Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 59
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
Shang's metastudy on homeopathy; its criticism should be reported ?
I think blogs and second rate journals do not count. Shang study has been criticized in first rate journals and since its criticism about the results and its methodology make its conclusion less definite--- one should report both sides of the argument, according to NPOV. Correct? --Saharadess (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- You need to provide references to these "first rate journals" (remembering that it is the peer-reviewed paper, not the journal it is published in, that is the RS in this context). Brunton (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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. This is a reliable source. It found that the methodology and the conclusions of Shang's study are really questionable. --Saharadess (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you read the actual source you will find that is actually a "Review Article" not an actual study. Also in the full article in the conclusions there is this line - "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." The way I read that is homeopathy = placebo. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is a criticism of the actual study published in a reliable source. It says very clearly that Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented ----- The way you read it is Homeopathy = placebo when they say that "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite" ? Well, one can have whatever fantasies s'he wants. It is free. Not imposed taxes on pure fantasies . Now for citation purposes - as a criticism to another study should have a place in the article if one cares to be consistent with the wiki principles regarding neutrality and reliable sources. --Saharadess (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know your mother tongue, but in English grammar and logic, when something is neither "superior" nor inferior (the "opposite" of superior), then it IS, in this case that would mean it IS placebo. Their results were not able to prove that homeopathy is anything other than placebo, neither superior nor inferior. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- In English .....logic? Well....This is a very strange application of logic - so when someone tells you - I have no evidence you are intelligent or unintelligent - he means you are unintelligent ? Maybe you should redefine Aristotelean logic. Anyhow this is a joke and also irrelevant - the point here is that their conclusion and criticism Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented has to be reported in article - it is a reliable source. --Saharadess (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- That won't work. There is no logic in that at all because you forgot the neither "superior to placebo" and less than("the opposite") part. Then it works. BTW, this phrase has been analyzed quite nicely here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's also a detailed discussion of the impact of the Lüdtke paper here. Brunton (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- As far as i know the biggest issue with Shang is that they do not satisfyingly clarify their selection procedure for their final dataset of 8 reliable studies, and if other studies are included, different results may occur. This has been criticized by homeopaths, and sceptics a like. However, the only source that is on the edge of reputability is the one published in JCE, and i already explained that Lancet is by far the superior source, and why Rutten and Lüdtke are heavily biased proponents of homeopathy, a fringe science. We just learned from Brunton and Brangiger that the JCE paper has its share of problems as well. And dont even talk about the single studies included in the meta review, something Shang did not adress (fortunately for Homeopathy that is). For example, the studies conducted on diarrhea in latin america are _really_ bad. I think if we leave everything as it is, we do the most justice to the situation at hand, especially because every other meta review is backing up the Shang study. Rka001 (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Saharadess, indeed - "This is a very strange application of logic - so when someone tells you - I have no evidence you are intelligent or unintelligent - he means you are unintelligent ?" A marvellous example of bad logic and straw man arguments. To be correct the question would have to be - I have no evidence you are of above average intelligence or of below average intelligence - therefore you must be of average intelligence. Obviously then, "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite" does indeed mean Homeopathy = placebo. No charge for shattering your fantasy logic. --Daffydavid (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Forget about blogs and sceptic websites per wiki policy. This is a first rate journal which qualifies for inclusion per meds as well as the lancet . Not including it is totally inappropriate and ridiculously biased . Now regarding english ..... "logic" according to which "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." means that it is ...really ..placebo --is really laughable and beyond bias. I m not adding any interpretation myself -- just I report what they say. --Saharadess (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody is suggesting using blogs as sources in the article. This is a talk page, and we are discussing what impact a particular paper has on the results of Shang, so that we can evaluate whether it is worth including. We are allowed to do that here (otherwise having a talk page would be pretty pointless). Brunton (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The sources according to wiki guides are evaluated by the weight of the specific journal not by what the whatever personal blogs say. It is really beyond bias and funny to try to argue that such a reliable source says that HP = placebo when the authors clearly state "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." It seems that you just don't want to include any criticism of Shangs paper even if it appears in reliable source- this a violation of the wikipolicy regarding Medical sources. If people insist on this absurdity lets open a Rfor comment to ask how many people think that "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." means that the authors state HP = placebo. It would be funny as well. --Saharadess (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would be rather pointless, because nobody is proposing using the Ludtke paper as a source for that statement. Brunton (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you aware that trials can lead to the conclusion that the tested treatment is inferior to placebo? Rka001 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant. Lets open a RfC whether this criticism to Shang metastudy should be censored ( even if this is a violation of wiki policy. --Saharadess (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is not irrevelant, as you seem to have problems to understand the sentence "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." RfC is not necessary - this has been discussed a hundred times before. You specifically need to bring up MEDRS-compliant sources that overrule Shang et al. Rka001 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- This has been repeatedly discussed here - I suggest that you have a look at what is already in the archives. Brunton (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a reason. It should be discussed and in my opinion included per meds - why you want to keep this suggestion secret? Don't you trust you arguments? Don you want other editors or readers to know or comment?--Saharadess (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is irrelevant. Lets open a RfC whether this criticism to Shang metastudy should be censored ( even if this is a violation of wiki policy. --Saharadess (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Are you aware that trials can lead to the conclusion that the tested treatment is inferior to placebo? Rka001 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- That would be rather pointless, because nobody is proposing using the Ludtke paper as a source for that statement. Brunton (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- The sources according to wiki guides are evaluated by the weight of the specific journal not by what the whatever personal blogs say. It is really beyond bias and funny to try to argue that such a reliable source says that HP = placebo when the authors clearly state "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." It seems that you just don't want to include any criticism of Shangs paper even if it appears in reliable source- this a violation of the wikipolicy regarding Medical sources. If people insist on this absurdity lets open a Rfor comment to ask how many people think that "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." means that the authors state HP = placebo. It would be funny as well. --Saharadess (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody is suggesting using blogs as sources in the article. This is a talk page, and we are discussing what impact a particular paper has on the results of Shang, so that we can evaluate whether it is worth including. We are allowed to do that here (otherwise having a talk page would be pretty pointless). Brunton (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Forget about blogs and sceptic websites per wiki policy. This is a first rate journal which qualifies for inclusion per meds as well as the lancet . Not including it is totally inappropriate and ridiculously biased . Now regarding english ..... "logic" according to which "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." means that it is ...really ..placebo --is really laughable and beyond bias. I m not adding any interpretation myself -- just I report what they say. --Saharadess (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Saharadess, indeed - "This is a very strange application of logic - so when someone tells you - I have no evidence you are intelligent or unintelligent - he means you are unintelligent ?" A marvellous example of bad logic and straw man arguments. To be correct the question would have to be - I have no evidence you are of above average intelligence or of below average intelligence - therefore you must be of average intelligence. Obviously then, "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite" does indeed mean Homeopathy = placebo. No charge for shattering your fantasy logic. --Daffydavid (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- As far as i know the biggest issue with Shang is that they do not satisfyingly clarify their selection procedure for their final dataset of 8 reliable studies, and if other studies are included, different results may occur. This has been criticized by homeopaths, and sceptics a like. However, the only source that is on the edge of reputability is the one published in JCE, and i already explained that Lancet is by far the superior source, and why Rutten and Lüdtke are heavily biased proponents of homeopathy, a fringe science. We just learned from Brunton and Brangiger that the JCE paper has its share of problems as well. And dont even talk about the single studies included in the meta review, something Shang did not adress (fortunately for Homeopathy that is). For example, the studies conducted on diarrhea in latin america are _really_ bad. I think if we leave everything as it is, we do the most justice to the situation at hand, especially because every other meta review is backing up the Shang study. Rka001 (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- In English .....logic? Well....This is a very strange application of logic - so when someone tells you - I have no evidence you are intelligent or unintelligent - he means you are unintelligent ? Maybe you should redefine Aristotelean logic. Anyhow this is a joke and also irrelevant - the point here is that their conclusion and criticism Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented has to be reported in article - it is a reliable source. --Saharadess (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know your mother tongue, but in English grammar and logic, when something is neither "superior" nor inferior (the "opposite" of superior), then it IS, in this case that would mean it IS placebo. Their results were not able to prove that homeopathy is anything other than placebo, neither superior nor inferior. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is a criticism of the actual study published in a reliable source. It says very clearly that Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented ----- The way you read it is Homeopathy = placebo when they say that "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite" ? Well, one can have whatever fantasies s'he wants. It is free. Not imposed taxes on pure fantasies . Now for citation purposes - as a criticism to another study should have a place in the article if one cares to be consistent with the wiki principles regarding neutrality and reliable sources. --Saharadess (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- If you read the actual source you will find that is actually a "Review Article" not an actual study. Also in the full article in the conclusions there is this line - "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite." The way I read that is homeopathy = placebo. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- 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. This is a reliable source. It found that the methodology and the conclusions of Shang's study are really questionable. --Saharadess (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
We seem to have a case of No matter what you say I know I'm right. --Daffydavid (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Saharadess, we have discussed that already in the section above/before the previous section, which is titled, "most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it?". I suggest you drop this discussion right now or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned (unless Brangifer helps in some way, with references).—Khabboos (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- And we know well and good why homeopathists want Shang to be de-emphasised, and we also know well and good that their reason misses the point: Ioannidis points out why an inert treatment will inherently generate more false positives than an effective one, and we also know that positive results are more likely to be published. Such studies would have to show a large, specific and unambiguous effect in order to overcome the fact that there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work and no remotely plausible way it can work. The theatre of boosting clinical studies, mainly conducted by true believers, is entirely designed to obscure the absence of any theoretical, chemical, biological or physiological plausibility. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Like it or not, the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology is a high quality source with considerable impact factor. We're not here to judge the credentials of authors or to conduct our own assessment of individual papers. I do not intend to debate the association between placebo and homeopathy, but I do want to ensure that WP:MEDRS compliant journals are not pushed out by those who reject the process of scientific inquiry. -A1candidate (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- And we know well and good why homeopathists want Shang to be de-emphasised, and we also know well and good that their reason misses the point: Ioannidis points out why an inert treatment will inherently generate more false positives than an effective one, and we also know that positive results are more likely to be published. Such studies would have to show a large, specific and unambiguous effect in order to overcome the fact that there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work and no remotely plausible way it can work. The theatre of boosting clinical studies, mainly conducted by true believers, is entirely designed to obscure the absence of any theoretical, chemical, biological or physiological plausibility. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Lancet has an IF of 35+. In terms of reputability, it outweighs JCE by far. Rutten und Lüdtke represent a small minority in the scientific field. Again, the whole issue resolves about how many studies are included in the final dataset. Shang uses 8, but doesnt explain why, and Rutten and Lüdtke attack that. That is all. No need to make a big fuzz about it. We have a highly published review, and lowly published critical reassessment, which has its share of problems, too. No, not enough to be included. Extraordinary statements need extraordinary proof. A single paper in JCE is definately not enough, especially not when its from people who are funded by the Carstensen-Foundation. Rka001 (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- IIRC they only used 8 studies because one of their criteria was that each homeopathy study used needed to be matched with a conventional medicine study and they could only identify 8 better quality conventional medicine studies - I'll have to check that tomorrow. --Six words (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- They didn't just use 8 studies. They looked at 110 trials of homoeopathy and 110 matched trials of conventional medicine, and then looked at what difference it made to the results when the analysis was restricted to the higher quality trials. The literature search and selection criteria are set out in the "Methods" section of the paper. The "matching" issue was the reason that a particular study on polyarthritis was not included - there was no matching study for conventional medicine. This, and the criteria for the selection of the higher quality trials, was a predetermined part of the study design. Brunton (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is about science rather than who funds a study correct me if I am wrong, it would appear a narrow minded policy regarding the people or organisations who are considered inferior is at work. This demeans reputable dedicated mainstream scientific obserevers when noting, an annomoly counter current scientific paradigm, of course you must bear in mind, one can say exactly the same about mainstream industry funded research as, heavily reported media scandals regarding deviations from probity and acceptable standard of reporting behaviour would inform. (JoeEverett (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC))
Saharadess, what changes do you suggest we make ("report criticism" isn't a good enough answer - you need to at least outline a proposed wording)? I looked into the article you linked to some years ago (I still remember the gist I think), and its conclusion wasn't very impressive (they "found out" that you can influence the outcome of a meta-analysis by fiddling with your incorporation criteria after study selection - that's why you have to define them beforehand!). Lüdtke/Rutten basically showed that if you include weaker trials the outcome is slightly positive (very slightly) which does't mean that homeopathy isn't a placebo therapy. --Six words (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to me the ongoing problem is not whether or not it is a reliable source (which the advocates seem to think it gives them the okay to cherry pick the words to support their POV) but rather that the advocates for using it want to only say "Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented". Since the other line in the conclusion says "Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite", which does not in any way shape or form contradict Shang's conclusion, the advocates are going to have to explain why we should add only their chosen line and leave this one out. So far I have seen no convincing arguments for this.--Daffydavid (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The criticism of Shang seems to have come almost entirely from homoeopaths, or people associated with CAM in some way. Even the Ludtke and Rutten paper gives its author affiliations as the Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung (which, in 2008, described itself as "A Foundation for the Promotion and Support of Complementary Medicine") and the Association of Dutch homeopathic physicians. Brunton (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to guess Saharadess's ideas, so let's wait for her to tell us what criticism there is to be included (the article already discusses how there seems to be a small overall positive outcome of meta-analyses that disappears if you restrict analysis to the methodologically best trials using a 1998 review as reference - so it's not a new insight). --Six words (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest we remove the term placebo from this article completely and mention that there seems to be a small overall positive outcome of meta-analyses.—Khabboos (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Based on what sources?Rka001 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- e/c. What a bizarre suggestion. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- That suggestion by Khabboos would violate NPOV, MEDRS, FRINGE, VERIFY and I don't know, maybe 5 other Wikipedia policies. Homeopathy is water. Period. Anything that tries to move the article away from homeopathy being anything other than a quack, pseudoscience-based remedy for absolutely nothing but quenching thirst must be considered POV. Unless there is a double blind clinical trial with 5-10 thousand patients, published in a premiere high impact journal, and authored by a group of experts in whatever field of medicine the water is trying to treat. I want to see a clinical effect greater than standard error. And I want endpoints that are not lame, but are objectively based–a diagnostic test with results preferred. Other than that, it's water. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was responding to Six words with respect to the 1998 review. Anyway, let's hear it from Saharadess himself/herself!—Khabboos (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you feel that this 1998 review (which one, btw?) is more relevant than other sources stating the opposite of your proposal?Rka001 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- That suggestion by Khabboos is one of the most blatant examples of "I didn't hear that" and tendentious behaviors I've seen in my 10+ years here. It's pretty much a textbook example of a point violation, except it's not an edit to the article. Still, repetitive disruptive behavior (this crazy suggestion has been repeated many times) of this kind on a talk page is punishable under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions.
- Khabboos, the sources use the word "placebo", and you can't change history and make them not say it anymore. It's a done deal, and we follow those sources. Don't ever make that suggestion again. Do you understand? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you feel that this 1998 review (which one, btw?) is more relevant than other sources stating the opposite of your proposal?Rka001 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I was responding to Six words with respect to the 1998 review. Anyway, let's hear it from Saharadess himself/herself!—Khabboos (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- That suggestion by Khabboos would violate NPOV, MEDRS, FRINGE, VERIFY and I don't know, maybe 5 other Wikipedia policies. Homeopathy is water. Period. Anything that tries to move the article away from homeopathy being anything other than a quack, pseudoscience-based remedy for absolutely nothing but quenching thirst must be considered POV. Unless there is a double blind clinical trial with 5-10 thousand patients, published in a premiere high impact journal, and authored by a group of experts in whatever field of medicine the water is trying to treat. I want to see a clinical effect greater than standard error. And I want endpoints that are not lame, but are objectively based–a diagnostic test with results preferred. Other than that, it's water. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would be happy to substitute "inert" for "Placebo" since the unambiguous fact is that homeopathic remedies about about 6C are inert. Placebo is only part of the null hypothesis, after all, and homeopathists know this, which is why they focus on placebo in the knowledge that an inert treatment is expected to accumulate a small net positive evidence base compared to placebo, due to various biases. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, the sources do say "placebo". If we have sources which say "inert", we could add them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Some sources say "placebo". Other sources say these sources are not accurate. I'm just reporting what I objectively see. -A1candidate (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- To avoid any potential confusion can you please mention which sources in particular say that Homeopathy is not a placebo? Without knowing exactly what they are it will be difficult to know if they meet the sourcing standards or have possibly been rejected by consensus in the past.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Some sources say "placebo". Other sources say these sources are not accurate. I'm just reporting what I objectively see. -A1candidate (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, the sources do say "placebo". If we have sources which say "inert", we could add them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest we remove the term placebo from this article completely and mention that there seems to be a small overall positive outcome of meta-analyses.—Khabboos (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Νatural healing redirect
- Unassisted natural healing redirects to Naturopathy.
