Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Is homeopathy controversial according to reliable sources ?

Is this a reliable source which describe the scientific controversy over homeopathy? Yes or no ?  : Annals of Internal Medicine [1] --OBenfey (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Part of the page was deleted - I don;t know how to fix it. Sorry,--OBenfey (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Here is one more reliable source disputing Shang. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67878-6/fulltext?_eventId=login There are more--OBenfey (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a letter, rather than another meta-analysis; and it's bookended with "We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible" at the start and "Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven'" at the end. Some controversy. bobrayner (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's written by the same researchers who wrote the article in question. Their declaration that "we have no conflict of interest" is hardly persuasive.JoelWhy (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the letter not peer-reviewed, but it doesn't state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo.

There is just as much of a scientific controversy here as there is about whether evolution happens: i.e. none.

None of the published reviews so far cited concludes that homoeopathy works better than placebo. If you want the article to say that there is a controversy over the statement that the weight of scientific evidence does not show that homoeopathy works better than placebo, you will need to cite published reviews that conclude that it does. That is how wikipedia works; it follows the sources. Brunton (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest a little thought experiment to approach this discussion from a different angle? Essentially it is about the question What constitutes quality information? Information can have, broadly speaking, two roles:

a) To improve the decision making process (and change behaviour)

b) To reduce uncertainty

To start with a): is it imaginable that any physician (or group of physicians) would change medications from regular to homeopathic ones based on the finding of articles discussed in this thread? This answer is No (emphatically so). [e.g. Bandolier, passim]

The option b) is more aimed at patients or parents. Is it imaginable that a patient seeking medical advice would switch from a regular doctor to a homoeopathist? To concentrate minds: let’s imagine a town with only two doctors, one practicing regular medicine, one specialising in homeopathy (exclusively). Would a patient change from a regular to a homeopathic advisor? Now would she? Really? Are you sure? No? Than the answer for this scenario would be No (not quite so emphatically).

Conclusion: the results of the studies debated here, be they individual trials or meta-analyses, do not provide signals. They are mere noise and can be ignored. They are unlikely to change anybody's behaviour Sleuth21 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, again I don't characterize myself homeopathy as controversial but the reliable sources.

1. Controversies Regarding Homeopathy :Homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics). Clinical trials are less sensitive for determining whether ultra-high dilutions have specific effects than laboratory research, where more rigorously controlled conditions are possible. The publication of laboratory investigations of ultra-high dilutions has produced considerable controversy and mixed results on attempted replication (52-54). Still, unusual effects of ultra-high dilutions in rigorous laboratory studies continue to be reported (55-59

2. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy.

3. Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy.

4. Linde disputes the findings and methodology of Shang 2005; his views are different ( positive for some conditions but inconclusive in general ) and he is citing his own studies to support that. He does not have to show proof that homeopathy works in order to disagree with Shang. He articulates his own opinion which is clearly against the Lancet and against Shang and the same time not in line with homeopaths.

Saying the Linde does not really dispute Shang while he sends such a strong letter to the Lancet is just pure hypocrisy and pretension which had led the article to be like a 3rd rate skeptics blog. --OBenfey (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There may well be a controversy, but it doesn't matter in the real world. Much of the argument about homeopathy ends up being about trivial differences of little or no clinical relevance. Until large and well conducted randomised trials tell us differently, the conclusion is that homeopathy does not work, and its use instead of remedies of proven effectiveness is not a matter of trivial implication. Members of the public are relieved of much money each year by homeopaths. There's little evidence they are relieved of any suffering. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band116/b116-8.html Many more studies need to be done and/or replicated to establish the benefit of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of 89 double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy states that "...the clinical effects are not completely due to placebo alone. http://www.med.umich.edu/pediatrics/ebm/cats/homeodiarrhea.htm etc. etc. Sleuth21 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OBenfey:

1. The first source is describing a controversy between the science and proponents of homoeopathy - it says that homoeopathy is controversial because it is contradicted by the science. Its assessment of the research into homoeopathy's efficacy is entirely consistent with the article's position: see the section headed "The Status of Homeopathy Research". As already noted, he second one describes a controversy over high dilution effects, not over the efficacy of homoeopathy. It is mentioned in the first of the two sources Sleuth21 has just cited, by the way: "Even ardent proponents of homeopathy who have performed a critical overview conclude that homeopathy 'should not be substituted for proven therapies'"

2. This source is now 20 years old; there have been a lot more reviews pubished since then. it says that the evidence is "not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions". So do all the other reviews published over the 20 years since it was published, with the results gradually getting worse for homoeopathy.

3. The controversy is not over the science, it is because some people insist that it works in the face of the evidence.

4. "...his views are different ( positive for some conditions but inconclusive in general ) and he is citing his own studies to support that." No, the letter does not report a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo for some conditions but not others, it says "If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence)"; "there is some evidence" is not the same as a conclusion that it actualy does work. His own studies that he cites do not actually conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo. If you want to claim that Linde has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, then you will have to cite published peer-reviewed work in which he has concluded this. The letter makes no such statement, and is not peer-reviewed.

Homoeopathy holds itself out as a system of medicine, and needs to be assessed here on that basis - the appropriate view is the mainstream medical and scientific view, and there is no real controversy there. Brunton (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sleuth21: the source for that statement that "...the clinical effects are not completely due to placebo alone" is a 1997 paper that has already been discussed above. A later reanalysis of the same data by substantially the same team of authors found that "evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis" and because of this and the results of more recent high-quality trials concluded that the 1997 paper had "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments". The study of diarrhoea cited there (Jacobs J, Jimenez LM, Gloyd SS, et al. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine: a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics. 1994;93:719-725.) has, according to the AMA, "been criticized for inconsistent/incorrect data analysis; use of different diagnostic and treatment categories but combining them in the conclusions of efficacy; and lack of chemical analysis of different treatments. The clinical significance of the results, given the self-limiting condition being studied, has been called into question." See Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics. 1995;96:961-964. Brunton (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Brunton, but I am keenly aware of that. I actually referred to the first part of the ‘further information’ bit of the synopsis from the University of Michigan Department of Pediatrics, Evidence-Based Pediatrics Web Site: 'Many more studies need to be done and/or replicated to establish the benefit of homeopathy'. That their findings were subsequently discredited is only to be expected. Had I wanted to support homeopathy I would have quoted for instance the questionable paper from the (then) London Homeopathic Hospital, PMID: 8628632, which mentions the Jacobs study. But I don’t so I didn’t. Or are we talking at crossed purposes? Sleuth21 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we are at cross purposes. A statement that more good quality research is needed is a rider to the conclusions of pretty much every systematic review from Kleijnen onwards. Since the more recent ones also tend to state that the better quality research tends not to show positive results (see Linde 1999, Cucherat 2000, and especially Linde 1998 and Shang 2005) and all of them agree that the evidence isn't enough to conclude that it works it doesn't look too good for homoeopathy, or indicate much in the way of a controversy over whether homoeopathy has effects over placebo. Brunton (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We obviously are at cross purposes. I'll try to figure out why and will let the matter rest for a couple of days. Thanks for your comments of the draft Lead re-design in my sand-box. Sleuth21 (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It does not have to say that Homeopathy works for everything or without a doubt. The fact is that they heavily criticize the Shang study its methodology and its conclusion, they cite their own study to argue against it . But you, for some reason, you want your readers to believe that every researcher who investigated homeopathy has adopted similar views to Shang. This is misinformation , lying, censorship, biased and everything bad wikipedia tries to not be. That's all. --OBenfey (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The criticisms of the Shang study's conclusions are just that - an opinion on whether a particular study's methodology adequately supports its conclusions - they belong with discussion of that particular study, and don't state any particular conclusion about homoeopathy's efficacy.

They cite their own study to support the statement that "there is some evidence" that homoeopathy works for some conditions and not others, not to support a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo. We cannot use the letter as a source for a statement that it doesn't make.

I am not saying that "every researcher who investigated homeopathy has adopted similar views to Shang"; I am saying that all the systematic reviews and meta-analyses from Kleijnen onwards have produced results that are consistent, starting with Kleijnen's conclusion that there is evidence that it works but this is inconclusive because of its poor quality and call for more good quality research, then as more work is done moving on to reviews that also find that the better quality studies tend to find no effect over placebo, and culminating with Shang. There are no reviews that have concluded that homoeopathy has effects over placebo, apart from the 1997 Linde analysis, which was effectively retracted as a result of its authors' 1999 reanalysis of the same data, and, as Professor Edzard Ernst notes, five further reanalyses have "arrived at a less than positive conclusion" and a further "11 new and independent systematic reviews published after Linde's article also fail to conclude that homeopathy is effective". The conclusions of all these studies, published over the last 20 years, are basically consistent.

I advise you to read WP:AGF. Brunton (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Some scientists like Ernst believe that all the meta analyses arrived at a less than positive conclusion" and a further "11 new and independent systematic reviews published after Linde's article also fail to conclude that homeopathy is effective"; some others reviewers published to equally high impact sources think that conclusion that Shangs findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement. that despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines and Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it.

These views are really different. Whoever promotes the idea that all the scientific views can be condensed to the view that homeopathy is basically placebo provides misinformation. Because part of the scientists who have investigated the phenomenon openly and clearly dispute this conclusion. I don't understand the good faith thing. If something is a lie we have to say it. --OBenfey (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are systematic reviews or meta-analyses that have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, please cite them. If not, we can't imply that reviewers have concluded that it works better than placebo. Brunton (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to imply anything. You just have to stop stating that the collective weight of evidence has found homeopathy to be more no more effective than a placebo because part of the scientists who systematically study this evidence dispute that.--OBenfey (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It has been pointed out several times that the 'collective weight' or more accurately, the vast majority, have shown exactly that no evidence has been found that indicates any difference between homeopathic preparations and placebo. It would be perverse to state anything else. If a study of sufficient quality existed that showed there was an effect beyond placebo it would a) be controversial (indeed!) and b) lead to changing the statements in the article. To change the statement of the conclusions on the basis of opinion rather than evidence would be misleading. Acleron (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Misleading is to imply that the vast majority of the researchers agrees that the collective weight finds that the homeopathy is only placebo. Few groups of authors have studied systematically the evidence on Homeopathy and a significant part of them dispute that Homeopathy is only placebo. The fair thing is to state the facts : who is saying what; if you want to give emphasis to the latest meta analysis ( Shang)- which is reasonable- you have to also present the notable objections and criticism as long they appear in high quality sources. If you (or we ) want to be consistent with the neutrality guidelines wikipedia supposes to function. --OBenfey (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What accentuates all of these findings in practical clinical trials is that science would not predict that homeopathy could possibly work. When you dilute some active ingredient to the point where literally none of it is left - then what you have is just water. You don't need to do clinical trials to know that water doesn't cure things at the rate that homeopathists claim. The only way that this nonsense could possibly work would be if the bizarre claims of 'imprinting' onto water molecules were somehow to be possible. But again, there is absolutely zero reputable scientific evidence that shows any such effect. So it's not like there is some murky, fuzzy results from clinical trials - it's that the whole mechanism that underpins homeopathy is hokum - and the trials that have been done confirm that.

To put this in scientific context, if someone claims that invisible pink pixies can cure cancer - we really don't need to do a whole lot of clinical trials to dismiss that claim. The ethical issues surrounding such trials would be exceedingly difficult. How can we justify taking a whole lot of sick people and treating half with a placebo and the other half with invisible pink pixies - when they would be much better served by being given conventional cancer treatments?

On ethical and cost grounds alone, one must first demonstrate the existence of invisible pink pixies and having done that, then perhaps there is merit in testing the cancer cure claims. Without that initial demonstration, we simply cannot expect there to be large numbers of comprehensive clinical trials. That's the case with homeopathy. What should happen is that someone should demonstrate that this "imprinting" onto water is plausible via some kind of non-medical experiment. If this incredibly unlikely concept turns out to be true - and we can explain how the water is not also imprinted upon by every trace impurity imaginable - then we would proceed to animal studies. If that shows conclusive proof of a homeopathic effect - then, and only then, should full, large-scale, double-blind human clinical trials be undertaken.

The "controversy" that exists here is not between one reputable scientist and the next - it's between reputable scientists and disreputable companies and their sadly naive consumers. SteveBaker (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

From the scientists and sources I have cited who or what you think has no reputation and does not qualify to be cited here ? I m asking this question because you appear to have no idea what has been said so far. --OBenfey (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been shown the conclusions of the studies under discussion. Please point to the ones that claim that there is a significant difference between a homeopathy preparation and placebo. We are not talking about side issues, such as 'more work needs to be done', 'I don't like the way you have done that' etc. You are disputing that the vast majority say'we can find no significant difference between homeopathy preparations and placebo', please point out the high quality systematic studies or meta-analyses that support your position. Acleron (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no such a thing as vast majority among the authors who wrote on homeopathy's effectiveness. Only Shang says that it is only placebo. I listed in this talk page, Linde and all ( Linde himslef states that his reviews arrive to different conclusions from Homeopathy is only placebo) Annals of internal medicine, Lüdtke R, Rutten AL. Lüdtke R, Rutten A L. which all dispute the conclusion Homeopathy is only placebo. How many times I need to do it? --OBenfey (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets look at Ludtke. First the results which are All trials were highly heterogeneous (I2=62.2%). Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo (OR=0.76; 95% CI: 0.59-0.99; p=0.039). When the set of analyzed trials was successively restricted to larger patient numbers, the ORs varied moderately (median: 0.82, range: 0.71-1.02) and the P-values increased steadily (median: 0.16, range: 0.03-0.93), including Shang's results for the eight largest trials (OR=0.88, CI: 0.66-1.18; P=0.41). Shang's negative results were mainly influenced by one single trial on preventing muscle soreness in 400 long-distance runners. They are looking at the Shang trial, so it is NOT new data. They find that with all trials the significance is 0.039. With the best trials the significance is 0.41. They try to cherry pick the trials but their result is exactly the same as Shang. Their conclusion is The meta-analysis results change sensitively to the chosen threshold defining large sample sizes. Because of the high heterogeneity between the trials, Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented. The first sentence is again exactly the result from Shang. The second sentence is the very best criticism they could make, but even that weak retort is not supported by any results they have. So far we have seen the letter from Linde criticising Shang but saying his results are pretty much the same and we have Ludtke with the same analysis of the same data as Shang and arriving at the same conclusion. Acleron (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Ludtke and Rutten paper, incidentally, does not actually state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo: "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." It's a discussion of the fsirly obvious point that if you change the studies considered by a review, the conclusions can change. As with the "Linde letter", it is relevant only in a discussion of the Shang paper, or a discussion of meta-analysis in general, not homoeopathy generally.

