is inadequate and we should have the subsequent history in which homeopathy has been revived and is now expanding. There are many factors in this - disillusion with orthodox medicine and science in general; New Age enthusiasm; consumer activism; the high cost of regulatory approval for conventional drugs. I'll start sketching this out as I find good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the first source [18], since it details what happened on each decade (notice that I only changed the first sentence of the paragraph, even it appears all in red). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that there is still a gap between 1920 and 1960s. Also, there is nothing about how the ideas from the Summer of Love (1967), hippy revolution, and countercultural movements prompted people to step away from anything smelling to corporativism and embrace anything labelled "natural", causing the increased acceptance of CAM in the 1970s that the Caliber source talks about, and homeopathy with it. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The section now seems to be semi-promotional, treating the history since the 1920s as the struggle of poor CAM against big mean mainstream medicine, and presuming CAM will be vindicated. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I know. That's why it needs to be paraphrased to use more neutral tone. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's also a bit US-centric.
Perhaps we also need something about the rise of relativism and increased patient expectations giving rise to dissatisfaction with mainstream medicine when it doesn't give the answers patients want, and thus the rise in demand for CAM generally.[19] I've also seen a published talk by Edzard Ernst in which he suggests that popularity of CAM may (in the West at least) be related to general levels of affluence: he reported a correlation between CAM usage and BMW sales figures. In less affluent regions there may be other reasons for increased usage of CAM.[20] Brunton (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll look at the sources for the section again to see if they really speak only of CAM, or if they specifically mention homeopathy --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help Wanted

Can someone help me how can one include even a sentence even remotely in favor of Homeopathy. All my attempts so far have been reverted on surreptitious ground, like not been supported by a peer reviewed journal (can some one provide me a list of journals whose articles are considered peer reviewed. By the way is Newsweek a Peer reviewed journal, if not why was my last edited reverted. I am told to accept in good faith edits from other editors, but does that apply to all editors, or are some editors more equal then others. Edits only acceptable to those editors are acceptable rest all all to be trashed. Simply because it is a foregone conclusion that the article can only include statements that are not in favor of Homeopathy. If that is so, where has the spirit of wikipedia gone? Hallenrm (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Hallenrm (talk · contribs) to end the constant slinging about of bias accusations. Regarding the revert that precipitated this latest outburst: Hallenrm "deleted a statement that is a PPOV, not supported by any paper in a peer reviewed professional jounal" that was properly sourced, clearly relevant, and from a reliable source (a recent Newsweek article). I said as much in my revert. — Scientizzle 18:57, 2 Jun e 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article reads as a polemic against homeopathy. There is not NPOV here. For example : There was a big controversy on the last 2005 meta analyses published ( Lancet ). Many exceptional and reliable sources referred to this. Fisher ( a very notable homeopath) published a paper criticizing these meta analyses. It was removed from the article. Any attempt to add info about homeopathy’s point of view (in an article on homeopathy! ) is regarded as disruptive.
A neutral editor should struggle to insert this kind of information and the mainstream criticism of these ideas to make the article interesting.
--Area69 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: User:Area69 has been warned for making the above comment --Enric Naval (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
But, nevertheless his comments are not false. They are evidence of the fact how biased and intolerant are the editors and administrators who presently virtually control the page.Hallenrm (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that the tone of this article is inappropriate. In some places it makes very clear from which POV it has been written: Homeopathy is pseudoscientific nonsense that has not yet been rooted out. It completely ignores the fact that homeopathy is first and foremost a method for healing, and that for reasons having to do with the nature of the placebo effect it's unfair to reduce discussion of homeopathy to the questions whether it is more effective than placebo, and whether homeopaths' explanations how it's supposed to work make sense.
The pseudo-skeptics here, by which I mean people who cherry pick the scientific literature for strong claims that support their point of view (the best example being the absurd Nigerian paper that we are still citing) and who don't accept that it's necessary to learn something about a subject in the first place before "debunking" it, are in a strong position, and they are using it to keep the article biased.
You are very unlikely to change anything if you just act like they do, but from the opposite POV. For some reason they get away with defending the Nigerian paper. As you have seen, if you try similar things you will get into trouble. If you want to be effective you need to fight for a truly neutral POV, read all policies, and follow them exactly. And contribute to a climate in which the anti-homeopathy side also has to follow the rules. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
putting in 'even one positive sentence' just for the sake of saying something positive isn't really a helpful way to build the article. I can appreciate the frustration with most of the pro-homeopathy articles being discounted or disallowed on account of their publishing journals being considered unreliable. However, many of these journals are not peer reviewed. Also, keep in mind the fact that if claims of many of these articles could actually be substantiated, they would be front page articles in "Nature" or "Science", so there is god reason to doubt the quality of the research. The current negativity in the article's wording reflects the preponderance of available evidence from quality sources, not opinion. I'd also suggest going back and looking through Enric Naval's work here before claiming that there are no impartial editors. After he had chastised me for what was admittedly a misplaced rant against homeopathy, a quick review of his editing made it clear that he's one of the few reasons this talk page has been roped into some semblance of a civil discourse.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An idea to consolidate & trim...