I somehow doubt that that's what was meant by "Explanations of perceived effects". Do we need to fix the redirect, or the link?--Mg009 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I changed that redirect to a dab page. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Zicam
Brunton and Brangifer removed the names of the Homeopathic Companies from this article after discussing the removal of the names in one of the sections above here, because they were not WP:Notable. I suggest that we also remove the mention of Zicam; it is not WP:Notable.—Khabboos (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- They were removed, not from the article, but from the "subsequent proponents" section of the infobox, for reasons that are specific to the context of the infobox. I see no justification for removing mention of Zicam from the body of the article. WP:Notable is not relevant here - as it says, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". If you think Zicam is not notable, the appropriate action to take would therefore, presumably, be to nominate the Zicam article for deletion. Brunton (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- For more relevant info on this please see Wikipedia:NNC.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Wow! We really need to be careful what we say to Khabboos, because he lacks competence to such a degree that he took the suggestion to AfD Zicam seriously and has dared to do it! SMH! It's either incompetence or a WP:POINT violation. Either way it's doomed to failure. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The AfD has already been closed as a "speedy keep". (Note the closer's significant comment.
) I have called for a topic ban on Khabboos's talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The AfD has already been closed as a "speedy keep". (Note the closer's significant comment.
- Wow! We really need to be careful what we say to Khabboos, because he lacks competence to such a degree that he took the suggestion to AfD Zicam seriously and has dared to do it! SMH! It's either incompetence or a WP:POINT violation. Either way it's doomed to failure. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- For more relevant info on this please see Wikipedia:NNC.--67.68.162.111 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Zicam is important to the discussion here because it's a claimed homeopathic product that did great harm to many people by destroying their sense of smell - and this was established through the legal system. It's certainly notable in this context. SteveBaker (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Technically, Zicam isn't homeopathic because it has quite a bit more zinc than would be present after all of the dilutions that are supposed to be employed. What I find notable is that Zicam has substantial risk of harm with an insubstantial clinical effect (reducing a cold by a few hours or even a day is clinically useless, and hovers right near the placebo effect). So on many levels Zicam is notable. It's also notable for abusing the FDA's regulations on what is water (I mean a homeopathic potion). SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Zicam is considered homeopathic due to the way it was marketed, with other "ingredients" in severely diluted quantities and seeking approval and conformance to homeopathic guidelines. What exactly about the specific product cited (method of application?) may have caused these effects is both not generally known and also beside the point, as the article notes that while, being placebos, most homeopathic products are harmless in and of themselves, there are instances where they may contain leftover solvents or whatnot. (71.233.167.118 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC))
- Technically, Zicam isn't homeopathic because it has quite a bit more zinc than would be present after all of the dilutions that are supposed to be employed. What I find notable is that Zicam has substantial risk of harm with an insubstantial clinical effect (reducing a cold by a few hours or even a day is clinically useless, and hovers right near the placebo effect). So on many levels Zicam is notable. It's also notable for abusing the FDA's regulations on what is water (I mean a homeopathic potion). SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Admin note: Khabboos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, please report further socks at the usual venues. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Immunotherapy
The article could be improved by comparing and contrasting to mainstream allergen immunotherapy including any historical links. Or at the very least, immunotherapeutic results could offer an explanation for perceived results or have influenced the "provings." (71.233.167.118 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC))
- By "mainstream", I'm assuming you mean real, science based medicine that is supported by real evidence published in real journals including systematic reviews? I mostly ignore people who use "mainstream", because that shows major bias. Oh well. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You mean, we should discuss how some proponents of homeopathy attempt to draw false analogies between cherry-picked aspects of, and generalities about, real therapies (like allergen immunotherapy) and homeopathy in order to gain undeserved credibility by association? Perhaps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Fraud - Major criticism, or fact? In either case, "fraud" and "Copeland" belong in the lead
Homeopathy is false because basic chemistry is true. Testing it to be no more effective than placebo only indicates that someone threw money at nonsense, well after basic chemistry had been well established. Once it is known to be false, how it stayed on the scene is one of the most important features of homeopathy. I put a quote from the president of the National Council Against Health Fraud in the lead - "Homeopathy is a fraud perpetrated on the public with the government's blessing, thanks to the abuse of political power of Sen. Royal Copeland (chief sponsor of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act)." - William T. Jarvis, Ph.D., President, National Council Against Health Fraud, Professor of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Loma Linda University Schools of Public Health and Medicine. "Response" to article "Homeopathy: Real Medicine or Empty Promises?"] by FDA Public Affairs Officer Isadora Stehlin.[1] The could just as well be reworded without the quotation marks, and use Jarvis as a reliable secondary source on the historic fact that Copeland perpetrated a fraud on the public, by exempting truth in labeling (e.g., "this contains 100% water", to mislead buyers into thinking it may contain something else, justifying all the different bottles with different labels, which is fraud. I believe either a statement that it is fraud, with a reliable secondary source like Jarvis, or a quote of a major critic as to this fraud, belongs in the lead. A British political committee on science, essentially declaring that a review of studies showed that basic chemistry turned out to be true (which implies placebo), is less important than this fact of fraud, or fact that major national health fraud monitors say it is fraud, and cite the basis for the existence of the fraud - Copeland. (The Wiki article on Copeland is sorely lacking, especially as to the nonsense he pulled under Woodrow Wilson.) I support either putting this quote in the lead, or taking the quotations off and stating it as a reliable sourced fact. FloraWilde (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't belong in the lede for several reasons. It is an opinion of a pressure group rather than a finding of fact of a government or parliamentary body, such as the HoC report mentioned in the lede. Putting the quotation ito the lede, which is supposed to briefly summarise the whole article, gives it too much weight. It is also specifically relating to homoeopathy in the US, not generally. It's a regulatory issue specific to the US, so possibly the most appropriate place for it would be the Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy article, under United States, where Copeland is already discussed. And the lede already states that homoeopathy is regarded as quackery and pseudoscience. It used to also have "cruel deception" but consensus was arrived at to remove this. The exact wording of the lede has been discussed extensively on this talk page. Brunton (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- The Monty Python Rule: If you sell someone a dead parrot in the belief that the reason it's lying at the bottom of the cage is that it's sleeping (tired and shagged out after a long squawk) - then that's incompetence. If you nail it to the perch...that's fraud. (OK, I just made that up!)
- In the case of homeopathists it's hard to know whether they believe that their treatment actually works (despite all evidence to the contrary, despite basic science) then that's incompetence. If they know that it doesn't work, and keep on selling it anyway - then that's fraud.
- We don't know whether any given homeopathist is incompetent or fraudulent...and it would be wrong to assign "fraud" to any one particular individualy or organization with out some WP:RS that's specific to them.
- The comments above are broadly related to the entire business of Homeopathy...and it's hard to assign terms like "fraud" to an entire group.
- Without doubt, there is some little old lady someplace handing out bottles of shaken up water to her friends, claiming that they are a miraculous cure for whatever because her sister Betsy got better after taking it. She isn't a fraud because she's unaware of the science behind it all...she's merely incompetent. However, if we were to find that Boiron (manufacturers of homeopathic treatments) had sent an internal memo to all sales staff saying "Whatever you do, don't tell our customers about all of these credible reports about Homeopathy not working, we must never let them find out about that."...then you could level an accusation of fraud.
- But absent that information - we can't say.
- So what does it mean when you say "Homeopathy is fraudulant" when clearly some practitioners are merely incompetent? Since we're not in a position to make that call, we should simply defer to quotes from WP:RS on the subject.
- SteveBaker (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Can't figure out why edit was reverted?
I'm not sure why this edit was reverted by someone who NEVER contributes to this article. All the edit was going to do was add "Alternative Medicine" as a category, which I'm not sure why that would be removed. Homeopathy is described as an alternative medicine, and this article is in the Alternative Medicine wikiproject. Well, we could argue for days whether "Alternative Medicine" is an appropriate descriptor for any of this pseudoscience, since it's not medicine at all. Unless pretending to be medicine is medicine. I've always liked Bullshit as the proper descriptor of Alternative Medicine. Since I've never seen a discussion like that, I think the revert should be reverted. And the dude who was patrolling around thinking he's being useful, ought to actually read some of the article. I bet he wants to be an admin or something. Bah. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think the answer is that you do not link to articles in "See also" when they are linked in the article itself. "Alternative Medicine" is linked in the lede. I was about to check that when I saw the link had been reverted. However, I think that should have been explained in the edit summary. We do not want to discourage people from editing. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I missed that. I thought he was reverting a category. But I agree, if some random editor is going to revert shit, he/she/they/it ought to spend the 5 seconds it takes to explain it in the edit summary. Oh well. Not a big deal. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
2 kinds of fraud
Homeopathy is characterized by false beliefs. But also by fraud by the promoter who knows it does not heal, and contains only water. There are two different kinds of fraud going on. The first is the claim to have efficacy in healing, when the marketer knows there is none. The second kind is pure marketing fraud. Bottles will have different labels when the marketer knows they contain exactly the same thing . There is not much information in this article about this second kind of fraud, which is characteristic of homeopathy in a different way than other alt med. Editors familiar with the vast literature of homeopathy might want to review it to add sources for content on this kind of homeopathy fraud. FloraWilde (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it's bad to sell something that you know doesn't work...and it's pretty nasty to sell something as a wonderful advance in medicine that you merely guess might work without fully testing it. The former is fraud, but the latter is merely incompetence. I'm not sure which of those two things each Homeopathic treatment vendor is guilty of - and I don't see any reliable sources that show which it is - and you might need to do this determination on a case-by-case basis. Crying "fraud" is an overstatement of what we know here. Now, if someone could find and publish a memo from inside a homeopathic treatment manufacturer that clearly implicated them in one or the other of these things - then we might have something to say here. But absent some investigative journalism...who knows?
- But you're also saying that it's fraudulent to offer the same treatment for two different diseases? That's hardly unreasonable - and mainstream drug companies do it all the time. Aspirin is sold both as a pain reliever, as a fever reducer, as an anti-inflammatory and as an antiplatelet agent to reduce the risk of heart attacks. That particular drug does indeed do all four of those things. If you just label it "Aspirin - for whatever" - then people wouldn't know when to buy it. So we end up with "Bayer Advanced Headache Relief" and "Bayer Heart Health Regimen". It's useful labeling.
- I understand the desire to pile more guilt onto the idiots who sell Homeopathic 'treatments' - but let's try to stay within the bounds of fairness and truth.
- SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am guessing that Flora means that, since a large number of homoeopathic "remedies" are chemically indistinguishable from water, they are effectively the same thing labelled differently. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with you - but it's no different from chemically indistinguishable Aspirin being labelled differently for use as a headache cure and a means for reducing the risk of heart attacks. I can't accept that as "Fraud".
- SteveBaker (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm actually kind of shocked no end user of Homeopathy has ever sued a practitioner for fraud, in the legal sense, after learning about its lack of efficacy. Aside from such a ruling we can't come close to using the word fraud in Wikipedia's voice. Though if a notable expert used it it could be attributable in a quotation. But that would be just the more prosaic meaning of the word, used commonly to describe anyone from politicians to sports figures caught in any hypocritical act. It's probably best to avoid terms whose common use and legal use aren't easily discernible without an impeccibale RS. Capeo (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am guessing that Flora means that, since a large number of homoeopathic "remedies" are chemically indistinguishable from water, they are effectively the same thing labelled differently. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- I can't speak specifically with regards to homeopathy, but the more clever purveyors of alternative medicines in the United States are careful to never actually make claims that would subject them to charges fraud. These companies seem to always have shills prepared to provide glowing online reviews of how the pills cured everything from renal failure to erectile dysfunction, and thus obviates the companies' need to make any claims themselves. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- "I'm actually kind of shocked no end user of Homeopathy has ever sued a practitioner for fraud". In respond to that comment, yes, they have been sued and Boirin lost. Boiron makes Oscillococcinum which is for flu and they could not defend themselves with respect to the active ingredient. The issue was that the active ingredient was not detectable. Anyway, the reality is that you cannot save people from themselves. There is always some anti-pharmaceutical company guy who thinks they are all evil money making schemes and Boiron and HomeoCan and such are the good guys. Vmelkon (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- It seems like you'd have reasonable grounds for complaint if it says that it contains oscillococcinum (ground duck liver) and there is none in the bottle. If you bought a can of chicken soup which had no detectible trace of chicken in it - and especially if you could show that they quite deliberately made sure there wasn't any in there(!) - then you'd have grounds to sue - right? I guess the question is whether they do actually list the duck liver as an "ingredient". (That said, when you buy a can of "Pork and Beans" here in the USA, the amount of pork in it comes close to being a homeopathic dose!) SteveBaker (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Homeopathic medicine for acute cough in upper respiratory tract infections and acute bronchitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
They "concluded that the homeopathic syrup employed in the study was able to effectively reduce cough severity and sputum viscosity, thereby representing a valid remedy for the management of acute cough induced by URTIs.--BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
"most frequently used CAM therapy for children in Europe"
I reverted this edit as I don't see how the sources that were cited support this statement.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885188/ this source only mentions Scotland, and does not explicitly say that homeopathy is used more than any other CAM treatment, just that there was a substantial amount of its use, doesn't seem to contrast homeopathy with any other CAM methods either.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15948942 this source also only mentions Scotland and also does not seem to contrast the prevalence of homeopathy vs other CAM methods.
http://www.ccrhindia.org/dossier/content/page4.html this source does indeed support the statement I reverted but I have doubts of the reliability of the publisher, the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH), which is in India. The sources they use to cite their statement have similar problems: of the 6 sources they cite, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 4 are from Germany, 1 is from Norway, 1 is from Scotland. none of them explicitly support the CCRH's statement. 2 of them (1 and 6) do actually say that homeopathy is the most used CAM treatment but only for pediatric oncology patients, and these were also both from Germany. I simply don't see enough from the sources they use to support their statement that "Studies have identified Homoeopathy to be the most frequently used CAM therapy for children in European countries" and do not trust the CCRH enough to take their word for it. Cannolis (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you cannolis, I will edit it accordingily (scotland instead of Europe and remove CCRH reference)Drpjkurian (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't bothered to read the sources but before you change it to say Scotland, Drpjkurian, make sure they actually support what you intend to add. From what I read above they don't.--Daffydavid (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. The first source just says that homeopathy is in use in Scotland and does seem to be on the rise, and then invites a critical review of this increase. The second one also just says it's used in pediatrics, albeit at a low level, and then questions whether or not the practitioners are fully aware of what is in the homeopathic remedies and when they are indicated. Neither one says that homeopathy is used more than any other CAM method. Cannolis (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- They are both based on figures from over a decade ago, so things may have changed since then, for example NHS Highland decided to withdraw funding for homoeopathy in 2010, and NHS Lothian in 2013. Brunton (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. The first source just says that homeopathy is in use in Scotland and does seem to be on the rise, and then invites a critical review of this increase. The second one also just says it's used in pediatrics, albeit at a low level, and then questions whether or not the practitioners are fully aware of what is in the homeopathic remedies and when they are indicated. Neither one says that homeopathy is used more than any other CAM method. Cannolis (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
India
From what I understand, homeopathy is very popular and widely practiced in India. I don't see any mention of this in the article. If true, isn't it possible that there is a large body of material published on this subject by Indian publishing houses? Many Indian publishers do not distribute much of their materials outside of the sub-continent. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- See the "Regulation and prevalence" section. Brunton (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Study suggests that "homoeopathy could enhance anatomical and functional fracture healing"
"Faster healing was reported in the homeopathy group by week 9 following injury, including significant improvement in fracture line (p < 0.0001), fracture edge (p<0.0001), callous formation (p< 0.05) and fracture union (p< 0.0001) in comparison to placebo. There was also lower use of analgesics and less self-reported pain in the homeopathy group."--BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 03:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it is useful for the article --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 03:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- As per the last primary study you posted, see WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Meeting ? It is a published paper-- --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Did you not read it? At the head it says "This article is part of the supplement: Scientific Abstracts Presented at the International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health 2012" and "Oral presentation". Brunton (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is still evidence. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the word "evidence" means what you think it means. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Scientific evidence. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the word "evidence" means what you think it means. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is still evidence. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Did you not read it? At the head it says "This article is part of the supplement: Scientific Abstracts Presented at the International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health 2012" and "Oral presentation". Brunton (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Meeting ? It is a published paper-- --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Bias or accurate information about homeopathy
I think that the article summarizes wrongly the available data - concluding that homeopathy is placebo. Several other users say similar things - and from what I see they are threatened ( that they will be banned ) to stop even discussing the matter in the talk page. IS this allowed in wikipedia ? I provided appropriate sources above. --John19322 (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I see what you mean John. I for one, feel that I have been hounded off even this Talk page!—Khabboos (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The article summarizes the scientific consensus correctly, and no editor is "hounded off" the page. However, it is valuable to first a) read the article entirely and b) check the archives before starting the same discussion again and again. As a sidenote i find it curious that every n days some new editor shows up and brings up the same old arguments again. Rka001 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Technophant also feels that he is being 'wikihounded'. May be you can tell us where to complain.—Khabboos (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- A1candidate thinks that a user is accusing him of having a COI which is completely untrue.—Khabboos (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, Technophant took their complaint to WP:ANI, and that worked out really well for them, perhaps you should try it, too? Yobol (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I can see A1candidate has made only three edits to this talk page (all within the last couple of weeks) and one edit to the article (a few months ago), and Technophant doesn't seem to have edited here at all. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that either of them is being threatened with, or accused of, anything in connection with this talk page, or discouraged from editing here. Brunton (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is that this question of bias in the article has been debated a bazillion times. It's been pushed up the Wikipedia hierarchy of dispute resolution all the way to the very, very top. So now it's like a lawyer who's lost his final appeal to the Supreme Court...you're done, there is nowhere left to go. The conclusion of all of that debate is that within the rules governing Wikipedia, this article is just fine the way it is.