There's a discussion of how its results affect the conclusions of Shang here. Brunton (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to stop repeating the same thing as you have not heard what it has been written here. Part of the scientists who systematically study the evidence on homeopathy dispute the articles 's current point of view Homeopathy = placebo. They don't have to prove homeopathy to disagree with the current point of view of the article. The authors state that - it is not my personal opinion. Isn't better for the article to reflect all the major opinions on Homeopathy;s effectiveness instead of trying to edit out whatever they it looks positive for homeopaths? This is equally wrong as it would be wrong to say that there are double blind trials which show homeopathy has been definitely proved as a therapy. --OBenfey (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I quote from a contribution above: The "controversy" that exists here is not between one reputable scientist and the next - it's between reputable scientists and disreputable companies and their sadly naive consumers and offer this comment: Even if those companies were all reputable and their sadly naïve consumers were not so afflicted (actually, some are very intelligent and certainly not naive), the statement in our article the collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo would still be valid. The moral standing of parties (or their naivety (sad or otherwise)) has no place in a scientific debate. Even if Newton was (?were) a moral shit, his laws of motion would still be true (in classical mechanics). Trying to taint the character of parties involved in a debate is usually indicative an ever so slight moral defect in the tainter. We should stop this tainting, however well intended it may be. As far as the inclusion of that sentence in our article is concerned: it should stay and we should perhaps move on? Sleuth21 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't cited a source in which they have concluded that it works better than placebo. Saying that they think homoeopathy works better than placebo because they have criticised a study that has concluded that its results are "compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects" would clearly be in conflict with WP:SYN. Brunton (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize that what you are writing makes no sense? Maybe not and that it is really strange. Someone is telling you in writing that s/he disagrees with x statement and you keep informing other people that s/he does not really mean it. Do you know how we call this ? Maybe not. --OBenfey (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - WP:SYN. Brunton (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Pretending that diluted preparations of X somehow confer an advantage of the original undiluted preparation would be anathema to the point of this project. It would be anathema because all the laws of physics hold a great big sign that says "homeopathy, idiot be thine name." Topics like homeopathy have very little to appeal to in the context of reliable sources because the concept is so obviously bullshit that very few scientists are willing to waste the time in testing it. It's like making the hypothetical statement that gravity is suspended for objects that contain 53.43234347 kilos of mass at exactly 22.987345987345 degrees Celsius - we understand enough about the laws to physics to know that any experiment would be a pointless exercise. In the same vein, if a study were published that found incredibly poor evidence of such an idea, our article on Gravity would certainly not mention it until there was something to mention (i.e. significant coverage in multiple independent sources). To summarize: because homeopathy makes incredible claims that fly in the face of thousands of known physical concepts, it requires extraordinary evidence if it hopes to compete in any serious way, and until it does compete in a serious way in the scientific community, it will not compete here. N^oformation ^Talk 10:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you stop repeating your personal opinions and respond to what has been said?--OBenfey (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, NoInfo. I wish I had said that – You will, sleuth21, you will! (pace Whistler / Wilde). Can I quote you outside Wikipedia, just replacing the b/s bit by ‘and utterly wrong’? Your comment is a pleasure to read. Thanks and Happy New Year Sleuth21 (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I now see your problem OBenfy, you wrote They don't have to prove homeopathy to disagree with the current point of view of the article.. In the science of clinical trials, they DO have to prove exactly that to contest the article. The statistics used to provide conclusions can only prove that two items are distinct. So in our case, they can prove that a homeopathy preparation has a distinct effect from that of placebo, no statistics can prove that the two are identical. So when no difference can be proven the conclusion is automatically that no significant difference can be found. This is the case with the results we are discussing. As no evidence has been presented to show there is a difference, then the statement that there is no significant difference between placebo and homeopathy product is not only perfectly proper but mandatory.

This can be a confusing topic without the required background. This article may be useful to you in seeing how the article is derived from the evidence.

You will of course have noticed in the references you have cited that none of the authors contest the aboveAcleron (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 December 2011

The following sentence looks like an opinion and therefore should be removed from the article. There are equal scientific evidences that homeopathy has been effective in curing illnesses, habits with little/no side effects as compared to chemical-based allopathy medicines. "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo" Sky in wiki (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't remove properly sourced opinions. They are allowed. Sometimes we attribute them, and sometimes we don't, but the fact they are "opinions" is not a legitimate reason for removal. That's not the way Wikipedia works. Our articles contain facts and opinions about subjects, including controversies, which always contain opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Homeo news

Some interesting things that might be usable:

• Boots told to stop making medical claims for pills with no active ingredient. The Nightingale Collaboration

• Homeopathy: to sell or not to sell? Chemist + Druggist

Edzard Ernst was asked to comment on the pharmacists’ responses:

A C30 potency of a homeopathic remedy is so dilute that a pill would need to have roughly the diameter of the distance between the Earth and the Sun (1.48 x 10^11 metres) to contain a single molecule of active substance. The totality of the around 200 clinical trials of homeopathy fails to show that homeopathic remedies differ from placebos. Thus homeopathy is biologically implausible and clinically disproven. According to the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) standards of conduct, ethics and performance, UK pharmacists must “be honest and trustworthy”. In particular, they “must explain the options available to patients and the public, including the risks and benefits, to help them make informed decisions [and] make sure the information [they] give is impartial, relevant and up to date”.

This leaves UK pharmacists essentially only two choices. They can sell homeopathic products and violate their own ethical standards, or they comply with their ethical code by being honest and providing the relevant information to their customers. The latter would mean telling them that the remedy contains no active material and has no effects. In this case, very few customers would buy the product.

The code makes it clear that patients’ safety is paramount. Selling products that are not demonstrably effective gives them undue credence. This can seriously jeopardise patients’ safety. Consumers will think that, as these products are for sale in pharmacies, they are evidence-based. Thus they may use them for treating serious conditions which obviously would do harm.

In conclusion, the sale in pharmacies of homeopathic remedies – and other alternative treatments that are unproven or disproven – is unethical. The GPhC’s standards of conduct could hardly be clearer when stating that “your conduct will be judged against the standards and failure to comply could put your registration at risk”. [Emphasis added]

Brangifer (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent news! All three items (but for the druggists it’s still an ethical dilemma). Prof. Ernst brilliant as ever. Let’s raise an extra glass tonight. Cheers! Sleuth21 (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

'[We] would also recommend that homeopathic preparations are only sold if they are being used for a minor or self-limiting condition, and never to treat or prevent a serious condition. Naturally the pharmacist should only supply a product where they are satisfied that it is safe and a preparation that has been sourced from a reputable supplier. For this specific scenario it would be worth exploring the reasons behind the customer’s aversion to ‘drug’ treatments to discuss why there is a ‘distrust’ of conventional medicines. Wing Tang, senior professional support pharmacist: legal and ethical lead, Royal Pharmaceutical Society'. From the a.m. item in Chemist and Druggist. [Emphasis added] Sleuth21 (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"I don’t really want to fight with you guys over whether or not homeopathy works. But the evidence (facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/rcts_in_homeopathy) is much more positive than most of you are saying. Please look for yourself and make your decision. Or if you take the Wikipedia conclusion, good luck to you sir. James McMurray, community pharmacist" [Emphasis added] and reply "If you genuinely believe that there is ‘more’ and better evidence to support the use of homeopathy than the use of paracetamol, ibuprofen, aspirin, clotrimazole, hydrocortisone, aciclovir, lactulose, potassium citrate, loperamide, loratadine, cetirizine, omeprazole, ranitidine, mebeverine, hyoscine, malathion, diclofenac, fluconazole and promethazine then maybe you need to modify how you interpret evidence. Joseph Bush, academic pharmacist, in response to James McMurray" - WP:UNDUE :) Bulwersator (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right, Bulversator. I added the comment from Wing Tang, RPS just now – look at its timing - it must have clashed with yours in mid-air. No gloating was intended, but I still raise a glass, quietly, for myself. Sleuth21 (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathicity!

Good grief! According to the authoritative Mosby's Dictionary of Complementary and Alternative Medicine it’s a noun, and is defined as

the state in which congruence exists between the cluster of symptoms for a disease and the medicine

For medicine one has to read homeopathic remedy, I suppose. The congruence referred to is probably established by checking for sympathetic Quantum Entangled waves or the Memory of Water. Or are those imposters much of the same? Sleuth21 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The bias shown in the crass comments in this talk page, illustrated above, is erm... sad Cjwilky (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sleuth21's lead redesign (2012)

A very drafty 'Homeopathy Lead Re-Design' page is now visible on my user page's sandbox, still lacking most references (some existing ones are still faulty), annotations, and three or four additional sentences. Sleuth21 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's here, by the way.

Thanks for your comments. My responses are inserted (two indent) below (sleuth21, 04.01.12)

It doesn't do too much beyond stripping out most of the reference (these are not, technically, necessary in a lead as it should just summarise material that is referenced in the body of the article, but are there because sourcing for virtually every statement in the lead has been challenged - see the talk archives).

Debate is important / essential but should not clog up final article lead. Only confuses. The lead suffers serious citation overkill. Useless cite clusters.

My observations on the draft as it is at present:

First paragraph - no changes from current version.

Agreed then?

Second paragraph of current version - omitted. As I have previously said I am not convinced that this sentence is necessary in the lead anyway.

Agreed then?

Third paragraph - minor changes to the sentence about the "law of similars" not being a true natural law, references to succussion omitted. The first is probably a slight [Thank you (sleuth21)] improvement. The omitted references to succussion, though, need to be retained as this is stated to be an essential part of the potentization process.

No. The details are not essential for the lead. Succussion is a clever name, a fascinating detail, a nice ritual, but the shaking / sloshing / banging doesn’t add molecules to the remedy. Or does it activate the water’s memory of substances which were once dragged through it? ‘Homeopaths maintain that succussion is necessary to transfer the energy of the natural substance to the solution’(a quote from elsewhere). Irrelevant hocus-pocus. No place for it in the lead. It’s crowded enough as it is. Besides: mentioned in body of the article. No concession

Fourth paragraph - Some changes proposed. I'm not sure what the word "text" in square brackets is supposed to indicate; what could usefully be added at this point?

Forget it. You lack imagination

The omitted statement that "higher quality trials tend to report results that are less positive" is an important and well-sourced statement that needs to be retained.

Very arguable. This article is not about the finer points about how to construct / interpret SRs. In any case details are mentioned in the body of the article. O.K.: I concede.

Fifth paragraph - a comment about quantum mechanics added, and the last sentence amended. Not sure where you are going with the QM bit - if it is intended to apply to the comment about mechanisms for homoeopathy then it's already included in the previous sentence; if it is intended as a comment on QM then it belongs in an article about QM, not here (and QM is extremely well supported by experimental evidence, in any case). The wording omitted from the final sentence is adequately sourced, and (like pretty much every word of the current lead) included as a result of extensive discussion on this talk page - see the archives.

Your comment about QM is irrelevant: I do know that it is extremely well supported. Why are you reminding me of that? Who do you think you are? ‘Quantum entanglement’ is a common attempt (futile) to explain why homeopathic remedies work. They are all absurd, quite different from the equally absurd notion of memory of water. If is not mentioned in the body of the article: a section needs to be added there.

Sixth paragraph - passage about injected remedies omitted, specific examples of conventional treatments omitted. As for the first, I agree: injection of remedies is not a widespread enough in mainstream homoeopathic practice (I suspect that the vast majority of homoeopaths would have nothing to do with it) to be mentioned in the lead. the mention of vaccinations and antibiotics should be retained as these are specific treatments that homoeopaths frequently oppose, and the recommendation of homoeopathy in place of antimalarials deserves a place because of the high profile reports about this.

Very debatable concede: not worth the argument.

Seventh paragraph - no changes proposed.

I'm not convinced that there is a place in the lead for "The appeal of homeopathy and how doctors cope with it" There doesn't seem to be much on this in the body of the article (which the lead is, after all, supposed to summarise). Perhaps something about this could be included in the body of the article, possibly associated with the prevalence" section?

No. It’s of seminal importance, will be mentioned in the lead, and (should) get its own section in the body of the article. No concession! Definitely not!!!

To summarise: I agree with the omission of the second paragraph. I agree that the wording of the passage about the "law of similars" not being a natural law needs to be improved. I agree with the removal of the passage about injection of remedies. I don't think the rest of the changes have any merit in a lead that is the result of consensus arrived at after a great deal of discussion. The references currently in the lead should be retained.

Your not seeing any merit in the version that I produce is noted but irrelevant. This is a draft discussion document in my sandbox and I stand by it having merit. I acknowledge the great deal of discussion in WP:Homeopathy Archives, much of which I have scanned (I don't much care for 'Shit / Homeopathy' puerile joke. I know much better and wittiers ones. BTW: I thought Wikipedia is a collective effort. We are both editors. Or have you any extra authority to pontificate before I even finish the draft of the lead? If yes: I challenge it. Who conveyed it? If not: pipe down, please.

Sleuth21 (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that your version of the lead was without merit - I which changes I thought to be with and which without merit, and explained why. That's what we do on this talk page - discuss proposed changes to the article. I don't need any "extra authority" to do this. If you didn't want your draft discussed, perhaps you shouldn't have posted about it on this talk page. Brunton (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy and the Laws of Physic

I know this was well intentioned but WP is not a forum Noformation Talk 21:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Still in the spirit of seasonal good cheer and understanding, to get away from the dreadful previous threads (some of which I started: sorry!), to introduce some mischief into the WP: homeopathy /discussion, and start a new thread: may I offer the following observations, and introduce the wittiest homeopathic joke I know, as opposed to homeopathetic ones which abound hereabouts? Last time I looked, Avogadro was a chemist, and the suggestion that Homeopathy doesn’t work doesn’t invoke a law of physics. In any case, it only suggests the homeopathic remedies can’t work. That’s the ‘the settled view of medical science’… That homeopathy doesn’t work is only the prevailing opinion hereabouts, i.e. this WP discussion thread. ‘’Strong’’, but not a law of chemistry (or physics?) In a debate between Drs. Ben Goldacre and Peter Fisher (for digital natives who don’t like to read: it’s here on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B-tRys7haI) the following exchange occurred (and I quote from memory): Ben: If water has a memory how do you know that the water you use in your homeopathic tinctures is pure? Homeopaths (from the floor, gravitas in his voice (to ignorant people gravitas comes easy)): Because it is sterile. We boiled it. It lost its memory! Ben (deadpan): How do you know? (That’s the witticism. Get it?) Cheers, P.S. Look at the lead of the WP:Molecule article. A beauty to behold! Now look at the lead to the WP:Homeopathy article: not so good! Sleuth21 (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Improving the Homeopathy Lead