I think the current article is a bit heavy on the mathematical arguments regarding the high dilutions. This contributes to the large size of the page and, no doubt, to the feelings of the pro-homeopathy side of an overly skeptical tone. I'd suggest a potentially simple change could help alleviate this:

Given that the swimming pool example, its large footnote, and and the dilution calculation is roughly 5kb, perhaps it would be best to move it into a "proof page" or appendix of sorts? I'm thinking of the type of thing they put in textbooks wherein a claim supported by complex evidence or a mathematical proof is simply cited in the general text as "see Appendix A" and Appendix A has the gory details and relevant citations. We could create a subpage, Homeopathy/Dilutions (or similar), that serves as an appendix, and leave simplified claims of "__ dilution is equivalent to __ ridiculously huge volume[reflink to appendix]". This would allow us to maintain even the exact current text, but reduce the main article's size and (in my opinion) overload of mathematical gymnastics.

Any thoughts? — Scientizzle 19:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How about leaving a summary in, and creating a subpage called homeopathy and dilution (like the homeopathy and allopathy page). This could cover succussion from the homeopaths perspective and have a serial/volume-to-volume dilution and discussion of the arguments (hormesis, Arndt-Schulz rule) and include the analogies + discussions that are too wordy to go in here. There is probably enough for a whole article. There has also been talk of a "Scientific criticisms of homeopathy" article, which could reduce the perceived non-neutrality (I think this article is more or less correct) by taking the bulk of the criticisms and science elsewhere, but leaving good summaries that point to the new articles. The main page could just have a few top quality references, while the bulk of the scientific evidence is moved (but still referenced). Obviously, the lead should still contain criticism (in about the same proportion in my opinion). But the homeopathy and dilutions page might be a good start. I hope I've not misunderstood your intention - I just think it's such an interesting old chestnut that always comes up in homeopathy discussions, and hence deserves it's own page (more than the homeopathic MM does at the moment!) SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk)
Or Homeopathic succusion and dilution maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk • contribs) 21:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that a separate "Scientific criticisms of homeopathy" article is currently unnecessary, and that general editing for clarity and brevity is currently the best option. My "appendix" proposal wouldn't (technically) create a new article, but allow finer detail of the moderately confusing and complex mathematical evaluations to exist (and improve) as a subordinate reference subpage, essentially. I'd envision something like this:

blah blah Homeopathic preparations often involve such extensive dilution that __ dilution is equivalent to __, and __ is equivalent to __.[α]
[...]
References
[...]
α Please see Homeopathy/Dilutions for detailed explanations regarding the dilution calculations and their example equivalents.

This could replace a lot of the text in Homeopathy#Dilution_and_succussion without losing any content. I think it would be best if limited strictly to the mathematical sources and examples. — Scientizzle 22:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. What I don't understand is why that much material needs to be preserved in the first place. It's excessively repetitive (we have counted the "wow, that diluted!" metaphors above, so I won't do it here), and it only stresses the general prejudice that all homeopathic remedies are diluted to that point. E.g. the only remedy mentioned in that section is oscillococcinum 200C, which incorrectly (at least for Germany; especially the US situation may be different, of course) suggests that it is typical in the sense that most homeopathic remedies are diluted beyond the Avogadro limit and therefore obviously harmless. It looks as if 1X only occurs in the table for systematic reason, which is just not true. But of course, if we also discuss remedies like Arnica 1X, then we may have to explain that of course the homeopathy exception in pharmaceutical regulations (no clinical studies needed, no proof of efficacy needed) only applies to "high potencies", and that in most countries you can expect that efficacy of "low potency" remedies has been tested.