However, the inability of the pro-Homeopathy crowd to accept this decision results in people coming here at roughly n-day intervals (n~=12) to dispute it. While it's normally very VERY good to come to debate neutrality and reliability in articles, there comes a point when the question has been answered, fully and completely, and further debate is unproductive. We're well beyond that point. This article is 100% acceptable within Wikipedia rules - and it's never going to change in that regard until/unless the rules of Wikipedia change in some dramatic and totally unforseen way - or there is some major mainstream breakthrough that shows that everything that's previously been said about Homeopathy is wrong.
For that reason, continually returning here to attempt to start off another debate is (in Wikipedia parlance) "DISRUPTIVE EDITING". Again, in most articles, you can get away with a little disruption - but here, because it's been discussed, re-discussed, pushed up the hierarchy all the way to ArbCom and back - we have been officially labelled as being under "discretionary sanctions" - which means that we have a very low tolerance for disruptive behavior on this specific talk page and any others where Homeopathy is discussed.
That's explained in several ways and in several places here - and I'm telling you it again now.
So: Persist in doing this - and you'll almost certainly be banned.
The ONLY ways to change this article to be more like what you want are either:
- Get the rules underpinning the whole of Wikipedia changed. (And this is most certainly the wrong forum to discuss making that happen.)
- Find new, mainstream research, acceptable under the WP:MEDRS rules that clearly and unambiguously overturns a good fraction of the WP:MEDRS references that we already have. To be VERY clear about this...before you go posting yet another reference - it's up to YOU PERSONALLY to read back through our archives to be sure that the paper you are about to push under our noses hasn't already been discussed...AND for YOU, PERSONALLY to be sure that it's acceptable under the WP:MEDRS guidelines.
If you persist in just randomly demanding "justice" - or re-posting the same arguments and the same, rejected theories, papers, articles, etc - then because your actions are disruptive to people who are trying to improve this article according to Wikipedias rules - it is highly likely that YOU WILL BE BANNED. You can see how this has already happened to at least one other editor - so be assured that the ArbCom decision has teeth here.
So, there's your warning...you are no longer unaware of the rules..now please go away and leave us to get on with writing an encyclopedia.
SteveBaker (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Incidentally, @John19322:, you mentioned that you posted sources above on the page. Under what account? As far as I can tell, you only created the John19322 account a few days ago, and you've only made one edit (to start this thread) to this talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Probably got a bit confused as to which account he was using.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Whomever wrote the above rant ending with "So, there's your warning...you are no longer unaware of the rules..now please go away and leave us to get on with writing an encyclopedia", you are a perfect example of what is wrong in the world: a stubbornness of a god-complex and inability to listen to civilized discourse on ever-changing subjects. That is what writing an encyclopedia should be about. There is no final word on ANYTHING. If you think it's all been figured out, I feel quite awful for you and for all of the negativity you are spreading into this world. Shame on you, and SHAME ON YOU FOR THREATENING PEOPLE on wikipedia. "There's your warning" indeed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.186.123.88 (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're misinformed. Yes, there most certainly is a final word - and that's ArbCom - and they've spoken. Their rulings are authoritative and have teeth. I'm not threatening you - I'm merely telling you what has been ruled upon - and by people far more experienced and capable in the ways of the wiki than me.
- We have listened to these arguments, many, many times. They've been taken through all the layers of Wikipedia's dispute resolution, all the way up to ArbCom - which is the very last step. ArbCom have ruled that the way this article discusses Homeopathy is the way Wikipedia's rules say it should be written. In the face of that, further discussion along those same lines is pointless, and it's been repeated so many times that it's become disruptive, and that's no longer going to be tolerated by edict from the highest authority we have around here.
- If, on the other hand, you have something genuinely new to bring to the table - some line of thought that has yet to be considered - and you've checked back through the archives and are quite certain it's not already been discussed, then you're very welcome to open a debate along those lines.
- SteveBaker (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
On that note Steve could I comment on the information regarding preperation, this is I feel needs more explanation than that presently presented Consider changing to Mortar and pestle is used for grinding insoluble solids, including Silica and Hepar sulphuris calcareum (an impure sulphide of calcium prepared by burning in a crucible, the white interior of oyster shells with pure flowers of sulphur), into homeopathic remedies" (----)opps should be my mistake (JoeEverett (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC))
- That's tricky. You can't really say that this technique is correct and that technique is incorrect when neither technique is actually having any effect on the patient. It doesn't matter a damn how you grind up the thing that you're going to dilute into oblivion. What makes matters worse is that there is no "One True Way" for homeopathists - they don't all agree about how to do things. So even getting a reference for "Homeopathists claim that one should grind solids like this and not like that" is difficult. SteveBaker (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
A conversation on the Homeopathy's basis and logic can be seen here. It might be worthwhile to see it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.217.229.18 (talk) 05:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Study published in Rheumatology
CONCLUSIONS: This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy. Using a broad selection of remedies and the flexible LM dose (1/50 000 dilution factor) series, the present study demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia.--BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe this study qualifies since it is published in a very reputable journal ? --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- READ WP:MEDRS. We will not cite cherry-picked primary studies in this article, and your repeated posting of such studies here is a complete waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought it would be interesting for the editors of this article to be aware about research in Homeopathy published in first rate journals. If the editors do not agree with what the study shows - for whatever reason- please feel free to disregard it. There are also negative studies for other conditions. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you study a completely ineffective therapy enough times, you will be able to point to a positive result. At the usual p values, if 100 studies of a completely ineffective therapy are carried out, you'd expect that about 5 would show that the therapy is effective. That's why replicability is important, and why cherry picking studies is dishonest. - Nunh-huh 20:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- You cannot replicate individualized homeopathy. And I cannot say that a first rate journal like Rheumatology which published the paper is dishonest. They might be. I dont know. Do you? --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- We are reaching the point of WP:NOTFORUM concerns. This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic, but of suggestions to improve the article. As the proposed source does not meet MEDRS, it should not be included as a source, and further general discussions about it would not be appropriate here. Yobol (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree: Nunh-huh started an irrelevant discussion about first rate journals tendencies to be honest or dishonest. I just found the paper ----as I said ----if for whatever reason you dont like it you dont have to cite it. Thanks. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought you might be educable. The reading comprehension evidenced here suggests otherwise. Misrepresent me all you want here, then, I won't be responding. Just don't take silence as agreement. - Nunh-huh 23:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree: Nunh-huh started an irrelevant discussion about first rate journals tendencies to be honest or dishonest. I just found the paper ----as I said ----if for whatever reason you dont like it you dont have to cite it. Thanks. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- We are reaching the point of WP:NOTFORUM concerns. This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic, but of suggestions to improve the article. As the proposed source does not meet MEDRS, it should not be included as a source, and further general discussions about it would not be appropriate here. Yobol (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- You cannot replicate individualized homeopathy. And I cannot say that a first rate journal like Rheumatology which published the paper is dishonest. They might be. I dont know. Do you? --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you study a completely ineffective therapy enough times, you will be able to point to a positive result. At the usual p values, if 100 studies of a completely ineffective therapy are carried out, you'd expect that about 5 would show that the therapy is effective. That's why replicability is important, and why cherry picking studies is dishonest. - Nunh-huh 20:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- BenGoldberg2014, it isn't a question of not citing it 'because we don't like it' - per WP:MEDRS we cannot cherry-pick individual primary studies for inclusion just because they report positive results. An article as controversial as this must be based on the best sources for any claims of efficacy - which means using systematic reviews and other meta-analysis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a hypothetical question, of the sort one might encounter on day 1 of an undergraduate course on Bayesian statistics. Suppose that a treatment has a prior probability of effectiveness of 0.01% (this is exceedingly generous for homeopathy, where the prior probability of effectiveness is far closer to 0% than to 0.01%). Now suppose a randomized clinical trial is performed to test that treatment, and reports a significant positive finding with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 80% (as in the Bell trial). What is the likelihood that homeopathy actually works? What is the likelihood that the study results are a false-positive?
As an aside, the Bell paper is a classic example of overfitting. When you have only about 25 observations per arm, performing a multivariate analysis with 4 covariates (I think; the methods section is quite vague and opaque) is questionable. Interestingly, the study was negative with respect to its primary endpoint (tender point count) until it was adjusted in the multivariate model. I think these findings are very likely to be the result of overfitting, and are extremely unlikely to replicate. MastCell Talk 01:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a hypothetical question, of the sort one might encounter on day 1 of an undergraduate course on Bayesian statistics. Suppose that a treatment has a prior probability of effectiveness of 0.01% (this is exceedingly generous for homeopathy, where the prior probability of effectiveness is far closer to 0% than to 0.01%). Now suppose a randomized clinical trial is performed to test that treatment, and reports a significant positive finding with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 80% (as in the Bell trial). What is the likelihood that homeopathy actually works? What is the likelihood that the study results are a false-positive?
- BenGoldberg2014, it isn't a question of not citing it 'because we don't like it' - per WP:MEDRS we cannot cherry-pick individual primary studies for inclusion just because they report positive results. An article as controversial as this must be based on the best sources for any claims of efficacy - which means using systematic reviews and other meta-analysis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
( This was not the topic - I m afraid -but if you wish and you think is appropriate in this space or in your talk page -----start another thread to discuss the Bell paper and make sure to explain why the 4 covariates are too….. many? Who is saying that they are too many and why? ).
If reputable journals publish papers on the effectiveness of Homeopathy , it is common sense that the editors of an encyclopedia would like to consider citing it. ----Thats why I posted it. As I said feel free to ignore it -especially if it conflicts with the article’s conclusions about homeopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenGoldberg2014 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- A simple question. Have you read WP:MEDRS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have read MEDRS. Rheumatology is a peer-reviewed medical journal. I thought these kinds of sources were considered first-rate. What's the problem with this one? The objections I'm seeing above, especially the one from MastCell is, "I don't agree with the paper's conclusions, so therefore, we can't use it." Am I wrong? Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you are. Primary studies aren't worth much in science until they are replicated and confirmed, which is why we prefer metastudies, especially when extraordinary claims are made. Remember that about one in twenty primary studies is going to be in error, even if the design and methodology are correct. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- So, You are saying that a first rate peer-reviewed medical journal like Rheumatology publishes ......scientifically ....unworthy studies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenGoldberg2014 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- I said nothing of the sort, and find it rude of you to try to put words in my mouth. Read WP:MEDRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- So, You are saying that a first rate peer-reviewed medical journal like Rheumatology publishes ......scientifically ....unworthy studies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenGoldberg2014 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you are. Primary studies aren't worth much in science until they are replicated and confirmed, which is why we prefer metastudies, especially when extraordinary claims are made. Remember that about one in twenty primary studies is going to be in error, even if the design and methodology are correct. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- You did. You wrote "Primary studies aren't worth much in science until they are replicated and confirmed" -. Does a first rate journal typically publishes unworthy studies? That was my question.--BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your "question" was a dishonest paraphrase of what I wrote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well - everybody can see what you wrote. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, they can - and anyone can see that you intentionally misrepresented what Dominus Vobisdu wrote... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Test for your honesty - both of you. : primary studies published in Rheumatology are worth or " they aren't worth much in science until they are replicated and confirmed". Pick one. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- They are worthy of being published in Rheumatology - as primary sources, for further research. They are however of next-to-no significance in determining whether the overwhelming scientific consensus - that homeopathy doesn't work - is wrong. That needs the sort of systematic review that Wikipedia relies on for content. And as for 'honesty', why have you repeatedly asked us to cite papers giving positive results, while ignoring the mountains of papers giving negative ones?: Is that 'honest'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- They are worthy for Rheumatology to be published but not for wikipedia to even ....cited ---- since they don't concur with wikipedia's conclusion that homeopathy does not work? --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Given that you appear to be incapable of a rational discussion, and instead repeatedly resort to gross misrepresentation of anything anyone else writes, I am no longer going to bother responding. Wikipedia policy has been explained to you, and isn't open to negotiation here - if you don't like it, you are free go elsewhere. Meanwhile, this article will not cite cherry-picked primary source papers selected for no other purpose than to promote homoeopathy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- That was a really rational argument. Thanks.