Off topic and wp:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know this is off-topic, but still, I'd like to reply regarding the difference between molecule and homeopathy. Both chemists and physicists (Avogadro was a physicist afaik, but that doesn't really matter here) have an advantage over medical researchers in that what they study doesn't involve living creatures, so they can repeat experiments basically as often as they want to (though of course time and money are limiting that, too). Also, atoms don't have feelings and psyches (at least as far as we know), so chemists and physicists need only look at objective measurements while medical research has to take the patients' subjective wellbeing into account. Because of that, physicists and chemists have much more solid proof for their established models ("laws of physics/chemistry") and they don't have to constantly defend their models against those of alternative "scientists", let's say alchemists (who did invent some useful stuff even though their theories were wrong). The difference between molecule and homeopathy reflects that. While the homeopathy article could be better it is a compromise between conflicting viewpoints, so it will probably never be as good as an article about a universally accepted concept. --Six words (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC) First off: Six Words, I don't think your valuable contribution is off-topic at all. It deals with a central and specific’ aspect of the Homeopathy lead (compared e.g. to the Molecule lead) and I will run with it and add some more comments later. For the time being I have reverted noformation's understandable but in this case incorrect labelling of your contribution as off-topic. I have also changed the heading of this thread. Noformation Talk 's action was the result of my trying to be funny in my previous contribution. I will come back to that but not in the middle of the night. Sleuth21 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Again, this is not relating to discussion of the article. Yes it's about homeopathy in general, but not about the article. SW is giving a correct take on the science of homeopathy, but there is no mention of specific changes/improvements to the article. If you want to talk about improving the lede then that is obviously fine, but we have to talk abo:ut ways of doing that - not just about homeopathy. Noformation Talk 01:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Btw, I will not collapse this section since you disagree with me but if it continues being off topic I will ask an uninvolved admin to do so. Noformation Talk 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks this is an improvement. Of course is not off topic. I do not really see the answer to the question asked. I cannot accept that the quotes I m suggesting taken from the organizations the article considers reliable are cheap and not neutral. This is absurd. --OBenfey (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC) He is not referring to your thread, it's the one below your thread. This is not relevant to that discussion. Noformation Talk 04:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Btw, you just admitted that the question was answered (cheap and not neutral) and that you simply don't accept the answer so please stop claiming the opposite. Noformation Talk 04:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC) My suggestion is about the lead.The answer is totally absurd. You cannot call non neutral the sources you are using to write a neutral article. --OBenfey (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC) 5 other editors are. Why even bother arguing? Do you think you'll convince all of us of your position? You can't edit it into the article because you'll get reverted and blocked if you edit war, and all you're doing here is wasting your time and ours beating the dead horse. If you think we're wrong why won't you simply seek greater community input through dispute resolution? That is how things are done on WP. I don't know why as a new user you won't trust editors who have been here for years. Barging in does not work on WP, take a step back, learn our policies and conform and you'll be fine - you're not on a great path in that direction right now though. Noformation Talk 05:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC) It doesn't really matter if you are 5 or 5000. I thought that in WP editing decisions are made by reason and not by banning other editors who made reasonable suggestions. Everybody agrees with normation?--OBenfey (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC) WP is not a democracy, that is true. However when 5 editors all think one way and only 1 editor disagrees it's up to that editor to take the appropriate steps. Again, please answer this ONE question for me: if you think that consensus on this page is wrong, why will you not take the appropriate step of seeking dispute resolution? Noformation Talk 05:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) OBenfey, it is a privilege to work on these Wikipedia pages. This privilege is conveyed on us by the collective of WP:editors and is set out in its WP:policies. I had difficulties myself to get my head around this, ever since I wrote an essay (for med. students, with a computer-literate med. student) on using Wikipedia in 2007(http://hslibrary.ucdenver.edu/handouts/class-handouts/wikipedia.pdf) You are abusing that privilege, for several long, tedious screen-fulls, since 26th Dec. last year. You are so yesterday. Stop it, please. Reinhard Wentz, Sleuth21 Sleuth21 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC) While I obviously agree with you, to be fair to OBenfey last year was only a week ago. Noformation Talk 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, but one week on WP can seem like an eternity. Of course, I was being facetious! Or are you pulling my leg, Noformation Talk? BTW, can't you simplify your signature, Noformation Talk? It's very tedious to type each time one addresses you! sleuth21 Sleuth21 (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC) (unindent) Ah sometimes sarcasm and facetiousness don't translate well over text. You're welcome to just type Noformation, half the time people type Noinformation anyway and I've even seen normation :). Noformation Talk 06:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC) (one indent) Ah, I may be nearly 70, Noformation Talk, [remember, it was only my my great-great grandfather who knew Hahnemann!] but I can cut and paste! But thanks, I was just about to ask google what 'normation' is! Let's now go back to the business at hand, shall we? (How to improve WP:Homeopathy) othwerwise you have to 'collapse' us both for being off-topic! :) Sleuth21 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Jonas, Linde views on Homeopathy ? Do they believe that it is a placebo therapy?

Second, problems with pooling are not discussed. Pooling of data from clinical trials makes sense only if all the trials measure the same effect. In our 1997 meta-analysis, we justified the pooling of different interventions, conditions, and outcomes on the basis that, if homoeopathy is always a placebo, all trials measure, in principle, the same thing. There are major limitations associated with this assumption. If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. Since sample size is not independent of the disease, intervention, and outcome, it is impossible to separate the influence of bias from the true effect size by this method. Therefore, restricting an analysis to the largest studies risks producing a false-negative result. Furthermore, since the main analysis is based on only eight and six (probably unmatched) studies, the outcome could easily be due to chance, as is suggested by the large confidence intervals. Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement. The Lancet should be embarrassed by the Editorial5 that accompanied the study. The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data. Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven. We now find it extremely disappointing that a major medical journal misuses a similar study in a totally uncritical and polemical manner. A subversive philosophy serves neither science nor patients.--OBenfey (talk) 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again: you are trying to use a letter that does not state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo to suggest that its authors think homoeopathy works better than placebo. If you want the article to say that they have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo you will need to cite work that they have published that has actually concluded this. See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", and also bear WP:MEDRS in mind. Brunton (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Linde and Jonas state in writing that the evidence on Homeopathy is mixed. They DONT concur with the shangs view that all is placebo -the point of view the article has adopted. There is no synthesis - this is a direct statement by the authors. Please stop the misinformation. --OBenfey (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The only direct statement about homoeopathy in the letter can be found in the opening paragraph: "We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." That's entirely in line with the position taken by the article, which bases its position on the conclusions of peer-reviewed secondary sources, as per WP:MEDRS, and, by the way, also states that the evidence is mixed: "While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to demonstrate efficacy". Shang's conclusion is not that "all is placebo", it is that its findings are "compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." You have misinterpreted Shang, misinterpreted the article's position, and misinterpreted Linde and Jonas's letter.

The letter does not state that its authors have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, so cannot be used as a source for this statement, and is not a peer-reviewed source. Brunton (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Brunton,the letter speaks for itself.

Shangs's findings are "compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

" Linde's letter says Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.

Who is really misrepresenting the sources? --OBenfey (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a comment on whether the conclusions of the study are supported by its methodology. It is a comment specifically about the Shang paper, not a statement that homoeopathy works better than placebo, or any kind of conclusion about homoeopathy itself. Brunton (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

They dispute both methodology and conclusion.

Shang and colleagues's conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.Their conclusion differs according to their own statement. Saying that the authors agree with the "collective weight of evidence founds homeopathy no more effective than a placebo" is false and totally inappropriate. --OBenfey (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The logic is quite clear, either you can show a significant difference between a treatment and placebo or you cannot. There is no third choice. Your conclusion has to be either of those two. So the question is "Has Linde et al showed a significant difference between treatment and placebo?" The answer is quite clear, no matter how they squirm, they did not show a difference. Therefore, the conclusion is "No difference can be detected between treatment and placebo". You have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence that there is such a difference and you haven't responded except to keep coming back to an unrefereed letter. Several editors have explained why that statement is present and what is necessary to change it. You will just have to accept that without such evidence it is not going to change. Acleron (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is really pretentious Acleron. The scientists the article repeatedly cites - not myself - object to the Lancet that the conclusion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement and you are telling us that they agree with the article' views that all is placebo? . They cite their own work to support this disagreement and I provided all the references in the talk page. Please stop pretending you did not see that. Is this way wikipedia supposes to work ? By ignoring good reason and high quality sources? --OBenfey (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't cited any source in which they state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo. The Annals of Internal Medicine article isn't as positive as you are suggesting it is, as already noted above. From its conclusions: "some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine. More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system". Hardly an unequivocal conclusion of efficacy.

The only direct statement about homoeopathy itself in that letter is "We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." The remainder of the letter is comments on the methodology and conclusions of the Shang paper, and rather more robust criticisms of the Lancet editorial, not statements about the efficacy of homoeopathy. To use these as a source for a statement that they think it works better than placebo would be a classic example of WP:SYN. Brunton (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Brunton: this is the direct statement: Shang and colleagues's conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.--OBenfey (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a direct statement about the Shang paper, not about homoeopathy. It is not an explicit conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo. See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Here are your two statements: Shang: "[Our results] provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects"; Linde: "[this] is a significant overstatement". you are trying to combine these to say something that neither of them actually says - that Linde and Jonas have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo. It doesn't say this.

And the letter isn't a peer-reviewed source. Brunton (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Brunton you have to stop changing what I write . Linde and Jonas conclusion differs from Shang's and the article's view. I think it is appropriate to include it. That's all. --OBenfey (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In the post above I quoted the letter you are trying to use a source, splitting it up into the two statements that you are trying to synthesise into something that the letter does not actually state. I didn't change anything you wrote there, or in any other edit.

If you can't cite the peer-reviewed work in which Linde and Jonas have reached this conclusion, it isn't appropriate to include it in the article. That's all. Brunton (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a neutral article

Could more people comment on the previous thread. For example, should Linde and Jonas position on Homeopathy;s effectiveness be included? If not why? Keep in mind it is crystal clear that they disagree with the Shangs ( and the current article view ) according to their letter. They cite their own work to support this disagreement. --OBenfey (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All right. I'll comment. You are attempting to include material based on your own synthesis. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which one from the above is my own synthesis?--OBenfey (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Brunton has already explained this. I read the previous thread. I commented on it, as you requested. I see no point in repeating the same arguments if you aren't going to take any notice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to use your own words to explain what is my own synthesis, if you want to participate in the discussion- I did not ask for votes but for comments.--OBenfey (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The way the homeopathy article deals with "evidence" is biased. It is biased because there is eveidence that suggests homeopathy works. There is little evidence to show that it doesn't. You can argue meta analysis, but the fact is there are too few of them and they are not clear. Any evidence that includes Ernst is biased as he doesn't have neutral personal agenda. Most of the editors here make comments that show they are biased, and not good at following through an argument. There are some here that are mature in that way. I am a homeopath, I don't hide that.

I think one of the problems here is that homeopathy is being judged in the same way allopathy is. Homeopathy doesn't work as one remedy for one disease, except in a few cases where broadly speaking it does. Its not a medicine in that same way. There is evidence out there that shows homeopathy has a significant effect. IMO there should be at least part of this article that recognises that and discusses the issues. I'm not saying its about writing "homeopathy works", but the statements of homeopathy doesn't work are based on a very limited research base and perspective. Its far more complex than that. This should be in the article, its a valid discussion and perspective. Cjwilky (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I m not a homeopath and have nothing to do with homeopathy. Im just amazed by the ability of human beings to twist the evidence so it can fit in their beliefs. The fact for example, that two groups of researchers have arrived to different conclusions on homeopathy's effectiveness and they are presented as they agree that it is all placebo it is really amazing. No reasonable, or qualified academic would read the article and not really laugh with this situation no matter his/her own bias on the subject. --OBenfey (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Cjwilky, I eagerly await to see this "evidence"...JoelWhy (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Its out there and if you have a real interest in this subject you will be familiar with it. We know the hierarchy of evidence on wiki, but we also know the issues invlolved in demonstrating homeopathy works and where the money is in trying to show it doesn't. Maybe there needs to be a chapeter on this or a whole page on it? The fact is there are two sides, and as O'Benfey says, that is not dealt with clearly or neutrally in this article. Cjwilky (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite any reliable sources to support your suggestion that there is some sort of funded anti-homoeopathy conspiracy that is distorting the evidence base? The article can't include a discussion of this without sources. There's already a page about this sort of thing here, by the way.

If there is, as OBenfey says, a group of researchers that "have arrived to different conclusions on homeopathy's effectiveness" then someone should be able to cite their published research that has arrived at this "different conclusion". So far nothing has been forthcoming, despite numerous requests. Brunton (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me again. Don't seem to be able to stay off this page. In a reasonable world I would suggest to you, Cjwilky and OBenfey: Look here, we three are, I think, of mature age. Let’s show them young guns that we can do this peacefully! Here is my e-mail: sleuthmedical@yahoo.com. What are yours? To be wise is sometimes the only thing we have left in our age, innit? We'll then share anything of course with people on this page.

Cjwilky, I've seen the studies demonstrating it doesn't work. You claim there is "evidence out there that shows homeopathy has a significant effect." Well, I would very much like to see this evidence. If there's an amazing cure out there I'm not aware of, I would love to be proven wrong on this topic. Do you think I work for Big Pharma and am trying to hide the cure? Or, is it that you think I'm so entrenched in my position that I would rather see loved ones grow ill rather than to utilize a legitimate treatment? I can assure you, this is not the case. So, again, if you have the evidence we've all missed, please provide it to us. Talking about Big Pharma conspiracies and how we're sticking our heads in the sand is not moving this conversation along -- the only thing we're interested in is evidence.JoelWhy (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

But then again, some homoeopathists are just plain treatment resistant. Quod erat demonstrandum, on ‘them here pages’.

Surely this does not really apply to you two? After all, you are, are you not, compassionate, holistic, patient-oriented homeopathists? Proof it! We WP editors are your patients here. Use the gentle, homeopathic approach, not the 'brutal' one of allopathic medicine. sleuth21 Sleuth21 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we include Linde and Jonas position on Homeopathy

Could more people comment on the previous thread. For example, should Linde and Jonas position on Homeopathy;s effectiveness be included? If not why? Keep in mind it is crystal clear that they disagree with the Shangs ( and the current article view ) according to their letter. The authors cite their own work to support this disagreement.

If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. Since sample size is not independent of the disease, intervention, and outcome, it is impossible to separate the influence of bias from the true effect size by this method.. --OBenfey (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Should we improve the article by incorporating the views of notable homeopaths ? Ullman, Vithoulkas etc ?

For instance: How Vithoulkas regards studies on Homeopathy? --OBenfey (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The article uses peer-reviewed secondary sources (i.e. systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as per WP:MEDRS. Can you cite any that he has published? Brunton (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Abandoning basic Wikipedia principles regarding what sources we use wouldn't 'improve' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Vithoulkas is already mentioned directly three times in in the body of the article, and twice (by implication) in the list of references. Ullman has some papers on PubMed, all of which 'disappear' if the Core PubMed Journals filter is applied. None of course 'survives' the application of the SR filter. Should we mention Milgrom as well? He's got 36 papers on PubMed... Sleuth21 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Its about being open about what perspective is used. There are other perspectives and it is entirely correct they should be included in a netral way. At present this is not the case and so the article is not neutral.

I think its a good idea to think how this valid aspect can be included. Where it should go and how it should be entered. ie to cloak everything in a homeopathy doesn't work is not useful for any reader. Cjwilky (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I quite agree with you - you may not believe that but homeopathy is full paradoxes! See for instance my contribution under Hahnemann a nutter? above, and a personal note I just put on my user page. Sleuth21 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cjwilky and Obenfey are using the word 'neutral' in the same sense as journalists use the word 'balance'. It is used to give a platform to minority views as if those views and evidenced conclusions had equal weight. This article relies on the principles of evidence of a scientific kind. Introducing opinions which are not evidence based would not be useful and would seriously degrade the value of this article as an encyclopedic reference article. If the evidence in published systematic and meta-articles was to show a positive result for homeopathy then the article would change to reflect that. In the absence of such evidence the conclusion is surely - There is no evidence. Acleron (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Acleron. I think you are confusing two things. There is no evidence at all that homeopathic remedies work – all trials, systematic reviews, synopses, and any other levels of evidence will, on our current understanding of science, ever change that. No scientist could possibly be in a state of equipoise, an absolute precondition for trials with several arms involving humans. An application to use public money for further trials should fall at the first hurdle, (sadly it doesn't but that's beyond the scope of this thread). The argument (I didn’t invent it) is so close to ‘the truth’ that it can be a considered a fact.

Quite different from that is the equally incontrovertibly fact that there are still supporters of homeopathy and members of the public who deny those facts. An attempt to answer the question Why?, listing several possible answers, would be an important contribution to the article. Some would say The Only One.

We have an obvious paradox here, I would think. Sleuth21 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We should always be ready to change our conclusions in the light of new evidence. Otherwise we would be as close minded as those who only have a belief world. The scientific controversy here is the probability that homeopathy could work. Strictly the statistics to be applied should be that of the Rev Bayes. However the a priori probability would be problematic and open to argument. Personally a value of zero would be close enough for me but I could not mathematically argue the case. So we have to fall back on the normal distribution which is kinder to disturbances of the null hypothesis. Here we are faced with the preponderance of evidence that shows no difference between placebo and homeopathy preparation. But this a statistical proof and allows the chance, however vanishingly small that the conclusion is incorrect. So to be strictly correct we state that 'there is no etc'. That way, there can be no argument, although I agree with you that the probability of homeopathy working from the a priori knowledge in chemistry, physics and biology plus the results of these studies is essentially zero.