Currently what our readers will remember in the long term is 1) all reasonable scientists agree that homeopathy is crap, and 2) all homeopathic remedies are harmless because they are so diluted. The typical esoterically oriented reader would happily take Arsenicum album 1X after reading this article. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that you know of studies using low potency remedies that have demonstrated clinical efficacy when applied according to homeopathic principles? Das ist mir neu! --Art Carlson (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I confess that I am not sure about the exact details. But e.g. I am using a German homeopathic hayfever remedy which contains substances in 3X and 4X dilution and is sold with a clear indication of purpose, two reasons for it not to fall under the homeopathy exception. I am not 100% sure they didn't use another type of exception for this, but I will try to find out in the next couple of days. (I had once researched the regulations for Wikipedia, but I don't have the time to re-read them now.) --Hans Adler (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The UK recently (2006) introduced a new scheme ("The National Rules Scheme") for homoeopathic medicines which allows them to give indications of purpose (limited to minor conditions, which would include hayfever) without having undergone clinical trials, as long as the manufacturer provides data relating to their safety. This allows low potency remedies to be marketed without proving efficacy. It was implementing provisions of an EU directive (Directive 2001/83/EC), so it's possible that a similar scheme has been introduced in Germany. See the MHRA's Homoeopathic medicines page. Brunton (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear pointer. [21] I wasn't going to look it up so soon, but you made it very easy. The homeopathy exception (Article 14) clearly doesn't apply: "Only homeopathic medicinal products which satisfy all of the following conditions may be subject to a special, simplified registration procedure: […] - no specific therapeutic indication appears on the labelling of the medicinal product or in any information relating thereto" (and it also requires a dilution of 4X or more). But they may be using the exception for traditional herbal medicinal products (Article 16a), with conditions including: "in particular the product proves not to be harmful in the specified conditions of use and the pharmacological effects or efficacy of the medicinal product are plausible on the basis of long-standing use and experience". In some member states the plausibility requirement probably excludes higher potencies. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Arsenicum album 1X? So it's 10% arsenic?! Good way to get arsenic poisoning, that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am quite sure it's not being marketed. :-) Not too surprisingly, even heroic medicine used it (externally) in a more diluted form, about 3X. [22] --Hans Adler (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Getting back on topic, I think this is a good idea but that there is enough information, and it is notable and interesting enough, to go in its own daughter article. With an adequate summary (including some quotes/discussion) left here, but with the mathematics and bulk of the analysis moved to it's own page. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm against producing new articles when we're barely able to maintain the current number. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
How's that? The prevalence one is a bit messy, but the preparations, homeopathy and allopathy, water memory, serial dilutions and this page aren't bad. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Today while going through WP NPOV i noyice this external link [23], i think active editors of this article must at least once go through the article at this link, so that scientic attitude is not sacrificed in the name of neutralityHallenrm (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
that article is at best slanted or at most only indicativa of the authors own opinion. while it makes some good points it is nto the law of wikipedia or the Interne tand there is no real obligation to stick to anything under than the actual ypollicy of WP:NPOV as outlined on the website itselfe intead of in external link ourticles. thank youf or your contributiaon. Smith Jones (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not move the dilution section to the article Serial dilution. MaxPont (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes & references

This should be the last section. If you notice a new section below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thank you.

[edit] Tautopathy

The text currently posted on tautopathy is not correct:

Tautopathy is a practice of alternative medicine that is similar to homeopathy in that it uses very diluted substances to treat illness. However, tautopathy does not rely on the "law of similars", as homeopathy does. According to practitioners of tautopathy, dilute solutions of lead and arsenic can cause the body to secrete excess amounts of these toxic metals.[105]

This would be a more accurate description:

Tautopathy is curing by means of the "identical" harmful agent in potentized form, e.g., if you are suffering from the ill effects or side-effects a specific antibiotic such as tetracycline, you can use potentised tetracycline to remove its side effects. This idea has been confirmed not only clinically by large number of homeopaths but has also been studied scientifically. There have been studies in which potentised lead and potentised arsenic have been used to promote excretion of the same substances in cases of poisoning. The results have shown that such use of potentised substances can help remove the symptoms caused by the toxicity, by enhancing the elimination of the toxin from the tissues.

--Fyerlyte (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)06/11/2008, Fyerlyte

Is the claim that tautopathy removes the substance itself, or the effects of the substance, or only the side effects? --Art Carlson (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tautopathy

I was just curious if anyone here considered it there enough ifno to merit giving tautopathy it's own article? Buubuub (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)