- Given that you appear to be incapable of a rational discussion, and instead repeatedly resort to gross misrepresentation of anything anyone else writes, I am no longer going to bother responding. Wikipedia policy has been explained to you, and isn't open to negotiation here - if you don't like it, you are free go elsewhere. Meanwhile, this article will not cite cherry-picked primary source papers selected for no other purpose than to promote homoeopathy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- They are worthy for Rheumatology to be published but not for wikipedia to even ....cited ---- since they don't concur with wikipedia's conclusion that homeopathy does not work? --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- They are worthy of being published in Rheumatology - as primary sources, for further research. They are however of next-to-no significance in determining whether the overwhelming scientific consensus - that homeopathy doesn't work - is wrong. That needs the sort of systematic review that Wikipedia relies on for content. And as for 'honesty', why have you repeatedly asked us to cite papers giving positive results, while ignoring the mountains of papers giving negative ones?: Is that 'honest'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Test for your honesty - both of you. : primary studies published in Rheumatology are worth or " they aren't worth much in science until they are replicated and confirmed". Pick one. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, they can - and anyone can see that you intentionally misrepresented what Dominus Vobisdu wrote... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well - everybody can see what you wrote. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your "question" was a dishonest paraphrase of what I wrote. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Cla68: what is the problem? "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" as it says in bold in the lede of WP:MEDRS. We know that supporters of homoeopathy can cherry-pick from the mountain of primary-research papers on the subject to find the inevitable positive results that elementary statistics will demonstrate can be explained purely by chance. Per WP:NPOV (which is the policy underlying the thinking of WP:MEDRS), citing such papers while failing to also cite the much larger number of papers with negative results would simply be unacceptable. And we don't need to cite either. Instead, we use the types of source that WP:MEDRS recommends - systematic reviews and the like. We are obliged per WP:NPOV policy to summarise current scientific consensus in this article, and the current consensus is entirely clear and unambiguous - homoeopathy doesn't work. Adding cherry-picked primary sources to try to demonstrate the contrary is intellectually dishonest, and unworthy of anything which claims to be an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Accusing anyone here of being a homeopathy "supporter" is an unnecessary personalization of this discussion and unproductive. All of us here swear to be in compliance with WP:NPOV or else we shouldn't be here, right? Now, the MEDRS guideline states, "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study." So, what's the problem with mentioning this study in the article if we qualify it as being from a single study, as MEDRS suggests? You asked us to go by MEDRS, so that's what I'm trying to do in the spirit of compromise. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- How exactly is including particular primary sources cherry-picked solely for their results a 'compromise'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study." , so 62 people with only 56 completing the trial is "a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results?"--Daffydavid (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Cla68: because that would violate the first line of WP:MEDPRI: Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk", contradict, or counter the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. The source in question is nothing like a "large" clinical trial and as noted above, its results are not surprising. Out of 20 P=0.05 studies, we expect about 1 of them will reflect a false positive. VQuakr (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you tell us more about the previous 19 studies on the subject - ? and their conclusions? --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you just read the article, particularly the section, "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy"? Failing that, the 2005 Lancet review (PMID 16125589) referenced in that section looked at 110 primary homeopathy studies. This is why we use secondary sources, not primary studies. VQuakr (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you tell us more about the previous 19 studies on the subject - ? and their conclusions? --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the occasional unconfirmed primary study that does show positive results pales in comparison to the heaps upon heaps of confirmed studies that show none, so WP:UNDUE applies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Accusing anyone here of being a homeopathy "supporter" is an unnecessary personalization of this discussion and unproductive. All of us here swear to be in compliance with WP:NPOV or else we shouldn't be here, right? Now, the MEDRS guideline states, "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study." So, what's the problem with mentioning this study in the article if we qualify it as being from a single study, as MEDRS suggests? You asked us to go by MEDRS, so that's what I'm trying to do in the spirit of compromise. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- ( I agree- especially if one choses to not cite the positive ones ( even these who appear in reputable journals) the conclusion is that there is no evidence that homeopathy works). But I would like to hear more about the 19 studies who showed negative in homeopathy for the specific condition vs the one published in Rheumatology which shows positive. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Irrelevant question. The relevant question is "where are the numerous studies that confirm this one?" Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- How is this irrelevant - s/he said " Out of 20 P=0.05 studies, we expect about 1 of them will reflect a false positive." I m asking him/her to show me the remaining 19 showing negative in the specific condition. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Here's one that says there aren't any. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Irrelevant question. The relevant question is "where are the numerous studies that confirm this one?" Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- @BenGoldberg2014: you say, "if one choses to not cite the positive ones ... the conclusion is that there is no evidence that homeopathy works". Not a conclusion that is presented in the article, which explicitly states (in the lede, in fact), that "some clinical trials produce positive results". Your concern is already addressed in the article. Brunton (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- ( I agree- especially if one choses to not cite the positive ones ( even these who appear in reputable journals) the conclusion is that there is no evidence that homeopathy works). But I would like to hear more about the 19 studies who showed negative in homeopathy for the specific condition vs the one published in Rheumatology which shows positive. --BenGoldberg2014 (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why are you all entertaining a discussion of wp:SYN? The reason for secondary sources is clear, we don't need to keep rerunning the discussion every time a new editor comes aboard. That is why we have policy pages. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- MEDRS, as I quoted above, allows for the citation of a single study and even provides an example of how to do it. So, if you all had no intention of following MEDRS, then why did you direct us to read it? That wasn't very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read the rest of WP:MEDPRI, and especially the sentences that follow immediately after the example of how to cite a single study? It says, "After enough time has passed for a review in the area to be published, the review should be cited in preference to the primary study." And, "If no review on the subject is published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed.". The study in question is a decade old, and there are plenty of secondary sources available (and already cited by the article). See the opening sentence of WP:MEDPRI: "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk", contradict, or counter the conclusions of reliable secondary sources." Brunton (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- And, that's why you state that it is from a single study, so the reader knows to take that into account, as MEDRS makes clear. Again, if you guys aren't going to follow MEDRS, then why are you directing editors to read it? And, if there is one study in a peer-reviewed, academic journal which perhaps validates Homeopathy as a treatment, then why wouldn't we want our readers to be aware of that? None of us here are taking sides on this topic, are we? Cla68 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- MEDRS is explicit that we generally don't use primary studies for medical content at all. We especially don't use them against the grain of strong sources, as has already been pointed out above. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't explicit, because it actually gives an example of how to use a single, primary source in an article. Have you read MEDRS? Again, if you guys don't want to follow MEDRS, then why are you trying to cite it as the reason not to include this peer-reviewed, academic study in this article? Cla68 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It explicitly prohibits its use to juxtapose against secondary sources, as is being proposed in this case. MEDRS says "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk", contradict, or counter the conclusions of reliable secondary sources." This source is not reliable for the purpose as proposed. Yobol (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is explicit. To quote: "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content" - it's in the lede, in bold. The bit of the guideline you are misunderstanding/cherry-picking is qualified by "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning ...". No such worthy research has been mentioned. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study, for example:" This study exactly fits this exemption. It has surprising results and is a single study. So, let's propose wording to include this source in the article, since we all agree that MEDRS should be followed. Cla68 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why are you ignoring explicit prohibition against using single primary studies to debunk secondary studies? Yobol (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Cla68: you are – for whatever reason – failing to comprehend WP:MEDRS to the point where it is now getting disruptive. Other editors have explained it to you repeatedly now. I'll not be contributing further to this section. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, while it is disruptive, I think it's more due to the fact that Cla68 assumes (wrongly) that scholarship in the sciences works like scholarship in the humanities. I notice he does a lot of fine work with articles on history, for example. He's just a fish out of water when it comes to science, especially in controversial areas like this and creationism. Unfortunately, it takes up a lot of editor time to explain the policies to him, and I still don't think he gets it. Cla68, there is a point where good faith blundering becomes indistinguishable from garden-variety trolling, and this is not the first time you've crossed that line. When you have five editors who are very experienced in editing controversial science-related topics tell you that your reading of policy is wrong, it would best to listen harder and examine where you might have gone wrong. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- "If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study, for example:" This study exactly fits this exemption. It has surprising results and is a single study. So, let's propose wording to include this source in the article, since we all agree that MEDRS should be followed. Cla68 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't explicit, because it actually gives an example of how to use a single, primary source in an article. Have you read MEDRS? Again, if you guys don't want to follow MEDRS, then why are you trying to cite it as the reason not to include this peer-reviewed, academic study in this article? Cla68 (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- MEDRS is explicit that we generally don't use primary studies for medical content at all. We especially don't use them against the grain of strong sources, as has already been pointed out above. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- And, that's why you state that it is from a single study, so the reader knows to take that into account, as MEDRS makes clear. Again, if you guys aren't going to follow MEDRS, then why are you directing editors to read it? And, if there is one study in a peer-reviewed, academic journal which perhaps validates Homeopathy as a treatment, then why wouldn't we want our readers to be aware of that? None of us here are taking sides on this topic, are we? Cla68 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Did you read the rest of WP:MEDPRI, and especially the sentences that follow immediately after the example of how to cite a single study? It says, "After enough time has passed for a review in the area to be published, the review should be cited in preference to the primary study." And, "If no review on the subject is published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed.". The study in question is a decade old, and there are plenty of secondary sources available (and already cited by the article). See the opening sentence of WP:MEDPRI: "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk", contradict, or counter the conclusions of reliable secondary sources." Brunton (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- MEDRS, as I quoted above, allows for the citation of a single study and even provides an example of how to do it. So, if you all had no intention of following MEDRS, then why did you direct us to read it? That wasn't very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Meta-analysis on Galphimia glauca
I have found a meta-analysis which claims to find "A significant superiority of Galphimia glauca over placebo". Since its conclusions are in conflict with much of what this article currently says, and because this page is subject to discretionary sanctions, I have decided to post it here to see if there is consensus on whether it is MEDRS compliant or not. [3] Jinkinson talk to me 02:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- A 1996 article in a fringe journal? Not any sort of RS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Clinical studies of the medical efficacy of homeopathy have been criticised by some homeopaths as being irrelevant because they do not test "classical homeopathy"
I don't think the source cited for this sentence under the Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy subsection of Efficacy supports it. It doesn't mention classical homeopathy. Would rewriting it to say something along the lines of "some homeopaths describe placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials as "not a fitting research tool" to study homeopathy, although such studies are considered the gold standard for clinical trials" be better? Or would that be kind of wonky for the section it's in. Cannolis (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- It would be a banal example of special pleading, and not add anything to the article. Quacks often resort to special pleading. Nothing noteworthy about that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree that it's special pleading, and ridiculous. But, as the source doesn't say what that particular sentence does, should I just remove the sentence and modify the following sentence accordingly? Not sure what the sentence serves to say in the section anyway except that homeopaths don't like RCTs, which I'm not sure should matter. Cannolis (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Have at it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree that it's special pleading, and ridiculous. But, as the source doesn't say what that particular sentence does, should I just remove the sentence and modify the following sentence accordingly? Not sure what the sentence serves to say in the section anyway except that homeopaths don't like RCTs, which I'm not sure should matter. Cannolis (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is an "escape hatch" argument. However you test homeopathy, if the results are not what the homeopaths want, they will complain that it's not "proper" homeopathy. In fact there have been RCTs that compare classical homeopathy with an acknowledged placebo (all homeopathy trials are placebo v. placebo of course), doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keq234 is one example. The authors don't seem to have realised that's what they proved, though. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Veterinary homeopathy
A new systematic review is out:
- Mathie RT, Clausen J (2014). "Veterinary homeopathy: systematic review of medical conditions studied by randomised placebo-controlled trials". Vet. Rec. (Systematic review). 175 (15): 373–81. doi:10.1136/vr.101767. PMID 25324413.
Edzard Ernst discusses it here. The review could be useful for updating the article. Does anybody have access to the full text (I don't yet)? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- The argument "Animals are affected, so it cannot be a placebo effect" is nonsense. See Clever Hans. If a horse can be influenced by unconscious signals, an animal can be influenced by unconscious revelation of whether "correct" homeopathy is used. However, the paper could be used if someone verified the actual text. Abstracts and third-party (even Ernst) summaries could be mistaken. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that the trial of prophylaxis of porcine diarrhoea may be the one discussed here, but can't be certain without access to the full text. Brunton (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I always thought that the alleged success of veterinary homeopathy was just farming confirmation bias. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe the cows or pigs or whatever were affected by the thoughts of the farmers who were holding the bottle ------ without knowing even themselves whether or not it was real the whatever remedy---- according to the study. I have heard stories like that - it might be true and I think this suggestion points to a new direction in animal cognition. --TineIta (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a forum. What 'you think' is of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake. I should have objected to the implication that we should use the title of Ernst's review for the reason that it is unreliable, rather than that it is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Unreliable ? It is not a reputable journal? --TineIta (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- My mistake. I should have objected to the implication that we should use the title of Ernst's review for the reason that it is unreliable, rather than that it is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The journal seems fine. What would be the proposed add? Under veterinary use, we could edit the sentence, The use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is controversial; the little existing research on the subject is not of a high enough scientific standard to provide reliable data on efficacy.[118] to something like, The use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is controversial; the little existing research on the subject is not of a high enough scientific standard to provide reliable data on efficacy.[118] In 2014, a systematic review of 18 primary veterinary homeopathic trials identified two studies of sufficient quality to be reliable, and their results conflicted.[new ref]? VQuakr (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- My problem here is that it's no different fomr the use of hoemopathy anywhere. Wherever it's used, there's no reason to think it should work, no way it can work, and no good evidence it does work. False positives in different areas don't change a thing. Guy (Help!) 08:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- How did the text of the edit I proposed above "change" anything other than adding another data point for the readers? VQuakr (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't read the full paper but assuming the abstract is a fair summary, I think the neutral way to present this is simply to assert something like "Homeopathy is used in veterinary medicine[ref]. There is no good evidence that it is effective.[new ref]". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't change anything, my only objection is that it's redundant. That's all. I don't have a strong opinion either way really, I am just appalled at the senseless waste fo time and energy by these quacks. Guy (Help!) 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are being quite ......metaphysical guy. Whatever positives results appear they are false ? -- then --you dont even need to read the paper. Uh ! these quacks who manage to publish in reputable journals -- always false positive results. This is really a mystery, --TineIta (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- How did the text of the edit I proposed above "change" anything other than adding another data point for the readers? VQuakr (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Guy said it is positive. Strange. --TineIta (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's how it's spun by homeopaths. Any member of the reality-based community is well aware that no study of homeopathy has yet been produced which either refutes the null hypothesis or is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of homeopathy as an inert treatment. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Guy said it is positive. Strange. --TineIta (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"evidence of two new phenomena, both totally unpredicted, in homeopathic dilutions" ?
--TineIta (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Read WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- That might almost be reelvant if there was any evidence that like cures like, or that it's persistent, or that it's transferrable via the intermediary of a sugar pill, or that it would survivie the enzymes of the mouth and be absorbed into the body, ior that anything in that quantity would have any effect whatsoever even if it were transferred to the body, or... well, you get the idea. This falls short of filling the evidence gap. By around 99.9999999% Guy (Help!) 16:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- The authors and the sources ,who are cited as reliable in the current article, they do say that "homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), " citing their own meta analyses. Simply, the editors here chosen to ignore this fact. --TineIta (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, they do not say that. You have missed the word "if" at the start of that quotation, which makes it a hypothetical statement. The source they cite is not a meta-analysis. And this has not been ignored by the editors here, as a look at the archives of this talk page will show. Anyway, what has this got to do with the 2007 Elia paper from Homeopathy? Brunton (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- The authors and the sources ,who are cited as reliable in the current article, they do say that "homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), " citing their own meta analyses. Simply, the editors here chosen to ignore this fact. --TineIta (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- They clearly say - a statement for which there is some evidence - citing their review in a reputable journal which is again it is not cited in the article -- they suppose to say that it is all placebo. Guy said " it might almost be relevant if there was any evidence that like cures like," which exists according to Linde. And he is right --- if one chooses to ignore all the authors and reliable sources stating that there is some evidence that like cures like, then the article is correct and homeopathy is just placebo. --TineIta (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any reliable sources that like cures like TineIta. Could you provide some, or perhaps even one? It would of course revolutionise our understanding of the world as we know it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- In any event, a nine year old letter is not a reliable source for health information (or anything, much). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, all the meta analyses are almost 10 years old - Are you going to edit them out? The authors whose work is cited in the article say there is some evidence for homeopathy and they cite it themselves - look at the references of the letter-- At least one should mention their opinion. You may choose to not see it or ignore all the evidence they refer to. This is not in line with the wiki policies but - no one seems to care about them in the case of homeopathy - They just want to write it is placebo. --TineIta (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have not provided a source above, so the answer, which I shall provide for you, is "No Roxy, I cannot provide such a source" -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is what is called - I choose to not see. The authors of the letter provided them not me. They state that they there some evidence that H works for some conditions---- not me and they cite this, Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 393-399. CrossRef | PubMed, --TineIta (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's called following our relevant sourcing guidelines. To repeat, a nine year old letter is not a suitable source and we would have to rip up our WP:PAGs to use it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- So I m assuming you are removing all the 10 years old references as well ? You don't want readers to know about different points of view - even if they appear in reputable journals. Ok then - since everybody here chooses to ignore the evidence- and the sources - What I can say? Just do not pretend the article is ...neutral. --TineIta (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Using straw man argument will not help your case.--McSly (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- So I m assuming you are removing all the 10 years old references as well ? You don't want readers to know about different points of view - even if they appear in reputable journals. Ok then - since everybody here chooses to ignore the evidence- and the sources - What I can say? Just do not pretend the article is ...neutral. --TineIta (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, it's called following our relevant sourcing guidelines. To repeat, a nine year old letter is not a suitable source and we would have to rip up our WP:PAGs to use it. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is what is called - I choose to not see. The authors of the letter provided them not me. They state that they there some evidence that H works for some conditions---- not me and they cite this, Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 393-399. CrossRef | PubMed, --TineIta (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have not provided a source above, so the answer, which I shall provide for you, is "No Roxy, I cannot provide such a source" -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, all the meta analyses are almost 10 years old - Are you going to edit them out? The authors whose work is cited in the article say there is some evidence for homeopathy and they cite it themselves - look at the references of the letter-- At least one should mention their opinion. You may choose to not see it or ignore all the evidence they refer to. This is not in line with the wiki policies but - no one seems to care about them in the case of homeopathy - They just want to write it is placebo. --TineIta (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- In any event, a nine year old letter is not a reliable source for health information (or anything, much). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any reliable sources that like cures like TineIta. Could you provide some, or perhaps even one? It would of course revolutionise our understanding of the world as we know it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@TineIta: Assuming you're not just trolling, you need to read WP:MEDRS. If there were old reviews which had been superseded by better & newer reviews then sure, we would replace them (see the discussion about vets above). A mere letter to the editor, on the other hand, just does not come onto our radar. The fact it's so old is just another nail in this poor source's coffin. Older, good sources stating settled opinion are fine: one would not expect them to be replaced since they give a settled view and so research in their area has dwindled. In the case of homeopathy, the view of all good sources is aligned & settled: it's nonsense on stilts. In the event reliable sources differ on that, Wikipedia will neutrally reflect them. But, I wouldn't be holding your breath ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- "the view of all good sources is aligned & settled: it's nonsense on stilts."???? you are joking of course,. The letter to the editor cites reviews favorable to homeopathy Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 393-399. CrossRef | PubMed They say that there is evidence for homeopathy based on these reviews. But maybe this is not enough for wikipedia. --TineIta (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, you obviously haven't read WP:MEDRS. Letters to the editor count for little here (where we have strong sources) and so are not worthy. After reading WP:MEDRS you will probably find WP:FLAT enlightening! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- You "forgot" to mention that the authors are ideologically committed to homeopathy. Feel free to cite the published proof that like cures like, or that dilution increases potency. Do be sure also to let the Swiss, British and Australian governments know, as all three have reviewed homeopathy and found it to be no better than placebo. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- We can't use the letter to the editor to support an implication that its authors have concluded that homoeopathy is effective because it states no such conclusion, in fact it says that they "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." And we can't use a narrative review that concluded that "Homeopathy is an alternative therapeutic system based on the “Principle of Similars” and the use of “minimum” doses. Homeopathy was a prominent component of 19th century health care and recently has undergone a revival in the United States and around the world. Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, 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. 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. As in all of medicine, physicians must know how to prevent patients from abandoning effective therapy for serious diseases and when to permit safe therapies even if only for their nonspecific value" to support that implication either. Using these sources together to imply that they have concluded that homoeopathy works would involve a combination of quote-mining and WP:SYN. Brunton (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- "the view of all good sources is aligned & settled: it's nonsense on stilts."???? you are joking of course,. The letter to the editor cites reviews favorable to homeopathy Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 393-399. CrossRef | PubMed They say that there is evidence for homeopathy based on these reviews. But maybe this is not enough for wikipedia. --TineIta (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- No they say it might work for specific conditions.