Why people have beliefs that not only go against known evidence but are sometimes detrimental to themselves is a much larger area of study. I think it is beyond the scope of this article, if not beyond the scope of any article. Books have been written about the subject and some good ideas are available from people like Wiseman. Part of the problem is that there is such a wide area of different reasons. But I still don't think it should be a topic in the article or here, but if you want to discuss and debate the reasons in my talk page, please do :) Acleron (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should refer to the minority views - homeopaths - in detail. Homeopaths's argument against the meta analyses is the individualization of the studies which does not exist as a concept in most of the meta analyses. Let alone the misinformation derived by writing that all the systematic reviews state that homeopathy is placebo - which is false. --OBenfey (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Oh Benfey, the best you will ever get from me in my draft of a suggested new homeopathy lead (and some short sections / phrases in the body of the text) will be something along the lines 'Why does homeopathy remain so popular?', followed by a section 'And what do doctors, nurses, other healthcare staff (and possible some homeopaths!) do to cope with the dilemna / paradox?'. Neither of us cares much for the narrow interpretation of the rules according to which Wikipedia operates, but I at least try to improve the article. What's your motive?

Sleuth21 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When wikipedia policy uses the term "minority views," it does not mean what you think it means. Minority views refers to minority expert opinion - it does not mean fringe. If there are multiple competing theories in the mainstream then wikipedia covers them, but fringe is treated much differently. Please read WP:FRINGE a couple times to get a grasp on the following two points: (i) WP will not use fringe sources to criticize mainstream science and (ii) WP will not use non-peer reviewed work to criticize peer reviewed work. Please drop the WP:STICK and back away from the horse; you have failed to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS for what you want and so your choice is to either drop it or pursue WP:DR. Repeatedly asking the same questions and bringing up the same points can be considered WP:TE and that can lead to topic bans and blocks. N^oformation ^Talk 04:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OBenfey, there is a systematic review of RCTs of individualized homoeopathy, published by one of your favourite researchers, which produced the same results as all the reviews that incuded non-individualized homoeopathy: some evidence that it works when looking at all the trials, but it "is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies", and, crucially, "when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen." This rather undermines "Homeopaths's argument against the meta analyses" that you mention above.

If you want the article to say that some systematic reviews have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, you will need to source this statement by citing at least one systematic review that has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo. Brunton (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OBenfey, in addition to the SR which Brunton, being helpful, cites: it's rather dated. There are at least seventeen papers more recent than the Linde study. (A PubMed search in the form 'individuali*[ti] homeopathy' (without the quotes) will do the trick.) Which one is at least a substantial RCT with a significant conclusion which might change a non-homoeopathists view of homeopathy? Unusual claims require unusually strong evidence. Check the articles (you have to do some of the leg-work, you know) and tell us which one that would be. Is there perhaps a robust SR hidden in the references of any of those studies which we missed so far? We need strong secondary research results to go into WP article. Name the study and I will do a lateral (here: forward) analysis for you to find, perhaps, an even better and more recent study for you.

Sleuth21 (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A single RCT, even if "substantial", or a cherry-picked subset of positive RCTs, would almost certainly not be enough because the test for significance is such that even for perfectly designed and conducted trials there is a 5% chance of a false positive. That is why, as per WP:MEDRS, the article needs to use reviews of all the available trials rather than the individual trials themselves. Brunton (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brunton, if your interpretation of the WP rules as per WP:MEDRS is right, the rules are wrong. But I think you inadvertently (happens easily, this area of stats (P values and CIs) is a bit tricky) misinterpreted the rules. The discussion of these points should perhaps now move to the MD:MEDRS site, where I will go, following not only my instincts but also the advice of my mental health advisor. She says:

I know you like an argument, Reinhard. But remember how often that got you into trouble in the past? Here at Homeopathy:Talk your contributions have already been sectioned (WP-slang: WP:NOTFORUM), and if you carry on you may be WP:DICKED. And the advice on the WP:DICK site is very wise. In your case: Move On, gracefully!

She is right, I will move on. I don’t know about gracefully though – I never knew. Cheers! (Good grief: I nearly said WP:Pricked and WP:Prick!)Sleuth21 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brunton you keep changing what I say. I would like the article to say what the reliable sources say. For instance, in the Linde and Jonas letter to the Lancet I would like the article to state their opinion in their own words when they say that If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. Since sample size is not independent of the disease, intervention, and outcome, it is impossible to separate the influence of bias from the true effect size by this method and their opinion on homeopathy's effectiveness that Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement. Vithoulkas also has his own opinion on meta analyses this opinion should be included in you want to be neutral - since the article is about homeopathy. --OBenfey (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Leaping in late, we already reflect the views of homeopaths. We describe homeopathy as they see it. We also describe it as the real world sees it, in terms of what is objectively verifiable, which is of course different. Ullman is a massively unreliable source anyway, he routinely misrepresents sources and repeats egregious errors even after they have been pointed out multiple times. There are three problems with homeopathy: there is no reason to suppose it should work, there is no way it can work, and there is no credible evidence it does work (other than as placebo). That is the consensus view of scientists who have reviewed the evidence base. Fixing these problems is not Wikipedia's job. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Change to Critics say say that the collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.[2][3][4][5][6]now supported by the sources

Discussion has run its course. No consensus for proposed changes. Please don't reopen unless there is something new to add, but not rehashes of the same stuff. Noformation Talk 21:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is what the sources which are used to support the sentence say:Many critics of homeopathy have highlighted the fact that in most homeopathic remedies the original substance is diluted to such as extent that no molecules of the substance remain in the remedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OBenfey (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC) and also "The second issue that many critics of homeopathy raise is the lack of conclusive clinical evidence from medical trials to show that homeopathy is effective." Actually I find this source more neutral - it is only incomplete; there are more criticisms to the latest reviews on Homeopathy. --OBenfey (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) The collective weight of the scientific evidence would not be described as "critics" Thus removed POV.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC): The sources which are cited support this sentence. "The second issue that many critics of homeopathy raise is the lack of conclusive clinical evidence from medical trials to show that homeopathy is effective." I think. Don't you think that NHS's statements are neutral--OBenfey (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)? This statement is a summary of sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Don't you think that NHS's statements are more neutral than a synthesis. NHS uses the word "critics" in their statement - why don't you object to the use of this source, if you find it non neutral ?--OBenfey (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Okay, I'll make it short and simple: "many critics" ≠ "only critics". Also: both of the sentences you cite present the arguments of those "many critics" as fact, so I don't see a reason to change our current wording. --Six words (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC) For the second issue, this is an example of special pleading and I don't see any reason to include it here.--McSly (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC) How rational is what you are saying now? Lets write "many critics" then; or write the phrase exactly as it appears in the source - unless you guys think that NHS statements are not neutral enough for use in wikipedia. I m suggesting a change in line with what the sources exactly say and you just reply with codes to avoid answering a question honestly . --OBenfey (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Agree with multiple editors above that the proposed change makes things worse. It appears to be an attempt to muddy the waters of a clear consensus in the scientific/medical community. Yobol (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I did not ask for votes but for a rational answer to the question: Don't you think that NHS's statements are neutral for use in the article? --OBenfey (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Maybe we should just call it "the ultimate fake". Noformation Talk 21:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I also agree that introducing the word "critics" in this way should be avoided, for the reasons given above. It would imply a scientific controversy where there is none - there is a clear consensus from all the reviews, not just those published by alleged "critics". It is not neutral in terms of wikipedia's policies. Brunton (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Why dont you object to the use of thesource then? --OBenfey (talk) And Here's the current version of that page, by the way. It's quite brief, and refers users to a source cited in the article. Brunton (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)The answer has already been given to you by Doc James: because we're summarising sources. Why would we quote one source verbatim (not even allowed unless it is public domain, though I don't know if that would be the case for NHS documents; See WP:PARAPHRASE), when we have several sources that we can summarise? --Six words (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I m glad that finally NHS became suddenly neutral - when they cited the right source. The version which supports the sentence article is so POV!! But no one really saw it.--OBenfey (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Please stop building straw men.--Six words (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC) Doc james said that using the word critics is POView; and I was asking him why the organizations which summarize the evidence use the words critics say and controversial ( talking about scientists who really argue over the placebo question) . Are all biased for homeopathy?--OBenfey (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC) OBenfey, a scientist who is critical of homeopathy does not become a critic of homeopathy. She remains a scientist who is critical of homeopathy. As a scientist she tries to keep her biases, immanent in all opinions, even that of a scientist, to a minimum. That’s why she employs RCTs, SRs, and meta-analyses, which are scientific instruments to reduce (not eliminate) bias. The term critic is an everyday term which usually describes a person who has habitually a critical opinion of a subject. That wouldn’t be a scientist. That’s why one doesn’t normally use terms like critics or scientists in scientific discourse, but talks about ‘collective weight of science’, or in our article ‘collective weight of scientific evidence’. The NHS report, as quoted in our article, uses in its conclusions (statement 7) the phrase ‘the settled view of medical science’. It exists independent of particular people or groups of people. It becomes the collective property of science or, if you want, mankind. Critics come and go. Scientific 'truth' remains. OBenfey, stop introducing the term critic into our article. You cheapen its value. Sleuth21 02:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I did not introduce the terms critics and controversial. The reliable sources and organizations which are currently cited to support the summary of the scientific consensus ( if any) use them extensively. I suggested using their exact words to summarize as quotes; but for some reason you believe that all these organizations's statements are not neutral enough or appropriate to describe the situation in the field of Homeopathy? --OBenfey (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC) They also, as has been pointed out, say "the settled view of medical science." To use "critics" would - and again, this has been explained to you above - cheapen the statement being made. The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, as well as the laws of physics, state that homeopathy is junk, so that is what we report. It would be an NPOV violation not to report that. Noformation Talk 03:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC) We are an encyclopedia. We just state the facts with as little commentary as possible.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Bottom line is that you don't really trust the summaries from these organizations you have included to support what the article writes. It is really strange so the quotes I m suggesting from NHS and others are not really neutral and even cheap! --OBenfey (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) No OBenfy, the bottom line is that you don't like the neutrality of the article. Acleron (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) And then he will respond by explaining that the article isn't neutral blah blah blah. Let's just drop it already. Closing the thread, please don't reopen unless there's something new to add - not rehashes of what's been said I don't like this kind of abusive behavior. FIrst you are not deciding about the lenght of the discussion. Second, you need to give a rational answer to my rational question: why don't you trust t really trust the summaries from these organizations you have included to support what the article states. Third you have the option to not reply and do something else (probably less abusive ) if you have nothing to say. --OBenfey (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC) These questions have been answered - you don't like the answer. I get that. So take it to WP:DR or stop. If you think I'm being abusive then report me at WP:WQA. You have failed to gain consensus for your POV. 5 other editors on this page disagree with you and it is not likely you will convince them anytime soon. When you keep arguing after this happens you are editing disruptively. I have seen this pattern of editing many times before and one of a few things happens: 1. The editor either stops arguing, pursues DR and accepts the outcome or 2. The editor continues to argue, someone takes it to AN/I and they get sanctioned with blocks or topic bans. Take my advice or leave it, it's up to you, but as an experienced editor here I am explaining this stuff now so that you won't be surprised at the outcome. I ask that you revert my close of this discussion and take this to dispute resolution or drop it. Noformation Talk 04:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC) Make that 6, unless you'd already counted me? I know homeopathy believers like to think they work in a "paradigm" independent of the laws of physics but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC) JzG; I so love "paradigm shifts". Where they also the cause of polywater, cold fusion, Ufos, which "shifted" the laws of evidence in their time? You of course have my support, if needed. As has our colourful Noformation Talk with his preceding comment. Sleuth21 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC) It seems to me that there are three problems with homeopathy: there's no evidence that it should work, there's no evidence that it can work, and there's no good evidence that it does work. Homeopathy fans like OBenfey (probably Otto Benfey, which would imply a COI since he makes his money from homeopathy) are so hung up on the belief that it does work that they fail to understand why science, having isolated the first two issues, views attempts to fix the third by piling up ever greater stacks of identically flawed anecdotes, to be misguided and unpersuasive. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) While homoeopathy may be within a different paradigm to medicine, the paradigm it exists within is the 18th century medical paradigm of Hahnemann's time (for example the concept of "vital force", disease caused by "miasms", the "healing crisis", etc.). There has since been a shift away from this paradigm. As for future paradigm shifts, they aren't relevant to discussion here - Wikipedia can't report them until after they have happened. Brunton (talk) 11:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Sorry, it's me again. I take the absolute liberty of putting my previous comments here as well on this very convuluted comment page. In a reasonable world I would suggest to you, Cjwilky and OBenfey: Look here, we three are, I think, of mature age. Let’s show them young guns that we can do this in a constructive, gentle way. Here is my e-mail: sleuthmedical@yahoo.com. What are yours? Let's talk: To be wise is sometimes the only thing we have left in our age, innit? We'll then of course share anything with people watching this page. But then again, some homoeopathists are just plain treatment resistant. Quod erat demonstrandum, on ‘them here pages’. Surely this does not really apply to you two? After all, you are, are you not, compassionate, holistic, patient-oriented homeopathists? Proof it! We WP editors are your patients here. Use the gentle, homeopathic approach, not the 'brutal' one of allopathic medicine. sleuth21 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Remedy section in lede

While I am definitely not happy about the size of the lede in this article, I agree that the remedy section should stick around. Since they use it as a jargon term meant to confer the idea that it does something, we would be depriving our readers of a rational interpretation of the article if they used their preconceived notions of the word. N^oformation ^Talk 09:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Brunton (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Don't underestimate the intelligence of ordinary (or un-ordinary ones, for that matter) readers. More importantly: don't patronize them about their 'preconceived notions' if you are not free of them yourself. None of us is. Have you relevant evidence (secondary sources, please) that your off-the cuff remark is true for the majority of lay, informed readers? Do you want to improve the lead, o.k. lede, or show how knowledgeable you are? Sleuth21 (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just reverted Noformation's revert. Will provide comprehensive justification later today, whether my revert still stands or not. Sleuth21 (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just reverted Teapeat's revert. The 'remedy' debate is fully represented under 'Remedies' in the body of article, which is quite beautiful and easy to read. It's the lede which is too complicated. IMVHO: the disputed section doesn't belong in the lede. If you want to make the lede more difficult to read and absorb: leave it there. I am not dogmatic about this point. I will be with others. Sleuth21 (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's more of a reason to keep it in. Per WP:LEDE the lede should summarize the different sections of the article. I'm not underestimating anyone's intelligence; homeopathy has a terrible reputation among scientists but among the general public it's widely misunderstood. John Q wouldn't be expected to know that they use a normal word in an esoteric and convoluted sense. Better to change the mindset right from the start. N^oformation ^Talk 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with N^oformation that the general public doesn't understand what homeopathy is (i.e. Most people seem to think homeopathy is a generic term for any type of "natural" medicine.) As for Sleuth's point, I don't disagree with him, but I think the issue comes down to one basic factor: If you use the term "remedy" in the lead, you must provide its definition. If you don't mention the word "remedy", then I can take it or leave it.JoelWhy (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly right. In this article the word has a special (jargon) meaning which is different from the normal usage and therefore this must be defined before (or at) its first use, wherever that is. The paragraph in question has been there for some time, and was certainly helpful to me when I first came across this article. quota (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is something to be said about rewriting the lede in this article though. User:Qwyrxian has some experience in this and I'm a bit tempted to ask him to help out, unless of course he has this article watchlisted and is already willing to do so :). N^oformation ^Talk 10:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The consensus seems to be that the remedy para should stay in lead. But it seems out of context: the word 'remedy' has not been mentioned in the first para of the lead. To be confronted with a definition of a word which has not been mentioned before jar(r)s with some readers (I believe rightly and understandably so). I would propose to move the remedy para further along, after the first mention of the word remedies, perhaps in (), just before Each dilution... It makes perfect sense there. Perhaps () should not be mentioned in the lead, than we need a bit of a re-write...? Good luck Qwyrxian with the re-write, should you chose to do it Sleuth21 (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, jumped the gun. Slotted in the remedy para a bit further down the lead.. Sleuth21 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think splitting the description of how the remedies are made like that is an improvement (in fact I think it makes that part of the lead distinctly less intelligible). If this definition it is to be in the lead (and consensus seems to be that it should) then I agree with the comment that it needs to be before or at first use, so its original position would appear to be the most appropriate. Certainly shouldn't be where it has currently been put. Brunton (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my version (which I thought a fair compremise) reads better and is more intellible. But I seem to be in a minority. -:( Sleuth21 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my version (which I thought a fair compromise) reads better and is more intelligible. But I seem to be in a minority. -:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.223.168 (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing is essential: I'd hope we could all agree that is crucial that we don't ever use the word "remedy" (or any other specialized homeopathic term) in any sense until we've clearly defined any specialized meanings - since to do so would be horribly misleading. It follows that we must either:

1. provide a brief definition of the word in the lede...or...
2. refrain from using the word at all until after it has been clearly defined.

This ensures that we don't mislead readers who arrive here, read only the lede, and then leave - which is probably the most common way that people use Wikipedia.

The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article - and on those grounds it would be OK in principle to use the lede to summarize the section of the article that defines the word. However, space in the lede is limited. WP:LEAD says "The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs" - we currently have seven. Therefore we must ask ourselves whether a summary of the definition for this word is more important than whatever else it is that we propose to cut from the lede to get it down to size. If this definition remains there then something else will have to be cut instead. So the real question we should be asking ourselves here is this:

What else can we cut from the lede that is less important than the definition of this word?

IMHO, this specialized jargon is without doubt the least important thing that we currently summarize in the lede. We can safely defer the definition until later in the article provided that we stick to using words that don't have this kind of ambiguity until after we've done so. I'd rather we used the four paragraphs that we're permitted here to carefully summarize the nature of homeopathy and the powerful evidence against its' efficacy. The most important message that we must convey to lede-only readers is what Homeopathists claim and that the overwhelming evidence is that Homeopathy doesn't work. We don't need to use the jargon of homeopathy to summarize that - so we don't need to define those specialist terms until later in the article. At most, if we do feel the need to summarize the jargon thing, all we really need to say is something like "Homeopathists use their own jargon." - but since that's true of just about every field of human endeavor, it's really not a sufficiently notable fact to warrant a mention in the lede.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, SteveBaker. Sharply argued, impeccable logic, clearly laid out, can’t be faulted, or so it appears. Reminds me of the equally brilliant (Prof.! I spit on it!) William Lane Craig, who can with equal brilliance (and added rhetorical power and stage presence) prove that God exists. You are in good company, but you are of course both wrong - well, at least you are. You use faulty assertions and string them together in classic non sequitur sequences, and mix them, quite devilishly, with a few obvious truths. I am not worried about Craig (he gets clobbered by any good philosopher) but let me point out some of your questionable assertions, which will demonstrate that you are useless in your contribution to this discussion and do not help to improve our article (apart from being routinely rude with apparent gusto):

• One thing is essential – oh no it isn’t! (that refers to both the ‘one’ and ‘essential’
• I'd hope we could all agree… – we definitely don’t
• is crucial that we don't ever use the word "remedy" (or any other specialized homeopathic term) in any sense until we've clearly defined any specialized meanings – rubbish in all elements and in its conclusion: the statement ‘Homeopathic remedies don’t work’ is true, whichever definition of remedy one uses, the phrase ‘Homeopathic ‘remedies’ don’t work’ would be weaker, as would ‘Remedies, in the sense homoeopaths use the word, don’t work’.
• ‘would be horrible misleading’ – Why? In quality debates you always look at the point your opponent makes and don’t quibble with weaknesses in their phrasing – that would be as bad as mocking their accent (you should hear me – I know what I am talking about!)
• It follows – does it? No!

I could list more stupidities but just mention the misuse of the term IMHO, there is bloody nothing humble about your utterances on the subject of homeopathy on these here talk page.

• And then look at how the original tentative sentence from the WP:lead “The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs” becomes, in your words, the assertive “I'd rather we used the four paragraphs that we're permitted here”. Devilish! None of your utterances can be trusted.

I am very worried though that I find myself agreeing with you in your conclusion: to leave this silly ‘remedy’ debate of the lead. To quote a much-used phrase from that great place of public rhetoric, in London (about which I have written a book):

Heckler: Mister Speaker, Sir, I agree with you!

Speaker: Good god! I must have said something wrong!

And finally:

• The most important message that we must convey to lede-only readers is what Homeopaths claim and that the overwhelming evidence is that Homeopathy doesn't work. – Must we? Why assert the obvious? In an article on global navigation: does one have to state that the earth is not flat, followed by eight references? We should relax: the arguments against the suggestion that homeopathic remedies work are all on our side and will always be in that position.

We should just leave it at this:

Homeopathc Remedies Don’t Work

and then debate (and mention briefly in the lead (as appropriate)) for instance why so many intelligent people and experienced clinicians don’t share that belief and what health-professionals try to do in daily encounters with such misleaden (sic) souls. There are lots of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources available to show what they do. I am not suggesting this facile classification of possible sources is of any relevance. I would only be interested in good sources to improve our article, just as ‘alternative medicine’ doesn’t interest me. If it once was ‘alternative’ it has been integrated into ‘good medicine’ if it was shown to be helpful in reducing suffering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuth21 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sleuth, you mind dialing it back about 9 notches? You could make the exact same points without launching a full out assault on Steve. Let's try to keep things civil.JoelWhy (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So dialling back the rhetoric...basically you (User:Sleuth21) think it's OK to use the term "remedy" in the specialized way that Homeopathists do without first defining it. Is that a true statement?

If so, then we're never going to agree on anything here. It's a really fundamental tenet of all good technical writing that lay readers have technical terms defined for them before they are used. That's just good writing style - it's Tech Writing 101. If you don't agree with that then you don't have the basic writing skills needed to be editing Wikipedia.

Furthermore, you state that we don't need to say that Homeopathy doesn't work in the lede because that would be asserting the obvious. The whole problem here is that it's clearly NOT obvious to a large number of people in the world. I don't know where you live - but here in the USA, you can go into any drug store (WalGreens, CVS or the appropriate aisles of WalMart) and see row upon row of homeopathic products arrayed amongst mainstream medicinal cures. Shelf space is valuable to those stores and they don't put stuff on shelves that doesn't sell well. Ergo, there are a hell of a lot of people who either don't understand what this term "homeopathic medicine" means - or who are under the misapprehension that it actually works. Either way, we need to clarify that in the lede. My local Vet has homeopathic treatments for dogs for chrissakes - they are frequently advertised on TV as are things like Zicam - which is (in part) Homeopathic junk. An awful lot of people are under the impression that Homeopathy works. My girlfriend had some of the stuff in her medicine cabinet - she thought it was a kind of herbal treatment. When I explained what it is and how it's claimed to work, she was quite utterly horrified. So it is by no means obvious to the layperson that Homeopathy is bunkum. That is one part of the reason why the debunking of this pseudoscience represents such a large fraction of our article - and therefore it most certainly needs to be said in the lede - which is supposed to be a summary of the article. SteveBaker (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve, I concur with your reasoning regarding remedy in the lede and am ok with either removing it entirely or leaving it in with an explanation. As an aside, it turns out you picked the perfect example because I have always been under the impression that Zicam was a clinically tested and FDA approved drug! I had no idea it fell into homeopathy even slightly. N^oformation ^Talk 20:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, just watched the movie Contagion, and one of the scientists in the film mentions that the CDC is looking into potential "homeopathic" remedies. I believe they meant 'natural cures' by this, as opposed to actual homeopathy. I have discussed homeopathy with many people, and outside of "skeptic" circles, I rarely encounter anyone who thinks homeopathy means anything other than "natural" medicine.JoelWhy (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can concur with this view as well. I have an aunt in India who is a practicing homeopath and when I young this was essentially how she described it. So I think the misconception is party based on what homeopaths themselves may claim. Btw, I don't think Slueth was trying to be uncivil, he's just a bit eccentric. N^oformation ^Talk 20:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we leave out mention of 'remedies' in the Lede and refer to 'homeopathic preparations' or 'homeopathic products'. Cuts the para count down at least. Then the homeopathic definition in the Remedies section after the term's first use will be appropriate. Acleron (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a terrific suggestion.JoelWhy (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just re-read my comment. Didn't mean to say I was the first to suggest it, more that was what I agreed with. Acleron (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea N^oformation ^Talk 22:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

“refer to 'homeopathic preparations' or 'homeopathic products'”: Excellent, Acleron, I can happily live with that phrase, in or out of the lead. SteveBaker. I appreciate your coming back and will now ‘dial a few notches back’. I don’t think the strong personal animosity between us should spill into this talk thread for much longer and we may want to continue the debate on our user pages. As to your remark that I ‘don't have the basic writing skills needed to be editing Wikipedia’ [given some of your pre-conditions – how authoritative are they? Is there a WP:guideline?], let me try this: I have in front of me a copy of the first edition of Trish Greenhalgh's book How to read a paper from 1997, signed by her with the note ‘Reinhard – Thanks for your contribution […]’. Trish Greenhalgh? Rings a bell? BTW, English is not my first language. All my scientific writing meant for publication is counter-read, two native English speakers, independently, and my wife. My jottings for WP are not: I always rely on native English-speaking editors to do that. That’s one of the many beauties of WP.

I will be away for a few days now but may come back – against my better judgment, but I always enjoy a good argument.

Sleuth21 (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As Zicam is mentioned here on 'this here' talk page, you may want to know: I just fired off this comment on the Zicam comment page: 'What's going on? Zicam has long lasting adverse effects. The evidence is out there, not from RCTs or SRs, but other very STRONG evidence: why isn't it mentioned here in oh so authoritative Wikipedia? Just asking? I dunno - just puzzled. Actually the association between use of Zicam and anosmia has been demonstrated to be causative, using the Bradford Hill criteria to establish causality. Why is this not mentioned in the article? If Cochrane doesn't mention it, they must have just missed it.'

Wikipedia is fallible, as its WP:MEDRS are wrong, in parts. They (the guidelines) are very much a Curate's egg! Sleuth21 (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The scientific method is the best tool ever developed by humans for understanding the universe. Individual results may be wrong, but the scientific method ensures that the trend over time is away from bullshit and towards empirically verifiable fact. Homeopathy, needless to say, has not developed along with our understanding of the nature of matter, physiology, disease or anatomy, so it is increasingly isolated - the remarkable thing is that it survives at all, given that there is no credible theoretical underpinning at all. The scientific method does give us a good insight into homeopathy, and that's well described in the article: placebo effect plus observer bias. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is of course right to state, as Guy does, that ‘The scientific method is the best tool ever developed by humans for understanding the universe’. But even in a secular world irrational ideas survive, such as astrology, faith healing, diet fads, anti-ageing fads, beliefs in a personal god, UFOs and homeopathy. Why do people still smoke in spite of the evidence which suggest that they will reduce their life expectancy? Why are there so many fat people? The real question is ’Why do otherwise educated people believe in these silly ideas or pursue silly habits? In the case of homeopathy, why is it still so popular all over the world? And, as it is still popular, how can we reduce the impact of such beliefs, and, in the case of homeopathy, how should health care professionals deal with patients who use homeopathic remedies (e.g. for their children) and how the damaging effects can be reduced? We certainly don’t do that by calling their beliefs ‘bullshit’ and adherents ‘deluded’, as other did on these homeopathy comment pages. We should stop preaching at them, and further antagonize them. There is an abundance of quality, robust material out there, some of which I will use in the lead (and, if required in the body of the text) of my ‘alternative lead’ on my user page..

It is an amazing phenomenon (for me) that such a simple, clear-cut case, a combination of

• Homeopathic remedies don’t work (fact)
• Many people feel justified in consulting homeopaths (fact) or using homeopathic remedies

generates such an enormous amount of discussion (nearly 50 archive pages) while Ayurveda, TCM, astrology, sun-worhsip, and other cultural, unscientific belief ‘systems’ (or rather traditions) generate hardly any discussion or archive pages. We should tone down the sometimes vicious opposition to homeopaths and stay calm, and reasonable: we can afford it, because our view will win, eventually. Support for homeopathy in countries like the UK or Germany, even France, is fading. I happen to believe that the fact that Wallmart has shelves of homeopathic stuff is quite irrelevant. What has the fact that the American countryside is full of splendid church buildings of various denominations got to do with question ‘Does God exist?’ If these places give some people a centre for their lives, that’s fine with as long as they leave me alone. I as an atheist have certainly no intention to ‘rescue’ or convert religious people. The same, for me, is true for homeopathy. I am relaxed about it. It is the least harmful type of ‘alternative medicines’. Let’s argue the fact but stop calling people names. It’s a sign of weakness. Let’s abandon the missionary position. We are constructing an encyclopedia; we don’t need to pontificate. The facts are on our side. I have said this before; it needs re-stating on these very strange discussion pages. Just in case: I believe this is all topical and to the point, i.e of improving the homeopathy article. I leave it at that: Darkness will descend soon on Wikpedia.en, if only for a day, thankfully. Sleuth21 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of collected IP edits

A series of different IP editors (probably the same person) spread a bunch of disconnected, poorly formatted and seemingly-irrelevant stuff from "Dr P.S.Sinha" into our talk page. The result was an unreadable mess. I've cleaned up the formatting and moved it all down into one section, below: SteveBaker (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

*********Dr. P. S. Sinha (M. D. Homoeo. Repertory), Govt. Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Bhopal, INDIA said "Homoeopathy is a Natural Medical Science which has fixed cardinal principles; method of selection of a remedy." It is very superior than all other system of treatment. In India Central Council Of Homoeopathy (http://www.cchindia.com/homoeopathy.htm), Deptt. of AYUSH (Govt. of India)(http://indianmedicine.nic.in/), Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (http://ccrhindia.org/index.asp)& in all States Directors; All Principal Secretary, State Homoeopathic Boards are looking after the activities, regulations & ethics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.61.7 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

By Dr. P. S. Sinha, M. D. (Homoeo. Repertory)

It is better to put few line of Master Hahnemann " Physicians are my brethren; I have nothing against them personally. The medical art is my subject. I have to inquire whether medicines as hitherto taught has, in all its parts, been merely developed out of the heads, the self-deception and the caprice of its professor, or whether it has been derived from nature."

Homoeopathy is Homoeopathy. It is very popular medical Medical Science In India. We prefer. 115.241.61.7 (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Dr. P. S. Sinha [drpssinha04@gmail.com](Auther -Psychic Disorders & Homoeopathy: Amazon.de: P. S. Sinha: Englische ... , Psychic Disorders & Homoeopathy by : Cheapest Offer Online Books, Desordenes Psiquicos En La Hom: Amazon.co.uk: P.S. Sinha: Books )

Cardinal or Fundamental Principles of Homeopathy

1. Law of Similia - Homoeopathy = Homoeo+pathy ( Homoeo means similar pathos means suffering). Master Hahnemann announced law of Similia similibus Curenture in 1796. this theory is available in India from ancient time as "Vishshya Vishmaushadam" it means "Vish hi Vish Ki Dva Hai"; Diseases with one / a group of symptoms is only treated by those medicines which have similar symptoms (found drug proving).
2. Law of Simplex - It means only one remedy should be given at a time.
3. Law of Minimum Doses - Minimum doses means a smallest quantity which can activate Vital Force to cure. It may vary person to person according to physique & vitality. Massive doses are injurious to health.
4. Principles of Drug Proving - It is a process of testing the hidden curative powers of medicines on healthy human being of different ages, both sexes with prime pupose of observing its sick-making properties which its sick-curing properties.
5. Principles of Chronic Diseases - All true Chronic Diseases are only due to Chronic Miasms i.e. Psora, Sycosis & Syphilis (These are just like Vatta, Pitta & Cough of Ayurveda. This Psora is not only itch, This Sycosis is not the Sycosis of Allopathy & This Syphilis is not Syphilish of Allopathy. It is very essential for treatment of Chronic Diseases.
6. Principles of Drug Dynamisation - Potentisation brings out the latent curative properties of drugs. Vital Force and Diseases are both dynamic and so medicine must be dynamic to cure the patients.
7. Principles of Vital Force - There is a force which must be Dynamic animates and rules the material body.