Also 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.
You certainly should inform the readers that opinions on homeopathy's effectiveness differs. Not just to say that it works or not . Since of course these points of view do appear in reputable journals as you can see yourself. Or you can keep this information secret - like you are doing now ---- hoping that the lazy layman would not dig and discover these points of view, And s/he will believe you. That would be a victory for the wikipedia's spirit? --TineIta (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- We are not interested in opinions or points of view. We want high quality studies in high quality journals and we want these studies to be replicated with the same results. Do you have any of these studies or just your opinion and point of view TineIta? --Daffydavid (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Are you doing your own original research ? Some authors whose work have been published in high quality journals dispute that Homeopathy is placebo and ineffective. This does not prove Homeopathy but their opinion should be appearing in the article since it is published in prominent journals. It is not my point of view , it is their point of view and you know it. --TineIta (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- The information you are asking for that some studies have shown positive results is already in the article. As a matter of fact it is in the lead 'Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[15][16] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.' So yes it is in there with its proper weight. VVikingTalkEdits 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's there too, I quote - "despite a lack of evidence of efficacy,[5][6][19] has led to homeopathy being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense,[20] quackery,[4][21][22] or a sham.[23]" - Happy? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can your provide a specific change you would like to make to the article? Such as I propose we add 'Many scientists dispute that Homeopathy is just a Placebo. With a good WP:MEDRS reference to go along with it.' The Journal of Homeopathy not really a good journal cite for making this statement, nor is a letter to an editor of the Lancet.VVikingTalkEdits 02:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't think that, "Some authors whose work have been published in high quality journals dispute that Homeopathy is placebo and ineffective.", simply because their opinion for one is just that and two it would add undue WP:WEIGHT. I asked for evidence in a clear manner in line with Wikipedia policy and you accuse me of doing original research. I suggest you go back through the comments and actually read the linked policies and understand them and stop wasting everyone's time..--Daffydavid (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I gave you the sources - you have to explain why you don't want them included. If you have no time please feel free to not participate . it is really touching though you care about the other editor's time. we really appreciate it. --TineIta (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- They can't be included as sources for a statement implying that researchers have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo because they do not say that. Read the letter. It says, "If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence). That is not a statment that homoeopathy has effects over placebo: (1) because of the word "if" at the start; (2) because a statement that there is some evidence for a proposition is not a conclusion that the proposition is true; and (3) because a statement that something works for some conditions but not others is not a statement that it has effects over placebo. In addition, it is a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed article. It also says that its authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". We can't possibly use this to imply that they have concluded that homoeopathy works. Read the conclusions of the narrative review (not just the abstract) - it is clearly saying that the evidence is not good enough to conclude that it works. You are misinterpreting these sources. Brunton (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I gave you the sources - you have to explain why you don't want them included. If you have no time please feel free to not participate . it is really touching though you care about the other editor's time. we really appreciate it. --TineIta (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No----- you are misrepresenting the sources. A neutral article should include all the points of view since they appear in reputable reliable sources. I gave the sources above. These authors dispute the conclusion that homeopathy is just placebo. No one says that this proves homeopathy but their opinion should be stated. --TineIta (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem unable to understand the fundamentals here. There is no dispute that there are proponents of homeopathy, and that they write to and (with decreasing frequency) publish in the reliable literature. We already cover that. We also cover the fact that, their opinion notwithstanding, there is no reason to think homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work other than as a placebo.
If such evidence existed, they would not need to keep writing to journals disputing the implausibility of homeopathy. Nobody writes to journals arguing that giving measurable doses of pharmacologically active compounds can have objectively testable physiological effects, because that has been proven beyond doubt.
There is not one single experiment or test of homeopathy that refutes the null hypothesis, not one single authenticated case where it can be objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever. There's also no mechanism for self-correction and no identified examples of this happening. Nobody independent of the cult has come up with any parallel discovery, nobody independent of the cult thinks it is plausible. It's inconsistent with everything we know about physiology, biochemistry, physics and chemistry. It conflicts with quantum theory and the second law of thermodynamics, two of the most heavily tested areas of human knowledge. In all the experiments of electrochemists, using very sensitive apparatus, no effect comparable to homeopathy's claims has been detected.
The term for an effect that is visible only to those who already believe, is pathological science. It is a subset of pseudoscience. That is the view of the scientific community, of the claims of homeopaths. It is not our problem to fix, and we're not going to fix it. If you want it fixed, go and fix the real world, and then we'll reflect it. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- You might be correct in all that ; but the problem is that as long as well known authors / researchers in high impact journals publicly dispute all the above or they depart from the point of view that homeopathy is placebo, their opinion should be included by the wiki policies you purport to defend, The readers need to know all the different opinions again since they are appearing in reputable sources. Isn;t that the wikipedia spirit? --TineIta (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- You have to be specific. Don;t tell me read this and that .. It is clear that The readers need to know' all the different opinions again since they are appearing in reputable sources as I said. Can you show me exactly where this conflicts with all wiki rules and whatever policy you refer to ? --TineIta (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you are going to take that attitude, you wont find wikipedia a happy place. Alex is giving you good friendly advice, and you really ought to take it. Read WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE and I suggest WP:IDHT too. You might get some answers to your tendentious questions. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you should try to be kind- I asked where my suggestion conflicts with the wiki policy. Specifically. This is good faith question. --TineIta (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- And you received a good faith, specific answer.--McSly (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Listen : Are you able to show me specifically where my suggestion conflicts or you are going to play high school level games? If you have nothing to say do not disrupt the discussion? --TineIta (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Telling you to go and read the policies of this web site (all of those WP: yadda yadda things) is the answer you need. It's in good faith, and it's what we do around here. It's not our job on this talk page to teach you what the rules are - we have copious documentation that you need to go and read. What you're engaging in right now is highly disruptive to the conversation about maintaining this article - and given the standing rulings from ArbCom, that's eventually going to get you blocked from editing here. So I STRONGLY suggest that you read all of the relevant guidelines and stop spamming us with junk that doesn't come remotely close to meeting WP:MEDRS. That's the rule. If you're 100% sure that it meets WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR and WP:PSCI and WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT, 'and if hasn't already been discussed here - then we'll be happy to discuss it. If not, don't post it here because that's disruptive editing - and on this much-abused, topic it's not allowed and we're on a hair-trigger for abusers of the rules. SteveBaker (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Listen : Are you able to show me specifically where my suggestion conflicts or you are going to play high school level games? If you have nothing to say do not disrupt the discussion? --TineIta (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- And you received a good faith, specific answer.--McSly (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you should try to be kind- I asked where my suggestion conflicts with the wiki policy. Specifically. This is good faith question. --TineIta (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am correct in all that, and your opinion has already been stated, and you are wrong. It does not matter to what extent believers state their belief, it remains delusional. As a brand new editor with no other interests, you should listen to those more experienced Wikipedians who are advising you that your interpretation of our rules is incorrect. The comment above is correct. We are happy for new users to come along and join in, but that only lasts up to a point: obdurate refusal to accept the counsel of others plus advocacy for a fringe topic with a looooooooong history of such advocacy, is a one way ticket tot he door. Guy (Help!) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought the comment from Guy (Help!) was helpful, I learned a new synonym for obstinate. --Daffydavid (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am doing you the courtesy of not stringing you along with platitudes that might risk giving you the impression that you stand any chance of persuading me, or the rest of us generally. See Raul's Brick O' Common Sense. Guy (Help!) 17:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
edit suggestion for more neutral and accurate lead
Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience by many scientists ,[ref][ref][ref] who say that its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos. Other scientists say that the reviews are positive but not convincing. [ref][ref][ref]
since
"Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TineIta (talk • contribs) 28 October 2014
- You can't just change cited text. The existing citations support the current text; they do not support your modified text - that's basic textual integrity. Beyond that, even using your Lancet letter as a source, this would be a classic case of giving undue weight to a fringe source. It would imply there was some serious dispute about homeopathy among scientists. There isn't. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- FYI: The quote given in that last paragraph isn't a part of WP:NPOV - it's a quote taken from the arbcom ruling Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science - and it needs to be taken in that context. SteveBaker (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. The very few scientists who say that Homeopathy might, just maybe, work are a microscopic minority. Inflating their bizarre position to a level of equality with the overwhelming mainstream view would be an egregious breach of WP:UNDUE - it's marginal whether they should be mentioned at all - but for sure not in the lede. SteveBaker (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That's weird: Why is User:TineIta signing under User:Tinelta? (capital 'i' versus lowercase 'L') SteveBaker (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a transciption error on my part in adding the {{unsigned}} template. Will fix. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
How many sec sources say that homeopathy is placebo? --TineIta (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are the one arguing for change, you are the one who needs to provide evidence backing the requested change. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. He said "The very few scientists who say that Homeopathy might, just maybe, work are a microscopic minority. Inflating their bizarre position to a level of equality with the overwhelming mainstream view would be an egregious breach of WP:UNDUE" and i m asking for sources supporting this statement. --TineIta (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- here are two systematic review OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS showing no positive result for homeopathy other than placebo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/?tool.. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20402610 Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. And this is another review in a reputable journal stating the opposite. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo--TineIta (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- ...and now go and look at the other articles presented by those three authors in PubMed (you can just click on their names)... case closed there I think. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. And this is another review in a reputable journal stating the opposite. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo--TineIta (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The first link I provided reviewed 17 articles and 11 reviews. The second link covered 6 reviews. Your review stated "There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions." and covered 4 reviews, one of which said "placebo". So 3 vs the 11-18 (depending on duplication). Neutral presentation of this evidence clearly says that the "maybe homeopathy does something" opinion is in the small small minority, and we should reflect that in what we say. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- ... not to mention that most of those opinions are actually written by homeopathic advocates, like the one presented just above. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you calculate it that way? This is one opinion on the reviews. Even if you calculate it that way you say-- these reviewed meta analyses I referred to contain almost all the literature in Homeopathy. Does it mean that the majority of the scientists say that homeopathy is great? - I think we count the number papers and their objective weight of the journals. What counts is the weight of the journals not if the author is homeopath or not, If there are published in high impact journals - they are qualified. Enrstn is A MD and openly anti homeopath should his work be disqualified based on this ? --TineIta (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- As has been pointed out to you numerous times above, if you can find definitive and reliable material to support your rewrite of the lede that passes WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, etc etc, then we can discuss it. The fact that in the decade this article has existed, such material has not been produced by literally hundreds of editors who believe in this stuff must at least provide a clue as to the difficulties of this. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you calculate it that way? This is one opinion on the reviews. Even if you calculate it that way you say-- these reviewed meta analyses I referred to contain almost all the literature in Homeopathy. Does it mean that the majority of the scientists say that homeopathy is great? - I think we count the number papers and their objective weight of the journals. What counts is the weight of the journals not if the author is homeopath or not, If there are published in high impact journals - they are qualified. Enrstn is A MD and openly anti homeopath should his work be disqualified based on this ? --TineIta (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Null hypothesis. Inconclusive means there was not sufficient evidence to show it wasn't placebo. When there is secondary evidence that is conclusive that shows a non-placebo effect, we will certainly put that in. Until that time continuing to push this topic is disruptive. As this topic is covered by an arbitration comittee decision including discretionary sanctions, I suggest you drop the WP:STICK Gaijin42 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- this is original research - you don't get to decide and judge the value of the evidence and the value of every point of view - you suppose to report only what the authors say, and I m not holding any ...sticks. I just stated my case: that the readers should know all the points of view since they appear in reputable journals. You can choose to keep them informed or to keep them uniformed by editing out all sources they don't comply with the alleged consensus. It is up to you now. --TineIta (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support the suggested new leded sentence. Remember, when it comes to science, consensus doesn't override our NPOV policy. Why? Because science is true whether or not anyone believes in it. So, if 99 scientists believe that homeopathy is false but one believes it might have something to it, what if that one scientist is right and the other 99 are wrong? So, it's not a false balance to say in the lede that a minority of scientists believe that homeopathy might have some value. To exclude their view is POV. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Cla68, that has to be the most ridiculous argument for including content in Wikipedia I've ever seen. This is an encyclopaedia, and as such reflects current scientific consensus (which is entirely clear regarding homoeopathy) rather than engaging in half-baked postmodernist waffle about hypothetical future events whenever it suits contributors with an agenda. If you have nothing useful to add to this discussion (which is to say, comments which actually take into account Wikipedia policy rather than your own vacuous musings about 'truth') I suggest you find somewhere else to engage in kindergarten philosophising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please do not discourage people from expressing their opinion on how to improve the article - --TineIta (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Advocating that Wikipedia drops all its principles and becomes an advocacy site for whatever credulous drivel contributors wish to plug is not an 'improvement'. Unless and until Wikipedia adopts Cla98's principle of ignoring scientific consensus and giving equal weight to Flat-Earthery, the Phlogiston Theory and the Time Cube just because someone thinks they might be true, this article will have to comply with existing policy - which as far as this article goes (as ArbCom made entirely clear) means that we reflect the overwhelming scientific consensus that homeopathy doesn't work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please do not discourage people from expressing their opinion on how to improve the article - --TineIta (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously the proposed edit must be rejected, as it adopts the standard science-denialist trope of casting the scientific consensus as the view of "some scientists". I have reviewed the literature and am unable to find a single authority on pseudoscience which considers homeopathy and finds it not to be pseudoscience. That homeopathy is pseudoscience, is the consensus view of authorities on pseudoscience which discuss homeopathy. The fact that it is implausible also appears in every single reliable independent overview. Even NCCAM says it. Again, I am unable to find a single reliable source on the plausibility of alternatives to medicine, which discusses homeopathy and finds it plausible. So we don't say "some scientists" for the same reason that we don't say "some scientists" accept the theory of evolution: it misrepresents a tiny maverick minority as a significant scientific dispute. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That is what we are doing. No reputable high impact journal has published as secondary study stating that there is a result that is unambiguously more than placebo. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- this is a trick : they do not say all the same thing - readers should be aware on any disagrement among reputable researchers - I think - unless one wants to promote anti or pro homeopathy ideas,depends on the agenda. --TineIta (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @TineIta: at the beginning of this section, you proposed adding, "Other scientists say that the reviews are positive but not convincing. [ref][ref][ref]". I am curious, what three WP:MEDRS-compliant sources do you propose to support that sentence? VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's not really very relevant, it's well enough established that the chances of a positive result being false are dependent on prior plausibility, which for homeopathy is zero, and the chances of a positive result for homeopathy increase as methodology gets worse, and we know that positive results are much more likely to be published and cited than negative ones. Overall we should expect to see a small body of good studies that are false positives, a larger body of good studies that are negative or equivocal, and a larger body still of poor quality positive studies. And this is exactly what the literature reviews find. Nothing about any of the studies cited by advocates changes any of this: overall, the results are fully consistent with the scientific understanding of homeopathy as passionately advocated nonsense. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, which is why I am curious what reliable sources would contradict your opinion. @TineIta: you invite me to review the sources for myself below. Since you are proposing the edit, I think it would be within the spirit of WP:BURDEN to present the supporting sources as well. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's not really very relevant, it's well enough established that the chances of a positive result being false are dependent on prior plausibility, which for homeopathy is zero, and the chances of a positive result for homeopathy increase as methodology gets worse, and we know that positive results are much more likely to be published and cited than negative ones. Overall we should expect to see a small body of good studies that are false positives, a larger body of good studies that are negative or equivocal, and a larger body still of poor quality positive studies. And this is exactly what the literature reviews find. Nothing about any of the studies cited by advocates changes any of this: overall, the results are fully consistent with the scientific understanding of homeopathy as passionately advocated nonsense. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- @TineIta: at the beginning of this section, you proposed adding, "Other scientists say that the reviews are positive but not convincing. [ref][ref][ref]". I am curious, what three WP:MEDRS-compliant sources do you propose to support that sentence? VQuakr (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Focus on content, not editors, please. This is an article talk page.
|
|---|
|
Homeopathists are upset
... about this article, and have signed an open letter to Jimbo written by Dana Ullman and published in HuffPo.[4] This article may need more than normal monitoring as a result. [Also posted at WP:FT/N.] Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Alert WT:MED? Studies contained in that letter will no doubt be brought up. --NeilN talk to me 06:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- If need be. I'm aware the fringe topics can be a bit of a time sink, and that WikiProject Medicine has other pressing concerns. The application of WP:MEDRS should be straightforward here if med sources are proposed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is the last part of the article ("Practical Solutions...") which we may need to address. Dana is essentially proposing an advocates' section and a critics' section, which would basically violate our general practice of avoiding criticism sections, but since they aren't totally forbidden, we might do well with a large/huge/massive section filling such a role. I say "large" because the criticisms are indeed massive, and they deserve their due weight. The advocates' section would be a straightforward description of claims without advocacy. At the present time we follow the general practice of having this all blended together. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, having a separate section for the "homeopaths' point of view" wouldn't fly because policy requires us to identify pseudoscientific views as such prominently. Allowing daft homeopathic notions asylum in some kind of uncritical section would violate that requirement. The article we've got here is actually pretty good, and I must give credit to Ullman's piece for reminding me of that, at least! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Alex. We are not here to provide a soapbox for quacks, frauds and con-artists that prey on gullible sick people and their loved ones. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, having a separate section for the "homeopaths' point of view" wouldn't fly because policy requires us to identify pseudoscientific views as such prominently. Allowing daft homeopathic notions asylum in some kind of uncritical section would violate that requirement. The article we've got here is actually pretty good, and I must give credit to Ullman's piece for reminding me of that, at least! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is the last part of the article ("Practical Solutions...") which we may need to address. Dana is essentially proposing an advocates' section and a critics' section, which would basically violate our general practice of avoiding criticism sections, but since they aren't totally forbidden, we might do well with a large/huge/massive
- If need be. I'm aware the fringe topics can be a bit of a time sink, and that WikiProject Medicine has other pressing concerns. The application of WP:MEDRS should be straightforward here if med sources are proposed. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- We're following Wikipedia's guidelines as close as we can here. The root of the complaint (although the complainers may not understand it) is that Wikipedia is heavily mainstream-science based. Since homeopathy is so widely rejected by the mainstream, there is really no chance that it's going to be treated in the way the proponents wish.