By Dr. P. S. Sinha Govt. Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Bhopal (M.P.),INDIA, Email ID:-drpssinha04@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.198.233 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is any of that not in the article? Only part I can think of is the Law of Simplex, but the practice is often multiple preparations. Acleron (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• The dictionary meaning of Symptoms is a morbid phenomenon of departure from the normal in function, appearances or sensation, experienced by the patient and indicative of disease. Master Hahnemann defines as Symptoms are external (outward) manifestation of deranged Vital Force (i.e. internal deviation from a former state of health). It indicates the kind of disease, required medicine and durability of a case. Symptoms are only conceivable picture of a disease and guides to select a correct remedy; indications of future course; termination of a disease; prognosis. It will be most important if complete i.e. qualified by its location, sensation, modalities, & concomitants. Symptomatology is a science of Sign, Symptom and Syndrome. In view of Homœopathy, it has more importance because all symptoms of a patient has not equal importance, some are most important, some are less important and are valueless for the purposes of individualisation.. The grouping of symptoms is termed as Analysis of Symptoms and Importance Symptoms given by Homœopaths is known as Evaluation of Symptom. Usually, we see that at the time of case taking many Homœopaths/Teachers/Students record common symptoms or a disease. They don`t know importance and limitation of common symptoms. We have to know that scope of common symptoms are limited to disease diagnosis; selection of genus epidemicus and palliative treatment of incurable/fatal diseases. It has no role in selection of similimum i.e. correct remedy for a patient.

Followings are different types of Analysis and Evaluation of Symptoms as our stalwarts advised # Master Hahnemann`s View: - He divides symptoms in two group e.g.(01) Common Symptoms and(02)Uncommon Symptoms [it is of four types like P.Q.R.S. i.e. Peculiar, Queer, Rare and Strange] These uncommon symptoms are more valuable than common symptoms in treating a case He advocate that a single Uncommon Symptom should be kept in view. {As per § 153-154 of Organon of Medicine}

1. Dr. J. T. Kent`s View: - He divides symptoms in three groups e.g.(01)General Symptoms,(02)Common Symptoms and(03)Particular Symptoms. All these have three grades e.g. First Grade, Second Grade and Third Grade {As per Kent`s Lecture on Homœopathic Philosophy, Lecture No.-XXXII, in respect of § 153-154 of Organon of Medicine }
2. Dr. Garth Bœricke`s View: - He divides symptoms in two groups e.g.(01) Basic or Absolute Symptoms and(02) Determinative Symptoms.

{As per A Compend of the Principles of Homœopathy, written by Dr. Garth Bœricke`s.}

1. Dr. Bœnninghausen`s View: - He divides Characteristic Symptoms in seven groups e.g.(01) Quis- It is related to personality of a person which deals with age, sex physique, constitution and temperament of a patient.(02) Quid- It deals with nature of a disease and peculiarity, (03) Ubi- It deals seat of a disease. (04) Quibus Auxilus- It deals concomitants/ accompanying symptoms associated with main complain. (05) Cur- It deals cause of a disease. (06) Quomodi- It deals the modifying factors which increase or decrease intensity of complaints.(07) Quando- It deals anamnesis of a disease.

One day, I saw a sticker saying, “Your dealings and behavior is your introduction.”. I thought about it for several days wondering how true it was? Personality is personal properties of an individual; total collection of his merits and demerits. These collections of merits and demerits are Signs, Symptoms and Syndromes. Its analysis and evaluation and study is known as Symptomatology. DR. Elizabeth Huffard Wright, once said that she had been learning the art of analysis and evaluation of symptoms for last forty years or so; even today I continue to learn and beginning to know more about the art of analysis and evaluation of symptoms after fifty years of practice of Homœopathic Practice. Then, I say how can I?. - Dr. P. S. Sinha, Lecturer & H.O.D.-Case Taking & Homoeopahic Repertory,Govt. Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, AYUSH Campus, Bhopal-462003 (M.P.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.201.248 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC) 101.63.194.113 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)drpssinha04@gmail.com

May I suggest that we leave these comments from 115.242.201.248 (above) unedited and for all to see in their original form? I don't need a WP co-editor to 'clean up' an 'unreadable mess'. I can do that myself: I am quite able to detect good ideas in e.g. an otherwise unreadable student's essay. The same applies to obvious bias, as displayed by our Indian friend. Sleuth21 (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I'm against editing other people's talk page posts - but when they are clearly mal-formatted, it really helps to do some minimal cleanup to make them legible to everyone. This IP editor had scattered the remarks more or less randomly through the talk page. We have very specific guidelines on what we should do under these circumstances in WP:TALK. It says that one must not edit other users comments in general - but pulls out several special situations when one should edit another users' posts for legibility. The two relevant cases are:

• Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.

(I removed leading spaces that caused long paragraphs of text to be rendered on a single line and replaced them with a bullet or a hash-bullet if the item was numbered)

• Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.

(I moved comments from the top of the page to the bottom, collected non-sequitors from previous sections and removed duplicated text. I also removed unnecessary and unbalanced boldfacing/italics).

I make no apologies for doing that - it is very common practice to help inexperienced editors who wish to make comments here but do not understand the subtleties of Wiki markup. As for the content of those edits - it seems irrelevant and not particularly useful, but that's just IMHO - I agree that it exhibits bias - but that's OK in a talk page. I'm not going to "fix" any of that because to do so would be presumptuous and contrary to WP:TALK. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy Lede / Lead Re-design

[My] Plan in a nutshell: It is better to light a candle for someone than to curse them in their darkness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Light_one_candle (not properly sourced in WP: I am sure this is a quote from / allusion to Carl Sagan)

My plan to produce a draft improved version of the lede has been mentioned several times on this talk page and is visible in my user sandbox. The lede of the homeopathy article is a visual and factual mess and doesn’t do justice to the finely-tuned body of the article. The lede is the result of extended arguments as detailed in the 50+ archive pages, and is dominated by editors who want to prove that homeopathy doesn’t work. Why argue about it? Homeopathic remedies don’t work. Finished, basta, finis, dixi. We need a lede which takes the problem further (see below, also A de Botton’s paraphrased quote right at the bottom). I am not trying to belittle the efforts of editors who have contributed to the lede, which now looks like a bird of paradise, designed by a committee: ugly in form and function. It demonstrates that Wikipedia’s principle of collective editing can fail and produce gibberish, while the body of the article shows how splendidly advantageous it can be. I re-wrote the lede and guided myself by the following considerations (sketched):

1. Strip all references. Mention ref. overkill, ref. clusters; counterproductive referencing indicates insecurity complex, massive chips on shoulders: quite unnecessary: Homeopathic remedies don't work. The world is not flat. The Phlogiston idea is interesting, but false. These ideas do not need counter-references: they are in the public domain of informed laymen ("laymen" embracing laywomen!).

2. Four statements receive more than four references: ‘Homeopathy no more effective than a placebo’ (five), ‘systematic reviews of published trials fail to demonstrate efficacy’ (five), ‘unambiguous evidence of homeopathy’s efficacy’ (four(2)) and ‘described as pseudoscience, quackery’ (five). All the statements are obviously correct; (‘true’), none needs references (in the lede).

3. Strip all redundant sections, many sections too detailed. Avoid (in the lede). Pseudo-comprehensiveness, tautologies abound: strip. Some sentences in the old lede look like ‘empty magnification’ – they try to clarify an issue beyond the granulation of reality. (One or two Laws of Thermodynamics could be quoted here!!) This is also true for issues like ‘reliable source’, which in the case of the homeopathy article has lead to robust, powerful primary studies (RCTs) from Core PubMed journals being rejected instead of a silly remark from a newspaper. An example from The Times (London) (from their Body and Soul (sic!) supplement) is still in the current lede! This is journalistic hyperbole instead of Evidence. Mein Fuβ!

4. Amend some sentences, add some chapters: Why is homeopathy popular? How to cope with people who use homeopathic remedies (e.g. for their children!)? ‘Homeopathic remedies’ are in 90+% of cases plain ‘herbal remedies’ (Walmart and similar silly places; also Boots (Boots are shifting their stand slowly)).

5. Add one or two sections, which add important aspects of the subject irrespective of whether the point is already in the body of the article. If the point is important it should be in the lede and be added to the body. Apply the reverse as well: a good point in the article should be in the lede, if not, add it. But not part of my ‘’’brief’’’ here. Perhaps to follow later?

6. Later add refs., two each for three seminal points (just for show, not because they belong in lede). Choice of references: Using EBM / Cochrane rules, applying the standard "hierarchy of evidence" and choice of "best evidence". It may even come from an anecdote! WP rules on RS, MEDERS, and Synthesis (Steve and expert!) are all questionable. Refs from my DB (RefMan) of some 400 potential refs., including all 225 refs. from current WP Homeopathy article. The chosen references. should ratchet up the quality of the article, increase its signal-function, not just its complexity, i.e. its noise level. References should help to improve, illuminate the point made in the sentence it is attached to, and not just show how clever the person putting it into the article is. Include some 'positive' references, i.e. references to websites, studies, books which try to demonstrate that e.g. Quantum Entanglement works and thus provide evidence that Homeopathy can work. WP does not have to fear opposing theories. We can lean back: our methods and guidelines to produce an ENCYCLOPEDIA are superior to their subjective, biased, 'selectively quoting' stuff. On 'memory of water': cite e.g. Michael Schiff: The memory of water. Homeopathy and the battle of ideas in the new science. and include the note on the cover: 'This book challenges dogma and censorship in science.' Jacques Benveniste. No comment: just quote this book about 'New Science'!

7. Eventually: add not more than about ten seminal, illuminating references in all for clarity, not for strengthening the argument. That should come only from the respect people show for an encyclopaedia, from the quality and the phrasing of statements in the text, not from the number of refs. or their apparent erudition. Most referencing in scientific writing is pretentious, just-going-through-the-motions stuff of what is assumed to be the 'scientific method'. One doesn’t need to convince everybody; an Encyclopedia is meant for / is read by interested members of the informed lay public.

8. Statements which appear to need references should routinely be improved: adding references doesn't do anything for clarity or the quality of the statement. Many people just don’t get that.

9 Check all lede WP links: are they necessary? (in 'two arms of a trial', neither 'arms' nor 'trial' needs a WP hyper link.

10. Less is more for text, references, links and everything else. Cut, cut, cut. Then cut again.

11. Check for readability: native English speakers, both lay and scientist. Also run through readability software (the soft option, there are usually quite useless and for nerds). Write as you think right and best; don't try to make things fool-proof. There are a lot of fools trolling on WP! Ignore!

12. How does lede (o.k.: lead) fit with body of article and vice versa? Not part of the lede re-design project, as I determined it. Sections in lede which don’t have section in body: add to body, don’t leave out of lede: if it’s important it belongs in the lede. Most people reading an WP article just read the lede. It should be clear and uncomplicated, thus tempt readers into dipping into the full article.

13. Try to adhere to WP rules and guidelines and also EBM principles. If in conflict: let EBM principles trump every time! No concessions: this is a medical article and well-understood EBM rules supreme. 'Never make statements with an authority which goes beyond the level of evidence you can marshal. If in doubt: Appeal to reason, not rules!

14. Finis: Embed in Lede ‘surrounds’, which leave 'as are'.

And finally:

Attempting to prove that homeopathy has no evidence-base can be an entertaining activity for scientists and professional sceptics. Tough-minded critics of homeopathy have found much pleasure in laying bare the idiocy of believers in remorseless detail, finishing only when they felt they had shown up their enemies as thorough-going simpletons or maniacs.

Though this exercise has its satisfactions, the real issue is not whether homeopathic remedies work or not, but where to take the argument once one decides that they evidently don’t [my bolding, RW]. The premise here is that it must be possible to remain a committed sceptic and nevertheless find the principles underpinning homeopathy sporadically useful, interesting and satisfying – and be curious as to the possibility of importing certain of the homeopathic ideas into the realm of medical reality.

This is ever so (s)lightly rephrased from Religion for Atheists by Alain de Botton, London, H. Hamilton, London: 2012. p11-12.

I will replace the lede now with my draft version. I don't expect it to survive much after 3pm GMT today. Pity!

Reinhard Wentz, sleuth21 29.01.2012 Sleuth21 (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Try 11 am GMT. I happened to notice this, and it has no aspects which are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so harsh - the way Sleuth21 changed the lede was way off, it should have been here and not in the article, but some of his changes could be considered. The quotes he included shouldn't be in the lede (nor in the article), but it certainly isn't necessary per policies and guidelines to have inline citations in the lede. Sleuth21 asked me about this on my talk page but perhaps I didn't make it clear enough that there should be a consensus on the article talk first before the lede is changed. So why don't we just move his lede here and take a look at it? --Six words (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a very brief discussion of some of Sleuth's proposals for this around the beginning of the month, after Sleuth had posted on the talk page that he was working on it in his sandbox. The discussion was brief because Sleuth made it clear that he did not want it discussed here (note the instruction to "pipe down", and the removal of the comment of 29 December 2011 by JoelWhy and my response to it). There was clearly no consensus for the wholesale changes then proposed, and the objections that I posted then still stand. Additionally, the quotations are entirely inappropriate, and the introduction of statements not included in the body of the article obviously cannot stand since the lead is supposed to summarise the article, and if the lead is to contain no references thay are also unsupported. Brunton (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of this discussion, but at the time I understood that Sleuth21 didn't want his proposal discussed until he himself was satisfied with it. If I misunderstood that then of course we can stop right there as I agree that if it's "either like that or not at all" the answer must be not at all. --Six words (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So what specifically are the objections to my suggested draft (to be discussed, of course) suggestions for the lede? Don't just weakly mention WP guidelines and rules: what specifically are you objecting to - sorry, to what are you objecting specifically? What in my 13 points is objectionable? Are any of you in touch with reality or are you all living in a WP fantasy-land? Do any of you for instance understand the relevance of the Trish Greenhalgh (do you know who Prof. Greenhalgh is?) quote I added to the top of my lede? Do you understand how objectionable your arguing about the meaning of ‘remedy’ and its position in the lede (or not) is? Or 'treat' or 'claim to treat' or ‘allegedly claim to treat'?