- Like most of these kinds of debate, it all comes down to "What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia". We don't have to apologize for taking the mainstream science view...that's what Wikipedia is. The simple answer for people who don't like our rules is to set up their own encyclopedia with the rules they like...and indeed, there are several efforts to do exactly that out on the Internet.
- The problem with that is that the pro-fringe folks realize that these other encyclopedias are getting very little readership...so they want to put their views into Wikipedia, where they'll be seen more widely. What they don't get is that the reason that Wikipedia is the fifth (or so) most popular site on the Internet is precisely because we have the rules and values that we do.
- In effect, the public has voted for Wikipedia and against encyclopedias with different rules...and that's why we shouldn't change our rules...and if the rules don't change - then we're not going to change this article to be more friendly to the Homeopathists.
- SteveBaker (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
- To play devil's advocate for just a moment, I will note that we should be cautious when drawing a line from "Wikipedia is by far the most popular encyclopedia online" to "our rules should not change". We were the most-read encyclopedia on Earth in 2005, too, before WP:BLP became policy. We were the most-read encyclopedia on Earth in 2006, before WP:MEDRS was spun out into a guideline and before we had a conflict-of-interest noticeboard. No one took a stab at writing a proper plagiarism guideline until 2008. (And those policies and guidelines and their application have certainly evolved in the intervening years.) And heck, Andy well knows that we still don't have robust enough policies and enforcement to handle sourcing and self-promotion of fringe topics outside the world of medicine (as our ongoing experience with cold-fusion/alternative-physics enthusiasts will attest).
- Moreover, just because a large number of people 'vote' with their clicks for Wikipedia, we shouldn't presume that they agree with or endorse all of our policies—any more than you or I necessarily agree with every position taken by a politician for whom we nevertheless vote. Readers have a very limited number of 'candidate' encyclopedias from which to choose; at best, most of us will read the most-acceptable/least-objectionable, not our personal ideal. Wikipedia further enjoys certain advantages simply by virtue of being, in many respects, both the first and the largest free, online encyclopedia. While forking the project is a theoretical possibility, it faces enormous barriers in practice.
- All that said, however, the ongoing trend on Wikipedia – which seems to be well-supported by editors and appreciated by readers – is towards demanding more robust sources, and articles written even more from a scientific point of view. Protecting the tender feelings of homeopathy's promoters is not a direction we're likely to go, now or in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This all comes back to the basis of Wikipedia--we edit using reliable sources. Since mainstream sources are more reliable for facts, and fringe sources can be used to document opinions, but not much for facts, mainstream sources, and the facts and opinions in them, tend to dominate our content. It's not just that we favor "mainstream" over "fringe", we favor "reliable" over "unreliable" sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Just my two pence worth, the article is as described earlier well thought out it is not I suggest, about fringe therapies. It is clearly about Wikis stated aim of maintainnig neutrality and avoiding editorial bias. From some remarks elsewhere this is patently not the case, work from reputable scientist are rejected without examining its merits purely becuase the material is being published in what are considered unreliable journals. I have always been taught that challenging established paradigms is essential for anyone who considers themselves worthy of the title of scientist. To example from Danas letter the opening paragraph mentions the UK Select committee it does no report it was not a systematic peer review nor does it report the international critique levied against it. Its main source rested upon heavily critisied figures namely Ernst and Shang. Respondents were given just 17 days to offer statements, it does not mention by comparison the Swiss HTA report this took 5 years to collect the data and 2 to write up and publish this; in my veiw this is a far more scientifically neutral balanced and acceptable report than the patently orchestrated nonsense from the UK select committee. I also do not think for one moment the sensitivty of Homeopaths would be briused at all from the cut an thrust of genuine debate, I should think some would relish the chance to engage on the topic which at the moment given the aforemntioned above apparent vested interest view of, actively avoiding meaningful and thoughtful discussion. I suggets that what has gone before and not just on this page is a clear demonstration for the world to see of closed minds.(JoeEverett (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC))
- I don't appear to be as emotionally invested in this topic as some of the regulars here. Although I don't personally believe in using homeopathy for myself or my family, living in Asia I've observed that it is very popular in certain countries like India, which as you all know is the second most populated country in the world. So, when we write an article like this we need to be able to put ourselves in the position of the person on the other side of the debate. If I was a believer in homeopathy, I wouldn't mind if this article contained significant criticism of the belief, I would just want the article to be phrased neutrally, as if it wasn't taking a side in WP's voice. The article currently does not do that. Remember, if an article is in compliance with WP:NPOV, the reader should not be able to tell what side WP's voice is taking on this or any other topic. Cla68 (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- How many times have you been told that that is not what NPOV means, and that what you are suggesting is in gross violation of our mission and policy? Now add one time. Your repeated disregard for our policies is tantamount to trolling, so give it a rest already. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair to Cla68, he's correct that Wikipedia should reflect the current state of human knowledge without taking sides. It is theoretically possible that he's not trolling, but simply doesn't grasp the obvious ramifications of that oft-repeated bromide. Expert scholarly opinion on homeopathy demonstrably runs along a continuum from "harmless nonsense" to "dangerous nonsense". If we fail to convey that scholarly opinion to the reader, then we have taken sides—in effect, we've put our thumb on the scale in favor of the homeopathy proponents. When a health claim is widely regarded as ineffective, or pseudoscientific, then neutrality (as well as our basic ethical compact of honesty with the reader) compel us to make that clear. MastCell Talk 23:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- For years on end, on several articles related to fringe science, Cla68 has been pushing his peculiar understanding of NPOV, and numerous editors have explained to him why his understanding is way off, just as you have done now. Good faith or not, it is major case of WP:IDHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair to Cla68, he's correct that Wikipedia should reflect the current state of human knowledge without taking sides. It is theoretically possible that he's not trolling, but simply doesn't grasp the obvious ramifications of that oft-repeated bromide. Expert scholarly opinion on homeopathy demonstrably runs along a continuum from "harmless nonsense" to "dangerous nonsense". If we fail to convey that scholarly opinion to the reader, then we have taken sides—in effect, we've put our thumb on the scale in favor of the homeopathy proponents. When a health claim is widely regarded as ineffective, or pseudoscientific, then neutrality (as well as our basic ethical compact of honesty with the reader) compel us to make that clear. MastCell Talk 23:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- How many times have you been told that that is not what NPOV means, and that what you are suggesting is in gross violation of our mission and policy? Now add one time. Your repeated disregard for our policies is tantamount to trolling, so give it a rest already. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, I'd be happy to explain.
- It helps because in any collaboration, it's vital to understand who are the useful team players who understand the rules of the group and who are the people who fail in that understanding and are therefore an obstacle to effective collaboration. Sadly, as Dominus is trying to explain, you are in the latter group.
- You do not understand (or have never properly read) the WP:NPOV guidelines - and specifically the WP:PSCI section of it. By itself, that would not be a terrible thing. Wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies are complicated. So we have said to you "You don't understand the WP:NPOV rule - so please listen while we explain it"...and, in an ideal world, you'd pay attention to what we're telling you - and possibly go off and re-read WP:NPOV, returning with a better understanding of the rules that govern our collaboration. But every time we do that (including with the post to which I'm replying) - you simply change the subject, or reiterate your previous (incorrect) position. We say that you're guilty of WP:IDHT ("I didn't hear that") - meaning that you prefer to pretend that you didn't hear what we said and carry on exactly as if we hadn't said it. That's not collaboration!
- So, to rectify this situation, and to try to restore your position as a useful collaborator/editor, you need to go and read all about WP:NPOV and it's implications for articles like this one. If you have problems with understanding what WP:NPOV says, please feel free to ask questions about it (preferably on the WP:NPOV talk page...but here will be OK too). Meanwhile, please refrain from reiterating your position about this article's lack of neutrality because you're totally misunderstanding what that word means, in the context of Wikipedia articles.
- The bet here is that you'll again either ignore this kind of complaint, change the subject, attack other editors in other ways, or just continue to incorrectly interpret the WP:NPOV guideline...and that would be a definite case of WP:IDHT. So, let's all see what you do this time!
- SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- @ MastCell. I disagree with you. It is possible to structure and word an article so that it includes all relevant criticism without appearing that WP is taking the side of the criticism. For example, this article could be worded at first from the point of view of the adherents of this philosophy, point out that its' use is widespread in the second-most-populated country in the world, then have the Western scientific criticism at the end. That allows the reader to make up their own mind. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Cla68, you aren't doing yourself any favors by providing clear examples of WP:IDHT immediately after it has been brought up. Your suggestion on how to organize the article would be a complete violation of Wikipedia policies which you are/should be well aware of.--Daffydavid (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- This idea of NPOV as meaning "express all opinions equally" is just wrong. If we did that, then articles like Earth would have to contain the opinions of the Flat Earth Society...Fire would have to give equal time to the idea of Phlogiston theory. So, one more time: WP:NPOV says:
- "Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia."..."Avoid stating opinions as facts."
- "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
- " Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."
- ...and the big one (WP:PSCI):
- "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience."
- So opinions on homeopathy, no matter how firmly held are not facts. So even if the entire population of India has the opinion that Homeopathy works, it's not a fact until it's been tested using mainstream science. That test has been done, many times, and homeopathy fails that test. So, the opinion of those people cannot be described as fact, no matter how numerous they are - no matter how firmly held that belief is. We can say "Lots of people in India use homeopathy" (assuming that's a fact for which we have reliable sources) - but we cannot use that enormous weight of opinion to counterbalance the smallest degree an actual fact. That would NOT be "neutral".
- User:Cla68 needs to actually read the WP:NPOV guidelines...not just guess at what "neutral point of view" might mean. We're not talking about the normal English language usage of that phrase - we're talking specifically about what Wikipedia takes to mean by that phrase in this context.
- Again...there is zero chance of this article saying what you want it to say. For that to happen you'd either have to overturn a major Wikipedia guideline - which has been affirmed by the 'supreme court' of Wikipedia ("ArbCom")...or you'd have to somehow find a mountain of mainstream science that definitively shows that not only says that Homeopathy works but which also meets the WP:MEDRS standard. Since neither of those things are remotely likely - this article will continue to say pretty much what it says right now. You're truly wasting your breath trying to change it. Wikipedia's rules are quite deliberately set up to make sure that articles like this don't say that nonsense ideas like Homeopathy are anything other than the junk that they truly are...the rules are heavily weighted against you - and we make no apologies for that. We're an encyclopaedia.
- SteveBaker (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the criticism written by Huffingtonpos Post article cannot be remedied in this article so long as the current Wikipedia policies - stand or interpreted as they are right now.
- But these very core policies have been noticed and criticised in major Scholarly sources:
- Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias, and that its group dynamics hinder its goals. Articles in the Times Higher Education magazine, The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized wikipedias Consensus and Undue Weight policies, concluding that the first undermines the freedom of thought and the second; the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather only present the majority “weight” of viewpoints creates omissions which can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[6][7][8][9] Criticism of Wikipedia.
- So the problem of credibility by the reader is definitely something to take notice here, in the big picture.
- The casual reader looks at the Homeopathy article and senses some kind of 'suppression' of information is going on here. He feels "why am i not allowed to hear what Homeopathy has to say?" it becomes a Boomerang to WP:ADVOCACY. He will be tempted to check out the third Google search Hit as well : Homeopathic.com Home. to get the other side of the story.
- When respectable sources such as 2005 Linde article in the Lancet are magically not included in the article, credibility and non partiality of this article is low. Bigbaby23 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Letters are rarely if ever going to rise to the level of MEDRS, there's no need to invoke magicians. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- An expert (Linde) who led the previous meta-review and is critiquing in a RS secondary source (Lancet), a later meta-review showing negative results is not acceptable for inclusion?,but a Physicist critiquing in a self published book a meta-review with positive results is acceptable? :
- "There have been a number of clinical trials that have tested individualized homeopathy. A 1998 review[171] found 32 trials that met their inclusion criteria, 19 of which were placebo-controlled and provided enough data for meta-analysis. These 19 studies showed a pooled odds ratio of 1.17 to 2.23 in favor of individualized homeopathy over the placebo, but no difference was seen when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials. The authors concluded "that the results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies." Jay Shelton, author of a book on homeopathy, has stated that the claim assumes without evidence that classical, individualized homeopathy works better than nonclassical variations.[49]:209"
- Does Jay Shelton rise to the level of MEDRS? off course not. Bigbaby23 (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Self published? Do try and present accurate information if you want us to take you seriously. Publisher: Prometheus Books. Feel free to bring the issue up at WP:RS/N. --Daffydavid (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Letters are rarely if ever going to rise to the level of MEDRS, there's no need to invoke magicians. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@JoeEverett: "it does not mention by comparison the Swiss HTA report" - Yes, it does, it's covered in the "regulation and prevalence" section: "The Swiss government, after a 5-year trial, withdrew homeopathy and four other complementary treatments in 2005, stating that they did not meet efficacy and cost-effectiveness criteria,". Brunton (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Why we should ignore Dana Ullman
There are a few errors and omissions in Dana Ullman's articles which, taken together, rob it of any pretence to validity or objective truth.
- He says that The "editors" at Wikipedia have deemed homeopathy to be a "pseudoscience" even though randomized double-blind and placebo controlled studies that have been published in many of the best medical journals in the world have shown efficacy of homeopathic treatment. This is untrue. The editors at Wikipedia have done no such thing; as the article makes clear, it is authorities on pseudoscience that do this.
- He asserts that our sources for the claim of pseudoscience do not meet WP:MEDRS. This is irrelevant: in discussion of the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, it is authorities on pseudoscience and the demarcation issue that matter, not medical sources, because medical sources rarely discuss it. Ullman neglects to mention that homeopathy is very widely cited as an example of pseudoscience in the literature. Importantly, I am unable to find a single reputable authority which discusses homeopathy in the context of pseudoscience, and concludes other than that it is pseudoscience. To categorise it otherwise would be capricious.
- He asks: can you name ONE other system of "pseudoscience" that has a similar body of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trials published in high-impact medical journals showing efficacy of treatment?. Even if the answer to this were "no" (chiropractic, acupuncture) it would be irrelevant: it is the publication of papers beginning form the premise that homeopathy is valid, and thus concluding that it is valid, which makes homeopathy pseudoscience.
- He describes Shang as "discredited". It's not. It's published in a top-tier journal, it's not been retracted, and it's still widely cited. It might be considered discredited by homeopathy believers, but creationists think that On The Origin Of Species By Natural Selection is discredited.
- He gives criticisms of Shang which have already been dealt with in the literature, and rationales and clarifications provided.
- He promotes Bornhoft et. al., characterised in the literature as "a case study of research misconduct", as more complete, but fails to mention that it was not published in peer-reviewed journals (its publication status is rather lower than that of the sources calling homeopathy pseudoscience, in fact), and the Swiss Government has explicitly disowned it.
- In unfavourably comparing Shang with Bornhoft, he neglects to mention that the Swiss PEK to which both were, in their original forms, submitted, concluded against homeopathy, and funding was withdrawn.
- In unfavourably comparing Shang with Bornhoft he describes as "bias" the authors' acknowledged expectation of a negative result (how much science woudl get published if everythign where the result was as expected, were rejected?), but fails to note that Bornhoft and his team were funded by a body committed to promoting homeopathy, or that the Bornhoft paper begins by designing a new hierarchy of evidence designed to give most weight to the most positive findings - which, incidentally, precisely reverses the normal hierarchy of evidence.
- He cites Linde et. al. 1997, bolding the fact that it was published in the British Medical Journal, but fails to mention their own later paper of 1999 which notes that study quality has a significant impact on outcome, with the most reliable studies having the least positive outcomes, and noting that their own 1997 conclusions would at the very least overestimate the effect. We cite both, Ullman cites only the one he prefers.
- He describes the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report as "widely ridiculed", but neglects that this ridicule comes solely form homeopathy believers. He notes that its findings were "rejected" by the Department of Health - this is untrue, the Department said that funding was a matter for the NHS commissioning authorities and it declined to take a stance.
- He also neglects to mention that this failure to mandate the reports recommendations was overtly political and is the only time the government failed to take the advice of Professor Sir John Beddington, then Chief Scientific Advisor. He described homeopathy as "nonsense", explicitly endorsing the supposedly "widely ridiculed" report.
- The supposedly "widely ridiculed" report has also been explicitly endorsed in print by the current Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Mark Walport, who characterises homeopathy on the NHS as "mad", and by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, who describes homeopathy as "rubbish".
- In the matter of completeness, he neglects to mention that while Bornhoft was designed to accept only positive findings (and misrepresented many of them), the UK Evidence Check took evidence from homeopaths, manufacturers and believers as well as form the reality-based community. It is, by any measure, a substantially more complete process than Bornhoft, as indeed is the Swiss PEK - and both concluded against homeopathy.
- Moreover, Ullman implies that there have been two government reviews of homeopathy (UK and Switzerland), both of which came out with favourable results for homeopathy. In fact it's three (Australia in draft form) and all three have concluded that there is no justification for public funding of homeopathy. Support for homeopathy has been exclusively political, not scientific.
- He castigates us for characterising homeopathy as implausible, but this is the finding even of the pro-quackery NCCAM, which notes that its doctrines are at odds with fundamental science. There are numerous reliable independent sources describing homeopathy as implausible, and I am aware of no reliable source independent of the world of alternative medicine which dissents form this view. It has been characterised as wildly implausible since 1840, even before we knew the atomic nature of matter.
- He makes reference to fringe publications on possible retention of some starting materials by combination with silicates when diluted in glass vessels, and portrays this as making homoeopathy plausible. It falls short because, to state just a few of the most obvious issues, there is:
- no evidence that like cures like,
- no evidence that any property by means of which like cures like, is preserved in this memory,
- no evidence that it increases with each dilution,
- no evidence that the memory is still present when the water is evaporated from a sugar pill,
- no evidence that it can be transferred from there to a human body, surviving the enzymes of the mouth,
- no evidence of any mechanism by which it could be transported to the affected structures,
- no evidence that this property is (uniquely) immune to the law of mass action.
- He invokes "nanobubbles" which are a conflicting conjecture and also have precisely the same shortcomings.
- He references Benveniste and claims that his work has been replicated, this is disingenuous: the last public test of replication was Ennis, and it failed. Benveniste's own work is considered refuted or at the very least extremely unreliable.
- He invokes Nobelist Luc Montagnier but neglects to mention that Montagnier's work is self-published and he himself has said it cannot be extrapolated to the substances used in homeopathy.
- He discusses nanodoses as if these are in any way related to homeopathy. They are not. Homeopathy involves non-doses, and there is no measurement in the world that has ever shown otherwise.
- He says that given his beliefs in respect of the above it is "no longer accurate" to describe homeopathy as implausible, and takes us to task for doing so. We do not make this judgement ourselves, it is attributed to reliable sources. He fails to provide any reliable independent source that says homeopathy is plausible, to counter the many that say it is not. In short, he wishes us to substitute his belief for the consensus view of reliable independent sources.
- In short, having read Ullman's article and followed up the sources, what he does is:
- cherry-pick favourable sources, ignoring later and conflicting sources sometimes by the same authors;
- represent works specifically designed to support homeopathy as more reliable than work designed tot est it, which finds it wanting;
- misrepresent the outcome of government level reviews;
- promote favourable papers in no-tier journals over unfavourable papers in top-tier journals;
- represent trivial findings that are (unusually in science) not inconsistent with homeopathy, as clinching proof of its plausibility, without showing any evidence that it is considered plausible other than by believers;
- takes the reader for a Gish gallop over claims made and refuted a thousand times.
- He fails to disclose that he was banned from Wikipedia for a year. He fails to disclose that the behaviour that got him banned is identical tot he behaviour he engages in within his article.
Dana Ullman is an unrepentant shill for homeopathy. We already know that many homeopaths believe that Wikipedia is the most important place to get their beliefs presented as reality. In order to do this they need to bring vastly better evidence, not endlessly rehash the same (usually flawed, usually weak, usually conflicted) studies which have conspicuously failed to convince the scientific community to date. Homeopathy is considered implausible and its proponents are considered to engage in pseudoscience. That is a problem with the real world, not with Wikipedia, it is not our job to fix it, and we're certainly not going to do so on the basis of arguments that are not just wrong, but whose error has already been pointed out to the author dozens of times here and elsewhere.
His suggestion of an uncritical section is without merit. Every single argument he makes in support of it, is also without merit. He misrepresents every source he discusses. In this, he conforms to type. We can and should ignore him. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for this analysis Guy. Great stuff. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- When a person reads this article, they should not be able to tell what side the article is taking on homeopathy, whether pro or con. That's neutrality. Therefore, although Ullman may be trying to promote Homeopathy, this article, as currently written, is just as bad because it is taking the opposite side. Therefore, the public needs to ignore Wikipedia on this subject and stick to Brittanica and other sources until we get this article fixed. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Britannica devotes an entire three short paragraphs to the topic. Quite a source of knowledge. --NeilN talk to me 23:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- When a person reads this article, they should not be able to tell what side the article is taking on homeopathy, whether pro or con. That's neutrality. Therefore, although Ullman may be trying to promote Homeopathy, this article, as currently written, is just as bad because it is taking the opposite side. Therefore, the public needs to ignore Wikipedia on this subject and stick to Brittanica and other sources until we get this article fixed. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for this analysis Guy. Great stuff. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- "When a person reads this article, they should not be able to tell what side the article is taking on homeopathy, whether pro or con." Utter nonsense. This is an encyclopaedia, and us such is supposed to inform readers of the facts, according to current academic knowledge. We are no more obliged to present a bogus 'neutrality' on this subject - actually a non-neutral double standard which only requires one side of the argument to be based on verifiable evidence - than we would be concerning say Holocaust denial: and I very much doubt that you would suggest that our article on that subject should't make clear which 'side' Wikipedia is on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree and that standard should not be applied to the Moon Landing either simply because some think it did not happen.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- "When a person reads this article, they should not be able to tell what side the article is taking on homeopathy, whether pro or con." Utter nonsense. This is an encyclopaedia, and us such is supposed to inform readers of the facts, according to current academic knowledge. We are no more obliged to present a bogus 'neutrality' on this subject - actually a non-neutral double standard which only requires one side of the argument to be based on verifiable evidence - than we would be concerning say Holocaust denial: and I very much doubt that you would suggest that our article on that subject should't make clear which 'side' Wikipedia is on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Cla68, the reason the Wikipedia article is overwhelmingly negative in tone is very simple: there is absolutely no credible scientific evidence to support the doctrines of homeopathy, and all the experimental results are fully consistent with homeopathic remedies being inert. That's not taking sides, that's just telling it like it is. Of course our article looks very different form the way Ullman would characterise homeopathy. That's because, as I showed above in some detail, Ullman consistently misrepresents sources. He claims that the Origin of Species only exists because Darwin was saved by homeopathy; Darwin's own papers show that he was utterly contemptuous of it. He claims that Florence Nightingale supported it; actually Nightingale said it was suitable for the "reckless physicking of amateur females" because she knew the remedies to be inert and thus at least harmless, unlike the actual medicines that some amateurs were using. Ullman's approach is perfectly described in the arbitration evidence.
- As I also pointed out, our article is in line with three separate governmental reviews (Switzerland, the UK and Australia), and is also in line witht he findings of NCCAM, a body charged with trying to find supporting evidence for alternative medicines. We're also in line with Jay W. Shelton's "Homeopathy: How It Really Works", Goldacre's Bad Science, Ernst & Singh's Trick Or Treatment and pretty much every other book that takes a reality-based look ath alternative medicine. We're in line with NHS Choices, Popular Science and other respected sources aimed at the lay reader.
- There is nothing to fix. Our article accurately and fully reflects the reality-based perspective, and explains the belief system of supporters as well. Guy (Help!) 16:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Guy, we're supposed to take a higher moral road and I think we all know that. Neutrality doesn't give exceptions for the potential bias of the sources, we still write about them in neutral way. Again, if the reader can't tell what side WP is taking on a topic, then we have succeeded in following our policies. That doesn't mean that the reader can't discern that the scientific consensus is against homeopathy. That's fine, but we don't do it for them. They do it on their own. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- We are taking a higher moral road. Our article is precisely in line with the reliable independent sources. There are virtually no sources independent of the SCAM industry that call homeopathy anything other than implausible nonsense.
- We should not deviate from the path of the current, accurate coverage on the basis of Ullman's post, because it is mendacious from start to finish. He was banned after relentlessly misrepresenting sources, he is now soliciting changes off-wiki by once again misrepresenting sources. We can afford to ignore him because if he advanced those arguments here they would be rejected using precisely the arguments I give above - not because he's Dana Ullman, but because he is provably wrong.
- There are no actionable points in his blog post. The points he claims to be actionable, evaporate if you know anything at all about the actual studies to which he refers.
- We have been here before. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Guy, we're supposed to take a higher moral road and I think we all know that. Neutrality doesn't give exceptions for the potential bias of the sources, we still write about them in neutral way. Again, if the reader can't tell what side WP is taking on a topic, then we have succeeded in following our policies. That doesn't mean that the reader can't discern that the scientific consensus is against homeopathy. That's fine, but we don't do it for them. They do it on their own. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Why we should ignore Dana Ullman: Part 2
In his HuffPo piece, Ullman cites the 1997 Linde paper. I note above that this conclusion is unsound and that a subsequent re-analysis by the same team shows this to be so, and notes the effect of methodology on outcomes (Linde 1999, which we cite but Ullman does not).
Edzard Ernst told me that he met Ullman at a conference and pointed out the problem. At that moment Klaus Linde, the lead author, actually walked by, so Ernst asked him to explain to Ullman why he should not quote the 1997 conclusion, because it is unsound. Linde did so.
So Ullman is repeating this false claim even though he has been told not to by the lead author of the study he cites, in person, in front of witnesses!
As I said above, we can and should ignore every word Ullman says: it is self-serving propaganda and is of no value in assessing content for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Neutrality -Edit suggestion
VQuakr If you read these systematic reviews you will see that they support my suggestion : all are reputable journals. Shangs should also be included and Enrst but the the first one has been severely criticized in other reputable sources therefore cannot be regarded as the last word of research. Ernst always a lone voice also should be included but this is not technically a meta analysis. This is my suggestion.
Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience,[2][3][4] by many scientists and some researchers state that its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.[5][6][7] Others researchers say that several systematic reviews show that there is some evidence that cannot be explained with the placebo effect but it is not convincing because of the low methodological quality of the trials. --TineIta (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.
--TineIta (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601
Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323 At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1825800
There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853874
--TineIta (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. You still fail to understand how wikipedia works. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Those are all out of date. They're overtaken by PMID 20402610 LeadSongDog come howl! 02:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- And they are already discussed in the article. Nothing new here. Brunton (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Who is saying that they have been overtaken? One writer who - Enrst one author - who did not conduct his own meta analyses just reviewed the previous ones? --TineIta (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- All those sources have been discussed to death before. Please read the archive pages, you'll find the answer to your questions.--McSly (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you please be specific?--TineIta (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Specifically, all of the sources you mentioned, that's all of them, and to be extra clear, all of them, have been discussed to death before. Please read the archive pages, you'll find the answer to your questions. There is no need to waste our time answering your disruptive questions any more. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. Plus three government level reviews and statements from NCCAM, NHS Choices etc., all unanimously finding no evidence beyond placebo. This is only remotely controversial to True Believers. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Besides the usual generic mantra about how disruptive I m - without making any specific comments on the specifics suggestions ------I cannot really find where the specific edit I suggested ---- supported by the above sources is. But since you think that NCCAM is reliable source - I could modify my edit -- using precisely what NCCAM states
- Quite. Plus three government level reviews and statements from NCCAM, NHS Choices etc., all unanimously finding no evidence beyond placebo. This is only remotely controversial to True Believers. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Specifically, all of the sources you mentioned, that's all of them, and to be extra clear, all of them, have been discussed to death before. Please read the archive pages, you'll find the answer to your questions. There is no need to waste our time answering your disruptive questions any more. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Can you please be specific?--TineIta (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- All those sources have been discussed to death before. Please read the archive pages, you'll find the answer to your questions.--McSly (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Who is saying that they have been overtaken? One writer who - Enrst one author - who did not conduct his own meta analyses just reviewed the previous ones? --TineIta (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- And they are already discussed in the article. Nothing new here. Brunton (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Those are all out of date. They're overtaken by PMID 20402610 LeadSongDog come howl! 02:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
You want specifics? Fine. You are cherry-picking studies that show positive results despite the documented fact that for a treatment like homeopathy with no prior plausibility, the chances of a positive result being a false positive are very much higher than for a reality-based treatment; you are doing this relentlessly, you have no productive contributions to Wikipedia whatsoever, you are a single purpose account and you are here solely to advocate against the scientific consensus view on one of the most comprehensively debunked forms of quackery on the planet. It is also highly likely by now that you have a conflict of interest (few people without a financial commitment to quackery bother to come to Wikipedia to try to bend us away from the reality-based view).
Your advocacy is disruptive because you refuse to accept no for an answer, you are here to "Right Great Wrongs" that are not actually wrongs at all, and in the end your problem is not actually with Wikipedia at all, but with the natural universe which has long since revealed to scientists that Hahnemann's ideas were simply wrong, just like those of pretty much every other medic of his time. His conclusion that like cures like is based on an error: it was refuted over a century ago, as was his contention that matter is infinitely divisible. That's refuted, not just put in doubt. Hahnemann's claims re cinchona and infinitesimals are not unproven, they are actively disproven. There is a limit to the number of times we are going to point out to you that no amount of clinical trials conducted by true believers and equally consistent with the null hypothesis, will ever override the absence of any remotely plausible mechanism. The usual response is that "science doesn't know everything"; this is true, but science now knows a vast amount more than it did in 1796, and pretty much every relevant finding since that date has gone against homeopathy. A memory of water, since experimentally measured as lasting hundredths of a picosecond, does not cut it and never will. Neither will three way entanglement of non-entangled non-quantum objects, à la Milgrom.