You are chasing the end of the rainbow – you are trying to measure the edge of a Mandelbrot fractal. Stand back and try to see the whole picture. I try to introduce some factuality into the proceedings. Sure, sure, I am arrogant: I can afford it, effortlessly. BTW, Arthur (you of the quick revert): what is ‘dormatting’? Is there a WP guideline for it? Brunton, read my point 5: Subjects mentioned in the lede but not in the body of the article should be added there later. Which of the subjects I mention in addition in the lede are not important? Reinhard Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sleuth21, I'm pretty sure that we all know that you have the best of intentions, and that some of your criticisms of the lead may be legitimate. The problem is the process you chose, so how about starting over again, right here on the talk page. Copy the existing lead here with a URL link to the current version. Do it in a new section. Then list specific criticisms with exact quotes, etc. from the current lead. Be very specific and do it in VERY small increments, IOW single words and phrases. Then we can all examine them and you can attempt to convince us. Then changes can be done a little bit at a time. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re point 5: no, that really isn't how it works. The lead summarises the article; it is not a template to be expanded on for the article. If a point is important enough to be considered for inclusion in the lead, it will be pretty much self-evidently important enough to be included, with supporting references, in the body of the article. We cannot just add unsupported statements to the lead (or, indeed, anywhere else) on the basis that they will later be added elsewhere with sources. If you want these additional points added to the article, add them in the body, with supporting references. Then, if they appear important enough for it not to give them undue weight, they can be mentioned in the lead. Brunton (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sleuth21, your attitude isn't helping. The formatting was weird (indenting with colons is only done on talk pages; you also broke several references - when you delete them from the lede you have to transfer them to the next place where they are used). It's always a good idea to use the “Show preview” button before you save your changes, or if you forgot at least to take a look at the page one more time and make sure the references are still intact after you save. I'm going to discuss some details of your draft below; generally: being reverted once should already tell you that there's no consensus for this new lede. Finally, to everyone involved in this debate: whether you can afford arrogance or not, if you want to work together, don't be arrogant. It's not what you say, it's how you're saying it (or in German: Der Ton macht die Musik!). --Six words (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would rather discussion be based on the current lead, rather than on Sleuth's proposed lead, as subtle WP:NPOV violations may relate to the lead as a whole, rather than small parts of it. I apologize for saying that none of the lead changes are consistent with Wikipedia policies; some weren't consistent, some were not improvements as seen in the light of Wikipedia polices, and some may have been improvements. I didn't notice any improvements, but perhaps some changes to include omitted material would be appropriate, if sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am far fomr convinced that Sleuth understands the subject anyway; for example one of his points above asserts that homeopathic remedies may be herbal remedies, but they aren't, the two are completely different and in fact that mistake is probably the single most common mistake people make about homeopathy, believing that it is effectively the same as herbal remedies. I have nothing against improving the article, but it should be done slowly and thoughtfully and with due attention to the exact wording used. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Draft lede (with comments)

As mentioned above, the draft should be discussed here and gain consensus before being copied to the article. The 14 considerations might have been helpful for Sleuth21, but they're of no interest to me, I'm only interested in the result, so that's what I'll discuss. For readability, I've chosen to insert my comments in a different colour - it's easier than citing the sentences and helps not to lose sight of "the whole picture".

---

'HOMEOPATHIC dilutions’ and ‘memory of water’ are two expressions capable

of turning a peaceful and intelligent person into a violently irrational one'

Schiff, M.: The memory of water. Homeopathy and the battle of ideas in

the new science. With a foreword by J. Benveniste. London: Thornsons 1995.

‘The dissonance we experience when trying to apply research findings to

the clinical encounter often occurs when we abandon the narrative interpretive

paradigm and try to get by on “evidence” alone’.

From the Summary points of Trish Greenhalgh’s article in the BMJ. 1999.

The lede is supposed to summarise the article, quotes are neither necessary nor wanted.

Homeopathy /ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ ^ⓘ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine.

Its practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. I'm not sure it should be separated into two sentences. Getting rid of "claim to" is OK in my eyes, "treat" doesn't imply that the choice of treatment is sensible.This is badly misleading. It implies that the 'highly diluted' preparation caused healthy people to exhibit symptoms. That's not true - it's the fully concentrated form that does that. We should say: "highly diluted forms of some substance that causes healthy people to exhibit....". Perhaps even "Its practitioners claim that by taking some substance that causes an adverse symptom, then diluting it to an extreme degree, you can alleviate that same symptom."...there are also homeopaths who treat animals and even plants - so the word "people" is incorrect and "patient" carries connotations that we might not want to imply. Actually, this is correct - the basic principle of homoeopathy is that a patient suffering certain symptoms can be cured by a remedy that causes those symptoms (as distinct from a remedy made from something that causes those symptoms), and it is the diluted preparations that are tested in "provings". See the section of the article on "provings". The words "believed to" are included to avoid giving the misleading impression that the remedies actually do cause symptoms.The "believed to cause" phrase should not be in the voice of the encyclopedia, we can't even know how many of the practitioners believe it.How about "claimed to cause..."?That would work for me (in this case, it is just a claim).

This basic principle of homeopathy is known as the "law of similars": "let like be cured by like." It was first stated by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. I'd like to include a sentence indicating that at that time a lot of what we know today about the body and about diseases was unknown to Hahnemann. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution. Succussion is missing. Agree - succussion is (according to homoeopaths) an essential part of the process and needs to be included here.I'd prefer "precept" to "principle". Each sequential dilution is assumed to increase their effectiveness (a phenomenon not known elsewhere in physics or chemistry). Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains. Apart from the symptoms, homeopaths examine aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state, then homeopathic reference books known as repertories are consulted, and a remedy is selected based on the totality of symptoms.

In standard high dilutions ( laypeople don't know what "standard high dilutions" are Perhaps "In the usual dilutions"?), homeopathic remedies do not contain any pharmacologically active molecules, and for such remedies to have pharmacological effect would violate fundamental principles of science. Modern homeopaths have proposed that water has a memory ( no reason to remove the wikilink to memory of water) that allows homeopathic preparations to work without any of the original substance. However, there are no verified observations or scientifically plausible physical mechanisms for such a phenomenon. The same is true for Quantum entanglement and similar unproven purely speculative modes of action claimed by homeopaths and their supporters to provide an explanation for the medicinal effect of the remedies. Not (yet) in the article - can be added after it's in the article.Simpler to say "Modern science does not support such speculation."

The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathic remedies to be no more effective than a placebo. While some individual studies might demonstrate positive results (some small studies do occasional small studies), robust systematic reviews fail to demonstrate efficacy. The correlation between study quality and likelihood of positive outcome needs to stay in the lede. The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience and quackery. It has been suggested though that using homeopathic remedies may be ethically justified in very specific situations in a safe clinical environment.By whom?And which circumstances?This is OK - it's only a summary - we can say 'by whom' and 'which circumstances' in the body of the article.Although at present we don't seem to.That's why I asked.

Oral homeopathic remedies are safe at high dilutions. They are unlikely to contain any molecules of the original substance. It's not reasonable to split this into two sentences because the lack of “active” ingredient is the reason for assuming those remedies are safe.Better "inert" than "safe".But this is the summary of the safety section - they're “safe” because they're inert (because they don't contain active ingredients).) Some homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk when advising against conventional medicine. There is also the risk of delaying access to regular medicine and its proven diagnostic and therapeutic potential when using homeopathic remedies.These two statements are reversed. Delay of real treatment is the principal problem. In spite of overwhelming evidence that homeopathic remedies do not work, homeopathy enjoys continuing appeal. Where?Again, don't have to say 'where' here - so long as it's in the body of the article Various strategies of how to help patients who use homeopathic remedies or think of using them have been proposed. Help how and with what?Again, so long as it's in the body, we're OKThe evidence doesn't say they don't work, it says they work just as placebos, and hence (by inference) the repetories are meaningless. It's not in the body, and even if it were, this sentence should be unambiguous. It could mean help to realise they're using a placebo or help them defending the use of placebos, or help them getting better by giving them some active medication along with the placebo. Which is it?

The regulation and prevalence of homeopathy varies considerably from country to country. In several countries, homeopathy is covered by the national insurance to different extents, while in some it is fully integrated into the national healthcare system, for example, countries X, Y, and ZAgain, it's in the body - so we're OK. In many countries, the laws that govern the regulation and testing of conventional drugs do not apply to homeopathic remedies."Many countries exempt homeopathic preparations from regulation" is simpler. It has been noted that in many countries substances sold as homeopathic remedies have not been prepared according to the rules of classical homeopathy, including elements such as serial dilution, and are at best herbal remedies. I guess this is about things like Zicam nasal gel - but the sentence doesn't make that clear. Other (very popular) “remedies” aren't classical homeopathy, too, Oscillococcinum lacks individualisation, as do “complex” products like Vertigoheel (they also violate the single remedy rule). Needs to be rewritten or removed.Also, the words "at best" may not be appropriate, as they appear to show opinion. Maybe; "considered closer to traditional Herbal Remedies"Zicam is a tricky case because it's only homeopathic in part - there are non-homeopathic/herbal types of ingredients - and those are responsible for the horrible effects it had on some of the people who used it.The Zicam Nasal gel was homeopathic, but it was a “low potency” (X2 IIRC). It's not sold anymore, and Zicam now only has "homeopathy" in their oral remedies, but my comment not about Zicam (or Heel, or Boiron or Weleda) in particular, but that this sentence is ambiguous; I agree about the “at best”.

---

Okay, discuss, insert your comments into the draft (please use a different colour), cite policies and guidelines - spend all your time and energy on the draft here, you can discuss Sleuth21's "plan for the draft" in the section above. --Six words (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added some comments in red.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments in green. In general, I like the streamlined version - although I don't like how Sleuth21 is handling the acceptance of it. It needs more tweaking before it can replace the original lede. SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added a couple of comments in blue. I hope they don't get confused with links. Brunton (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments in orange. Generally, the use of "preparation" is more neutral than "remedy". We do need to explain thats what homeopathic doctrine calls them, but we don't need to keep repeating the term. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Or we could just save time and energy and topic-ban Sleuth21, given the spectacularly terrible text they edit-warred into the article. The current lede will do, though I still think it gives too much weight to the beliefs of homeopaths. In case anyone wonders why we keep getting this article attacked by true believers, you might check these:

http://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/wikiliars-wikipedia-and-the-case-against-homeopathy/

http://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/2012/01/homeopathy-and-wikipedia.html

http://elephantsandmice.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/skeptics-have-corrupted-wikipedia-and-the-homeopathy-entry/

and so on. The homeopaths hate the fact that the Wikipedia article reflects the scientific consensus that homeopathy is bunk. They hate the fact that the "law of similars" has never had a credible evidence base or any credibly provable mechanism, and they hate us for pointing it out. They hate the fact that every single discovery about the nature of matter, biochemistry and human physiology in the 200 years since homeopathy was invented, refutes homeopathy, and they hate us for pointing it out. They hate the fact that Benveniste's experiment was exposed as farud by Randi and they hate us for pointing it out. They hate the fact that Montagnier says his "water memory" effect cannot be extended to cover homeopathy, they hate the fact that scientists have pointed out it only lasts picoseconds (admittedly an inconveniently short shelf-life), and they hate us for... well, you get the idea.

Basically this article is, to homeopaths, the equivalent of our article on evolution to Conservapedians. It iswrong not because of the sources but because it conflicts with their religion. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not a homeopath or a homeopaths apologist. I did not edit-war: I reversed twice, with a plea to read my comments, time permitting. I counter-plea: Topic Ban JzG Guy!

(Personal attack removed) Now ban ME, please: my wife and friends will be delighted! Reinhard Wentz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuth21 (talk • contribs)

You've got to be kidding - both. Comment on content, not contributors. Unless, of course, you really want to be blocked, but you could have that much easier and ask an administrator for that (plus, you could decide how long that block lasts/when to unblock). --Six words (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I was commenting on content, specifically the content that Sleuth21 edit-warred into the article. It was a gross failure of WP:NPOV. I don't care whether Sleuth21 is an acolyte of Dana Ullman or (like me) an active skeptic. His edits tot he article were disruptive. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

== Dein letzer Beitrag: rect: Mein letzter Beitrag ==

war unnötig und nicht hilfreich. Willst Du wirklich den Artikel verbessern? Dann reiß Dich am Riemen und ignoriere solche blödsinnigen Kommentare wie den von Guy. Mehrere Leute haben sich konstruktiv beteiligt, ich schlage vor dass Du Dich auf sie konzentrierst. Ich werde nachfragen, ob man das "edit summary" löschen kann. --Six words (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.I was flattered by all the valuable comments and by your putting my lede version on the comment page. I saw some of the very positive. constructive, at the very least interesting, contributions. Even Steve had (after some familiar silly suggestions involving animals and even plants!) to say something nice about my draft lede!

I was thinking of how I could comment (I can't be bothered to learn about colouring MY comments, I thought of indenting them), but I now see that there is enough in the public domain and somebody else can take over - or leave the messy lede as it is: who really cares? I won't be involved with this article anymore. I would, in any case, have referred to some of my carefully thought out / sketched '14 points' which nobody read or at least briefly scanned, least of all you. I am wasted on this WP:Homeopathy page. Cheers, Reinhard Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So are there any objections to me/someone else replacing the lede with this?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

With what? There seems to be no consensus here as to what should replace the current lead, or even whether it needs replacing. Brunton (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2012

the comment that homeopathic medicine is not regulated in germany is not true: as a matter of fact some homeopathic remedies are banned and regulated. It can be covered under medical if the M.D. that is treating is using homeopathy as a medicine. it is available to buy in Apothecaries, but only the polycrest ( a few of the thousands of available) homeopathic medicines. A lot of people that are using homeopathic medicines are called Heilpraktiker (practitioner of the medical art), which has to be studied, and you need to be licensed as well to prescribe to patients. Paigefox (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the source cited, you are correct that homeopaths are regulated. I'll try to update when I have time (or, feel free to do it based on the cited document.)JoelWhy (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It sounds like JoelWhy will take this on for you. If you want to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template, you would need to be detailed about what you'd like to change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Done.JoelWhy (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting source for some homeopathy news

The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.228.247 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that as a source for anything, it is highly questionable, given its author: "Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should be considering the publisher as a reliable source more so than the author. Though I am unsure why the opinion of the "leading spokesperson" of a subject shouldn't be included in an article about said topic. All that is to say that I think this is an interesting source of recent news and can have at least some of its up-to-date information included in this article if not to do anything else beside keep this article current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.228.247 (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We can use said leading proponent as a source but not for factual claims as that would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE opinion. It would really depend on what you're suggesting should be added to the article. N^oformation ^Talk 00:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

From the article linked: "*Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003." So it seems that it's not even recent information.--McSly (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And although the article describes it as a "Swiss government report", the Swiss government does not appear to have found it convincing evidence that homoeopathy works - while it was produced in 2006, it took until a referendum in 2009 for the government to reinstate homoeopathy to the state insurance list, and then only for a trial period from 2012-2017, during which it must prove its "efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability". See here. Brunton (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The Swiss referendum should also be examined carefully. The people of Switzerland were not asked "Do you want us to fund Homeopathy?". They were asked something along the lines of: "Do you want us to fund various alternative medicines?" - with a simple Yes/No choice. That decision included holistic, herbal, neural and traditional Chinese therapies...as well as homeopathy. Since we know that (for example) some herbal therapies most certainly do work - it would not be unreasonable for people who are opposed to homeopathy but who support herbalism to vote "YES" in the Swiss referendum. Therefore we cannot deduce from this that either the government or the people of Switzerland are in favor of funding homeopathic treatments under their state-run health insurance scheme - it may just be an unfortunate side-effect of the way the referendum was worded. SteveBaker (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I see. It is now our job as Wikipedians to determine whether the opinions presented in a reliable source are factual or not. All that was suggested here was to include the opinion (yes, opinion) of the "leading spokesperson". If there are reliable sources which conflict with this opinion, then those can be presented as well. But in general, I think that even this trial period by the Swiss government is topical and notable, and can be included in this article (or perhaps the general CAM article). I see the Huffington Post piece as making it relevant to this article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.228.247 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I would only support addition of info about the referendum if it comes from reliable, independent secondary sources to establish weight. That this is published by a homeopath on a blog doesn't qualify. Yobol (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

So on WIkipedia, the Huffington Post is not a reliable source for news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.228.247 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For scientific claims? No, probably not. We prefer scholarly journals and the like. N^oformation ^Talk 00:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not scientific claims; rather news about "science" (not sure if that's the right word for this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.228.247 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying but we have to question whether a particular source is (i)qualified to comment on science and (ii) important enough in the field of science to give their statements WP:WEIGHT. The HP doesn't have a great reputation as a scientific source and they aren't particularly known as a source of scientific commentary. I've read quite a few fringe articles published in that paper. N^oformation ^Talk 01:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go a step further and say they have a bad reputation, especially for medical articles. 01:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that those who claim that the Huffington Post is a reliable source for medical matters read Huffington_Post#Allegations_of_supporting_pseudo-science and follow some of the references presented there - for example:

• [2] - HP said that Patricia Fitzgerald (their "Wellness Editor") is a doctor - when in fact her qualifications are: (1) a license in acupuncture, (2) a degree in Master’s in Traditional Chinese Medicine and (3) a Doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine. This is hardly the kind of person who can be the editor of a WP:MEDRS-acceptable source. HP's efforts to make her seem like a mainstream medical doctor are deeply disturbing.
• [3] - points out one of HP's more prolific authors of medical articles: Kim Evans. In discussing swine flu, Ms Evans said that you could "save your life" by taking deep-cleansing enemas as a flu preventative!?! What bold medical research did she base this new and exciting claim on? It appears that she boldly based this claim on the "fact" that people who had enemas and refused immunization did better in the 1918 flu pandemic. This is a most interesting claim since the first flu vaccine was not invented until 1940! Even after this crashing failure of fact-checking or author integrity was pointed out to them, they issued no retraction and continue to publish articles by Ms Evans to this day. So - can we really trust the Huffington Post when they are so happy to publish complete bullshit like this with zero fact-checking and zero author-oversight? I suggest not.
• [4] - discusses (amongst other things) the article in HP by Kim Evans (yes, her again) saying that all cancers are caused by fungal infections, which in turn are caused by antibiotics. This is just crazy stuff. Check out Cancer#Causes - our carefully researched and reliably-sourced article makes not a single mention of cancers caused by fungal infections...viruses, yes...bacteria, yes...parasites, yes...carcinogenic chemicals. yes...smoking, yes. Fungi, no. Is HP really claiming that all of those people who got lung cancer after smoking really got it from fungi? Breast cancer? Where is the reliable source that says that fungal infections are caused by antibiotics? That's a pretty wild claim too. If HP publishes that whole steaming mass of bull-crap uncritically - without red-flags all over it - when it goes 100% contrary to all published cancer studies...then how can we possibly trust them as a WP:MEDRS?