Basically, your choices are now converging on the following:
- Get some credible evidence that like cures like and dilution increases potency, published in reliable journals
- Shut up
- Get banned
The third is the most likely, based on long past experience with others who have done precisely the same thing, especially since after more than 200 years nobody has come close to the first. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
SPA protection
This probably isn't specific to this article, but is there a way to stop SPAs from wasting so much time and energy? Looking through the archives for this talk page, I see that every few months a new SPA comes here and starts misusing NPOV the same way. I understand that newcomers should be welcomed, but I think the line has to be drawn much, much sooner. In my opinion the time that the much more experienced editors are essentially wasting on debating a SPA that will just be replaced in a few months could be used instead to improve the project, not to mention these editors start getting somewhat cranky when they have to repeat themselves over and over to each new account. This is only exacerbated when other experienced editors who agree with these SPAs come over to put their 2 cents in too. I'm not sure what could be done about this but I do think it's a huge time sink. Perhaps newcomers could be almost forced to read the archives and NPOV/MEDRS/UNDUE? I dunno. Cannolis (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think that the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on disruptive editing should be applied more rapidly and with great consistency in these cases. eg after one, clear, predetermined warning - a second violation is an instant 1 week block and a third violation a perma-block. We'd need to write that predetermined warning rather carefully to impress on new editors the importance of this and that they've just jumped into a furnace...but I think that could be done. SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it isn't specific to this article. Please focus discussion here on improvements to the article. Editor conduct discussion goes elsewhere.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, my apologies. SteveBaker (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it isn't specific to this article. Please focus discussion here on improvements to the article. Editor conduct discussion goes elsewhere.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- The real question is: what are the chances of anybody who turns up with the objective of "fixing" this article, becoming a productive and useful editor? Honestly, I think slim. Experience indicates that their commitment is to the cult of homeopathy, not to the project of creating a free repository of knowledge, but I don't think we should be too hasty. So the question I guess is, how hasty is too hasty? And I don't know the answer. Usually when new editors turn up here it's because of an outside comment, and I think it usually takes between one and two weeks to get bored with them. Is that too long? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is all pretentious. Steve Baker and all you did not even answer one of the questions posed specifically. For instance - why it is not appropriate per wiki policy the readers to be aware about the criticism of Shang study by Linde and all since it has appeared in a such reliable source --the Lancet ? Any particular reason? Your mandra is read this and that. Everybody can say that. You have to be specific, kind - not abusive - it is obvious that i m not vandal or have an agenda. Not only you. the majority of you behaves the same. When you see an more curious editor VQuakr to ask an intelligent question you start spamming the page with general quotes to obscure the real discussion- This is really disruptive editing. As a last note for now about my proposed edit "Other scientists say that the reviews are positive but not convincing. [ref][ref][ref]" since VQuakr asked me about it, Look at all the systematic reviews besides Shang ( heavily criticized ) and Ernst published in high impact journals and judge yourself if the support my proposed edit. Best. --TineIta (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is not appropriate that Wikipedia readers are taken step by step through the cavilling of True Believers over Shang because those criticisms are covered in the literature and have been fully answered. To include the criticisms without including the response, which it seems is the final published word on the matter in the journal, is no more appropriate than including creationist critiques of Darwin's Origin of Species without noting evolutionary biologists' many rebuttals of those agenda-driven criticisms. Letters in The Lancet criticising Shang came from the likes of Harald Walach (duplicate response), Iris Bell and George Lewith, who unquestionably have a dog in the fight - their financial interests are directly harmed by articles pointing out that homeopathy is fraudulent. Shang and co-authors responded in full, identifying the rationale for their methodology. We are not here to pander to the "merchants of doubt", especially since it is increasingly evident that the accumulation of a small net positive evidence base is not only likely, but expected for an inert treatment. Inert treatments have more favourable impressions due to lack of effects (side or oherwise). Guy (Help!) 21:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is all pretentious. Steve Baker and all you did not even answer one of the questions posed specifically. For instance - why it is not appropriate per wiki policy the readers to be aware about the criticism of Shang study by Linde and all since it has appeared in a such reliable source --the Lancet ? Any particular reason? Your mandra is read this and that. Everybody can say that. You have to be specific, kind - not abusive - it is obvious that i m not vandal or have an agenda. Not only you. the majority of you behaves the same. When you see an more curious editor VQuakr to ask an intelligent question you start spamming the page with general quotes to obscure the real discussion- This is really disruptive editing. As a last note for now about my proposed edit "Other scientists say that the reviews are positive but not convincing. [ref][ref][ref]" since VQuakr asked me about it, Look at all the systematic reviews besides Shang ( heavily criticized ) and Ernst published in high impact journals and judge yourself if the support my proposed edit. Best. --TineIta (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Neutrality -Edit suggestion 2
Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience,[2][3][4] by many scientists and there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition. --TineIta (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- The lede is supposed to summarise the article. It isn't a place to parachute in quotations that aren't even included in the article. As it stands, the lede summarises the consensus reported in the article and sourced from peer reviewed papers. The source that you are proposing quoting does not disagree significantly with this consensus. And "by many scientists" effectively misrepresents the consensus. Most of this was discussed here only about six months ago, by the way. Brunton (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, because as pointed out above, every single reliable authority on pseudoscience that considered whether homeopathy is or is not pseudoscience, categorises it as pseudoscience. It would be capricious to portray as any realistic scientific uncertainty, the few fringe believers who are convinced that their pseudoscientific work is in fact valid.
- By the same token, every singe high level review independent of the world of SCAM, finds no evidence that homeopathy is anything other than a placebo. There is not one single study published that convincingly refutes the null hypothesis, and there is no independently authenticated case where homeopathy can be objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever.
- To give the views of believers parity with government-level reviews, would be entirely wrong according to our policies. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Last thing - I would not waste my time to reply to your generic mantra --but you seem to really believe that "every single reliable authority on pseudoscience regards Homeopathy as pseudoscience "----- you mean the sceptic organizations, In Europe Homeopathy is recognized "Homeopathy is recognised by law as a distinct medical therapy in Belgium (1999), Bulgaria (2005), Hungary (1997), Latvia (1997), Portugal (2003), Romania (1981), and Slovenia (2007). "
(How admirable is to block one from editing and then talk to her/him..especially in this style--- Your arguments are so ..strong the opponent cannot really argue with you. One can only "admire" your intellectual strength and honesty.)
Anyhow - I offered reliable sources above - feel free to ignore them - however --- if the editors here have decided that readers should not know about all the controversies about homeopathy's efficacy even if they appear in reputable journals --- does not look so good on wikipedia. Maybe this is correct thought ---the average reader is not so intelligent and curious to want to know the different opinions that appeared in reputable journals about homeopathy's efficacy. In that case - this is good for you ..."guys".. Who really needs real education ? --TineIta (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Why you do, obviously. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Another great argument. --TineIta (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I know. I'm good. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- And an accurate one. TineIta, you have been warned repeatedly. You must stop your misuse of Wikipedia to push your fringe POV. Since you refuse to heed the warnings, it's time for a topic ban or total block. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- User:TineIta's user page now just says "RETIRED"...anyone want to place bets on how long it'll be before the next suspiciously similar SPA pops up here? SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- LANCB? I think he'll be back. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Another great argument. --TineIta (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Tinelta: you appear not to understand the difference between politics and science. Let me help you with that. Science says homeopathy is bullshit, politics defers to anyone who might be able to mobilise a vote. Several countries have official religions. They are not all the same - despite your belief that legal recognition confers validity, mutually incompatible state religions have exactly that. Politics is not and never has been a valid arbiter of fact. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- So do you think that this report is garbage since it came from a government,. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-homeopathy-inquiry/ --TineIta (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- That isn't from a government. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well kind of "The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious..blah blah" --TineIta (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Rather more relevant in this context is the comment in the previous paragraph to the one you quoted from, that "The Committee found a mismatch between the evidence and policy".[5] As Guy pointed out, political recognition of homoeopathy says nothing about its efficacy, or whether it is a pseudoscience, because that isn't necessarily what politicians base their decisions on. The appropriate sources for that are scientists and philosophers of science, and when you look there you find statements that "Homeopathic remedies are “rubbish” and do not serve as anything more than placebos" [6], or that "homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience".[7] Brunton (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- So what is your point? How does all this relate to improving our article? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you asking me or Guy who started the discussion? I suggested that readers should be aware about the different views on homeopathy as long as they appear in reputable journals. It is up to the editors to decide whether they want readers to know all about it or not. But I should not be talking - I m retired, --TineIta (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- But you haven't provided any adequate sources to show that there are scientific views that are significantly different from the consensus reported by the article. The three meta-analyses/systematic reviews that you have referred to are all already cited by the article; two of them report that the evidence is not good enough to draw a conclusion that homoeopathy works because of study quality issues (with the more recent stating explicitly that "Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative") and the authors of the third one have concluded, in a more recent peer-reviewed analysis, that it "at least overestimated" the effects of homoeopathy. While the abstract of the Annals of Internal Medicine narrative review that you cite does say that there are three systematic reviews that have "reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo", if you read the actual article it goes on to explain that various issues make it "impossible to draw definitive conclusions" from these results. And the letter to the editor you keep citing is not included because, as you have repeatedly been told, it is the peer-reviewed article, not the journal it appears in, that is the RS. The letter isn't cited by the article to rebut a peer-reviewed analysis because it isn't the sort of peer-reviewed source required by MEDRS, and, for example, the Lancet editorial titled "The end of homoeopathy" isn't cited either, for the same reason. In both cases it is the nature of the source, not what it says, that is determining whether it is included. And also, the letter doesn't support a conclusion that differs significantly from the consensus; the only general comment about the plausibility and efficacy of homoeopathy is that the authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". Brunton (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The meta analyses I cited do not concur with Shang who says it is all placebo. They ---the authors --- say inconclusive. Stating that they claim it is placebo because there is not definite conclusion that works is misinformation. When a group of well published researchers publicly objects to a such widely cited study ( Shangs ) saying that their conclusion is wrong ---an encyclopedia should let readers know. Of course it is not a review - but the british government is not a review either. And it is cited to support the sentence that H = placebo. Regarding the annals of internal medicine - I trust authors summary and I don't do original research to figure out if the authors summarized their article adequately. Kind of absurd, As I said - I don't want to keep arguing for the obvious --- I made a suggestion - if you think people should not know all the points of view as long as they are published in exceptional sources -- it is not so admirable. You have rationalized it in your mind --- because you want to believe all the reviews state basically the same H= placebo while the authors themselves publicly DISAGREE. This is beyond pathological skepticism as Ullman says. And this it is more really problematic than your bias or my bias regarding Homeopathy --- I do not care so much about it -- I have no professional or other relationship with homeopaths. --TineIta (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever. The point here is that we have a consensus about what to do about this - and basically, nobody agrees with you because these sources don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines - and without that, we're not allowed to write about them, period. Continuing to push this POV in the face of consensus is highly disruptive. You've already been blocked once for doing exactly what you're continuing to do. Since you clearly haven't learned a thing from that slap on the wrist, another (much longer) block will likely be coming soon. What you're doing would be something you could probably get away with in other article - but this one is under ArbCom sanctions...and that means that we don't tolerate this behavior here. SteveBaker (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- You have not contributed even one useful thing in this article. One source , one comment or even one reason why you disagree. Check your contributions. It all ranting and general threats to block editors. You should be blocked for disruption. I m talking because they ask me questions-- --TineIta (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- You have single-handedly caused close to 60,000 bytes of useless debate to take place here because you won't listen when the consensus is against you. This crowds out the useful discussion I'd like to have about bringing the quality of this article back up to the state it deserves to be. It was once rated as a "Good Article" - and it deserves to regain that status. I'd very much like to discuss the real issues here, and attend to the matters that are really important in this article. But it's tough to do that with all of the disruption being caused by this extended tirade about an already-decided point that's well-covered by established Wikipedia guidelines.
- (Oh, and by the way, I stand by my record. I wear my "Senior Editor II/Most Pluperfect Labutnum" badge with pride. I have made at least a half dozen edits to this article over the years and have in excess of 28,000 contributions to Wikipedia over a period of 5 years, I've had two of articles that I brought up from a stub winding up being featured on the front page - and over all that time, I've never once been sanctioned for ill-behavior of any kind. You have a single-purpose account, just ONE edit to your name (and that was immediately reverted) and you've already been blocked once for disruptive editing - so perhaps it's unwise to start hurling that kind of insult around.) SteveBaker (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- You have not contributed even one useful thing in this article. One source , one comment or even one reason why you disagree. Check your contributions. It all ranting and general threats to block editors. You should be blocked for disruption. I m talking because they ask me questions-- --TineIta (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever. The point here is that we have a consensus about what to do about this - and basically, nobody agrees with you because these sources don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines - and without that, we're not allowed to write about them, period. Continuing to push this POV in the face of consensus is highly disruptive. You've already been blocked once for doing exactly what you're continuing to do. Since you clearly haven't learned a thing from that slap on the wrist, another (much longer) block will likely be coming soon. What you're doing would be something you could probably get away with in other article - but this one is under ArbCom sanctions...and that means that we don't tolerate this behavior here. SteveBaker (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- The meta analyses I cited do not concur with Shang who says it is all placebo. They ---the authors --- say inconclusive. Stating that they claim it is placebo because there is not definite conclusion that works is misinformation. When a group of well published researchers publicly objects to a such widely cited study ( Shangs ) saying that their conclusion is wrong ---an encyclopedia should let readers know. Of course it is not a review - but the british government is not a review either. And it is cited to support the sentence that H = placebo. Regarding the annals of internal medicine - I trust authors summary and I don't do original research to figure out if the authors summarized their article adequately. Kind of absurd, As I said - I don't want to keep arguing for the obvious --- I made a suggestion - if you think people should not know all the points of view as long as they are published in exceptional sources -- it is not so admirable. You have rationalized it in your mind --- because you want to believe all the reviews state basically the same H= placebo while the authors themselves publicly DISAGREE. This is beyond pathological skepticism as Ullman says. And this it is more really problematic than your bias or my bias regarding Homeopathy --- I do not care so much about it -- I have no professional or other relationship with homeopaths. --TineIta (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- But you haven't provided any adequate sources to show that there are scientific views that are significantly different from the consensus reported by the article. The three meta-analyses/systematic reviews that you have referred to are all already cited by the article; two of them report that the evidence is not good enough to draw a conclusion that homoeopathy works because of study quality issues (with the more recent stating explicitly that "Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative") and the authors of the third one have concluded, in a more recent peer-reviewed analysis, that it "at least overestimated" the effects of homoeopathy. While the abstract of the Annals of Internal Medicine narrative review that you cite does say that there are three systematic reviews that have "reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo", if you read the actual article it goes on to explain that various issues make it "impossible to draw definitive conclusions" from these results. And the letter to the editor you keep citing is not included because, as you have repeatedly been told, it is the peer-reviewed article, not the journal it appears in, that is the RS. The letter isn't cited by the article to rebut a peer-reviewed analysis because it isn't the sort of peer-reviewed source required by MEDRS, and, for example, the Lancet editorial titled "The end of homoeopathy" isn't cited either, for the same reason. In both cases it is the nature of the source, not what it says, that is determining whether it is included. And also, the letter doesn't support a conclusion that differs significantly from the consensus; the only general comment about the plausibility and efficacy of homoeopathy is that the authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". Brunton (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you asking me or Guy who started the discussion? I suggested that readers should be aware about the different views on homeopathy as long as they appear in reputable journals. It is up to the editors to decide whether they want readers to know all about it or not. But I should not be talking - I m retired, --TineIta (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well kind of "The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious..blah blah" --TineIta (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- That isn't from a government. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- So do you think that this report is garbage since it came from a government,. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-homeopathy-inquiry/ --TineIta (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Tinelta, what you misperceive as ranting is merely ever-firmer repetitions of the facts. Our article is accurate and neutral, you simply don't like it because it conflicts with your beliefs. We get this all the time with homeopathy, climate change, evolution and dozens of other topics where the scientific consensus shows deeply-held beliefs to be wrong.
You say that other meta analyses do not concur with Shang. The Shang study is fundamentally different from the others in that it compares outcomes in matched trials of homeopathy and real medicine. Other meta-analyses look at whether the trial outcome is positive, Shang looks at how the evidence compares, in similar trials for similar conditions, between homeopathy and medicine. The results are well known:
- FINDINGS:
- 110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0.88 (95% CI 0.65-1.19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0.58 (0.39-0.85) for conventional medicine (six trials).
- INTERPRETATION:
- Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
- This is entirely consistent with the other meta-analyses. "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies" could be a paraphrase of the conclusions of Linde 1999, which is, of course, a re-analysis of Linde 1997 taking into account methodological quality.
The interpretation is: "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." Linde 1997 said "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" (emphasis added) but "[we found] insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" - this is actually saying that the weakness of the effect shows that it is largely due to placebo, and this is clear from the body. The 1999 conclusion says "we conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results".
Taken together, these two statements re the overall evidence, and the explicit fact that there is no single condition for which efficacy can be convincingly established, are not in any meaningful conflict with Shang, and subsequent studies further confirm this.
You also dispute that authorities on pseudoscience are reliable because you denigrate them as "skeptical" (as if that's a bad thing - skepticism is actually the default in the scientific method). That's a rather obvious escape hatch. Essentially, anybody who includes homeopathy in their discussion of pseudoscience is, by your definition, a skeptic and therefore conflicted. In reality most authors writing about the philosophy of science and the demarcation problem have very little interest in homeopathy, but still cite it as an example of pseudoscience. In The Unnatural Nature Of Science, Lewis Wolpert references Benveniste's water memory as an example of pathological science, a modern counterpart of Blondlot's N-rays. He has since spoken out about homeopathy. It is clear to anyone other than true believers that the study of the science came first and the conclusion came from the evidence, but homeopathists naturally assume that he started by looking for reasons to disbelieve. This is not only incorrect, it's also not a problem even if it were true: while homeopathists always set out to provide evidence in support of their beliefs, in science it is not only permissible to set out to test and challenge a claim, it's positively encouraged.
You need to remember that you are talking here with people who are not only fully familiar with Wikipedia policies, but also familiar with the subject matter and the cottage industry of homeopathy pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)