If Wikipedia is to use a particular publication as a reliable source ("reliable" is the key word here) - then we require a pretty high degree of reliability. We can't accept the reliability of a publication that doesn't even fact-check claims that people who avoided a non-existant immunization did better! Their continued and repeated publication of this kind of patent nonsense that is so very easily debunked - means that we cannot possibly, remotely, use them for medical sourcing in this or any other Wikipedia article. SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[Replying to 67.127.228.247] the Swiss trial period is already in the article, in its appropriate place in the "regulation and Prevalence" section, sourced as a news item. Brunton (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"Okay. I see. It is now our job as Wikipedians to determine whether the opinions presented in a reliable source are factual or not." - No, but it most certainly is our job as Wikipedians to determine the applicability of a source to the topic at hand and not to mislead our readers about the information present in that source. Our source in this case [5] has only one sentence describing the Swiss referendum: "The reversal in policy follows a nationwide vote in 2009 in which two-thirds of Swiss backed including the therapies on the constitutional list of paid health services." What I'm saying is that what this source says does not imply that Swiss voters said that they wanted homeopathic treatments included in this list of services. What the voters actually said was that given a choice between no alternative therapies whatever and this bundle of different alternatives therapies - they'd prefer to have that bundle than nothing at all. That could mean that 100% of the people who voted for this wanted homeopathy - or it could mean that they are all herbalists or enthusiasts for Chinese traditional medicine who might easily be 100% opposed to homeopathy - or anywhere between. The fact is that if you wanted your herbal medicines to be paid for by the state, then you'd have to vote for that bundle of services - whether you wanted all of them to be free or not. Hence the referendum tells us almost nothing about the acceptability of homeopathy amongst the voters of Switzerland. It is important not to mis-use this source to imply something about the commitment to homeopathy amongst Swiss voters - because it doesn't say anything whatever about that.

A better reference would be [6] which states that the actual wording of the referendum was: "Federal Constitution Art. 118a (new): Complementary Medicine: Within the framework of their responsibilities, the Confederation and the Cantons promote the recognition of complementary medicine." - which you'll notice makes no mention of Homeopathy whatever. Hence the source we reference at www.swissinfo.ch isn't even correct - the list of five specific fields mentioned in that web page wasn't ever presented to the voters - it was a much fuzzier choice. The Swiss voters weren't even told that homeopathy was a part of this.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories

An editor has removed the category Pseudoscience from this page. (He's done the same for several conspiracy theory pages I edit, as well.) He argues that the Pseduoscience category is inappropriate because "Homeopathy is in Category:Psuedoscience." Seems to me that's precisely why the Pseudoscience category is needed. However, perhaps I'm mistaken regarding Wiki policy on which categories should be utilized. Someone care to enlighten me?JoelWhy (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree Technically, if category:A is inside category:B, one does not generally put articles that are in category:A into category:B because it's redundant. An article about a kind of car goes into Category:Automobile but not into Category:Wheeled Vehicle. So I can see how this would be a good-faith change. However, in this case there is a strong likely-hood that someone reading Homeopathy would be interested in finding articles about other pseudo-sciences - and would be unlikely to go first to Category:Homeopathy and then scroll all the way to the bottom to find the desired super-category. That's because Automobiles are a true subset of wheeled vehicles - but Homeopathy is not a true subset of Pseudo-science. So both need to be mentioned.

For precedent, note that it is common for the article with the same name as the category to be linked to the parent of that category as well as the category itself:

• Automobile is both in Category:Automobiles and Category:Wheeled Vehicles - even though Category:Automobiles is inside Category:Wheeled Vehicles.
• Physics is both in Category:Physics and Category:Natural Sciences - even though Category:Physics is inside Category:Natural Sciences.
• Christianity is both in Category:Christianity and Category:Monotheistic Religions - even though Category:Christianity is inside Category:Monotheistic Religions.

More concerning is that this editor is going around doing that everywhere - which leads me to believe that this is a part of a general campaign to hide that certain things are pseudosciences.

Anyway - I've reverted back to your version and this editor will fall foul of WP:3RR if (s)he continues to push this without further debate.

SteveBaker (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• These comments seem to be about me and I take great offence at your comment that my edits are "a part of a general campaign to hide that certain things are pseudosciences." PLEASE ASSUME GOOD FAITH. I am trying my best to clean up the mess that is Wikipedia, but I am forever wasting my time having to justify my edits (which in my opinion are correct:-) ). For the record, and this should not be relevant, I see astrology as quackery and took part in the 10:23 campaign here in New Zealand. An apology here would not go amiss. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Category:Pseudoscience needs diffusing as clearly stated in the HUGE banner across the top. When I arrived there there were 254 odd articles in the category. And it is a mess. The contents of a category should have a close link to the subject. All too often there is "sloppy" categorisation on WP. Editors don't take into account the importance of a article and the importance of a category. As a result categories become a waste of time as a navigational tool for readers - you know, those who read WP. Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, astrology does not have to be in Category:Pseudoscience because it is in Category:Astrology. Having the astrology article in Category:Pseudoscience adds to the clutter that needs sorting out, and it is redundant. Please read WP:CAT and have a look at what is convention out there. And what is best for readers. As an example have a look at Category:Science. Nice and clean and generally kept free of "fluff". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't have an opinion on which categories that this article might belong in, but I will note that the {{catdiffuse}} template (which I dare say is poorly-named—'diffusion' implies a loss of focus, blurring, uniform dispersal, or mixing; a title involving 'sorting' or 'refining' would make more sense...but I digress) was added to Category:Pseudoscience without comment, explanation, or discussion by an anonymous editor in 2009. It may not be wise to presume that that template's presence reflects any particular consensus about how the category ought to be managed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is clearly spelled out in Wikipedia:CAT#Eponymous_categories - this article should be a member of Category:Homeopathy. However, Homeopathy is not a subset of Pseudoscience - it *is* a pseudoscience (just as it is a therapy and an idea and a con-trick and a bunch of other things. Hence, Category:Homeopathy SHOULD NOT be a sub-category of Category:Pseudoscience (per Eponymous_categories) - and hence this article MUST STILL be a member of category:Pseudoscience. You are incorrect - and so far, nobody agrees with you - so I'm going to have to re-revert your changes. SteveBaker (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:CAT#Eponymous_categories is largely ignored. If you start at Category:Articles and work your way down the category heirarchy system you will find very few instances where the guideline is followed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree that the category system in Wikipedia is a mess. (I wasted quite a bit of my time trying to sort out part of the plant taxon hierarchy before giving it up as a bad job.) However, it's surely a bad idea to try to sort this out by ignoring the principles that have been agreed on. WP:EPON is crystal clear that Homeopathy can be a member both of Category:Homeopathy and of Category:Pseudoscience. Since the purpose of categories is to aid readers in navigating articles, under-categorization should be the enemy, not over-categorization where it is permitted. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

They may have been agreed upon but they are largely ignored. I don't see "under-categorising" as an issue. Based on what I have seen of page traffic stas reader use an article as a means of navigation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

So, to summarize your dealings with me in this matter so far:

• (On my talk page) Alan Liefting: "Please have a read of WP:CAT anf please observe what is convention out there in category land"
• I read WP:CAT - and just as I expected, it not only agrees with me, it specifically tells us what to do under these circumstances - and that's precisely what we did.
• I quote from it here (see above).
• I consider the possibility that this is not a widely obeyed guideline - so I check and find that the first three actual examples I check (major, high profile, featured articles that are amongst the most frequently visited and carefully edited of any in the entire encyclopedia - Automobile, Physics and Christianity) are following the guideline to the letter. I post those examples here just to be clear.
• Then, (here) Alan Liefting says: "Wikipedia:CAT#Eponymous_categories is largely ignored." and "you will find very few instances where the guideline is followed" - despite I show that there are many, many high-profile, FA-reviewed instances where it is indeed followed in actual practice. So it's clearly NOT "largely" ignored - it's mostly only ignored by Alan Liefting. (Who really needs to read WP:3RR.)

Hmmm - interesting debating style. You're demonstrably wrong - what you're saying is contrary to an established guideline and to common practice and not one single other person here agrees with you. This same argument applies to many other useful category removals that you've recently undertaken. I shall be reverting all of them if you do not do so yourself.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations

I noticed that the article has been significantly changed several times without there being any real changes made to the citations. The changes to the article are such that it is highly unlikely that one source could have both sets of information. I do not have access to the books cited so I cannot check to see what they actually see. Does anyone have access to even some of these books so we could establish the truth of what they are saying? Blackrainbow10 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... could you be specific about which sources you think may be misrepresented? Was there a particular change which altered the meaning of a phrase significantly without changing its source? (If so, you're right that's usually cause for concern!) Some (even many) of the books may be available on google books, or you could request a specific source at WP:LIB. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Unethical for health practitioners to treat patients using homeopathy....."

That statement is made by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia according to a report in today's issue of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is an interesting read. Perhaps some of it should be used in this article? Moriori (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Better re-read. The writer (Julia Medew of The Age) says "draft public statement seen by The Age", not "that statement is made". It's a substantive difference. We should wait until there's something on the record to discuss rather than getting wrapped up in rumours. We should also watch for the Freckleton piece in Journal of Law and Medicine this week. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Rumours? Good heavens. I can amend my opening paragraph to read "That quote comes from a draft statement prepared by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia according to.....". Moriori (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, a little better than rumour, but not much ;-) There's a reason that people make drafts: to find and fix errors before publication. Because wp:NOTNEWS and wp:NODEADLINE, we can wait for them to actually decide what they intend to say. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sys. Review

A 2010 systematic review, "Placebo effect sizes in homeopathic compared to conventional drugs – a systematic review of randomised controlled trials", might be a useful addition to the meta-analyses section. It concludes that placebo effects in RCTs on classical homeopathy do not appear to be larger than placebo effects in conventional medicine. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 19:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's published in the "journal" Homeopathy, so it likely isn't useful for anything other than a laugh.JoelWhy (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware it's a fringe journal, but I think it's useful in that it shows homepathy's own advocates concluding that one pet theory of theirs is false, namely that homeopathy better harnesses the placebo effect than conventional medicine. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 20:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha. Still, it may be a dangerous precedent to set. If we accept an article from a fringe journal to criticize this pseudoscience, true believers will argue 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander.' Still, if we included it simply to point out (as you stated) that one of their own disputes this claim, it may work -- not as evidence that the science doesn't support the claim, but as evidence that the pseudoscience doesn't support the pseudoscientific claim. Ok, that must be the strangest sentence I typed in quite some time!JoelWhy (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that occurs to me too. A response might be that sources in opposition to mainstream academic consensus aren't due weight, whereas a source that reports something novel and in tune with the consensus and that isn't presented as authoritative might be due weight. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 21:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For sure - a non-reliable source is a non-reliable source - we can't use it simply because it happens to follow mainstream science more closely. However, documents such as this may be used as a reliable source for their own existence - this is explained in the WP:SELFSOURCE guideline: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Which means that we could write "Some homeopathists <ref yadda yadda> believe that classical homeopathy produces a placebo effect no larger than conventional medicine." - and cite this document as proof that at least one homeopathist takes that view. What we can't do is to write "Classical homeopathy produces a placebo effect no larger than conventional medicine.<ref yadda yadda>" with that article as the supporting reference because that would be a statement of scientific fact from a source that is (at best) unreliable. Fortunately, we already have references for the latter statement - so we don't need to rely on a paper from such a dubious source. SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which refs? I only suggested this because I didn't see anything addressing the relative strength of placebo in the article. I can see plenty of refs saying homeopathy is no better than placebo, but that isn't quite the same. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2012

I suggest you remove the sentence "Each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to increase the effectiveness." Reasons: 1. no references 2. the sentence uses the term assumed. This begs the question "assumed by whom?" There is no study data suggesting that homeopaths or the homeopathic consumer assumes that the more times a "remedy" is diluted and succussed that there is an increase in effectiveness. 70.54.77.48 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from, y'know, the citation provided in the very next sentence.[7] Emphasis mine:

The dilutions advocated by Hahnemann and those used today often reduce the concentration of the initial substance to infinitesimal levels. Hahnemann himself understood that dilutions of the magnitude he used eliminated all of the original substance. He believed, however, that the healing power of the substance could be preserved and actually concentrated by the process of dynamization. Hahnemann believed that physical disruption of the solution or powder during the dilution process could release the spirit-like dynamic healing force contained within the substance. He believed that even after it has been completely removed from the solution by enormous dilution, the healing force remained. The dynamization could be induced by succussion of the solution between dilution steps or, in the case of a powder, by trituration in a mortar.

The entire method behind homeopathic remedies is to dilute the substance repeatedly to gain its "healing" properties while removing the "destructive" ones. It's an assumption made with no scientific reasoning. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I must argue however that the reference is very weak. The last I checked creighton.edu was not a peer reviewed journal. You could at least use the organon as a reference. If it is the organon you are quoting , then it would be more accurate to say: "According to Hahnemann, each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to increase the "medicinal power"." As I'm sure you know, the term "effectiveness" has very specific connotations as it is related to evidence based medicine. It is unwise to use the term in this context given the potential confusion with the term "effectiveness". I believe you are in correct when you say "The entire method behind homeopathic remedies is to dilute the substance repeatedly to gain its "healing" properties while removing the "destructive" ones." Properly prepared homeopathic substances involve both dilution and succussion. So why don't we change the line to: "According to Hahnemann, each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to increase the "medicinal power"." I'd be ok with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.77.48 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)