Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 63

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65

More Neutral / accurate tone and info

This is from a homeopathy website but it reports only the findings of the most reputable journals without any comments - It seems quite different from the article's conclusion.

Conclusion: Homeopathy is probably different to placebo

Reference Kleijnen et al. 1991.[6] Size 105 trials identified; results based on 105 trials Author comment

“The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications. There is no reason to believe that the influence of publication bias, data massage, bad methodology, and so on is much less in conventional medicine, and the financial interests for regular pharmaceutical companies are many times greater.” Reference Linde et al. 1997 [7] Size 186 trials identified; results based on 89 trials.

Author comment

“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.” Reference Linde et al. 1999 [8]

Size Re-analysis of same data as the 1997 study, but low quality trials excluded.

Author comment

“We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.” Reference Cucherat et al. 2000 [9]

Size 118 trials identified; results based on 16 trials. Author comment

“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.”

Conclusion: Homeopathy is no different to placebo Reference Shang et al. 2005[10] Size 110 homeopathy trials identified; results based on 8 trials. 110 conventional medicine trials identified; results based on 6 trials.

Author comment

“Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects.”--MKo1945 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello MKo1945, articles which contain claims of medical nature are subject to a higher standard of reliability, please see WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE for more information. Darwinian Ape talk 20:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Aren't the above journals the most reputable ones (and not fringe hence WP:FRINGE does not really apply to these sources) ;also according to WP:MEDRS they refer to reviews or meta analyses basically and not just to clinical trials. --MKo1945 (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the assessment of them on "a homeopathy website" isn't MEDRS. If you want a MEDRS-compliant assessment of these reviews, one can be found in Ernst, E. (2002). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy". British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 54 (6): 577–82. Or at least, all of the allegedly positive ones, and all the other ones up to the date of this particular study.
And all of these are already cited in the article and have already been discussed here. The conclusions of the three allegedly positive ones are all qualified by reference to the poor quality of the data. I notice that while you mention the 1999 reanalysis of the data from the 1997 review, you don't mention what it said about the conclusions of the 1997 paper. That's quoted in the article as well.
Please have a look through the archives to make sure you aren't bringing up material that has already been discussed multiple times. Brunton (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Are the positive,/ inconclusive or negative reviews supposed to be qualified by the editors in the wikipedia or to just be accurately presented without changing their words----- so the readers can be informed without any bias ? --MKo1945 (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not "the editors in the wikipedia" who have qualified the conclusions of the reviews; it is the reviews themselves. Kleijnen 1991: "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"; Cucherat 2000: "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." We can't cite these reviews as if they support efficacy.
The reviews you are citing here are between 15 and 25 years old, and are already considered here. There is nothing here that changes the scientific consensus reported by the article. Brunton (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

Public opposition In June 2016, Jithin Mohandas,a blogger and sceptic,launched the online petition to the Education and Health Ministries in the Kerala, India, said thousands of talented students scoring high marks in the medical entrance examination joined government-approved homoeopathy medical colleges under the expectation that homoeopathy was a scientific health-care system.[1][2][3] Pseudowatch (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Done, with some expansion. Thanks Pseudowatch. Nyuszika7H, the requester simply wanted the provided text added to the section titled "Public opposition". Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Herbolary vs homeopathy

Homeopathy is not herbolary. Some homeopathic products are based in low potency homeopathic technique, and some are based in smile principle. In early Hahnemann papers, he used the Mother tinctures as basis of smile principle. The sentence of "pseudohomeopathy" applied to the low potency is a only red herring using by some Guerrilla Pseudoskeptism. The main article is based on false premises, mistruth and evident manipulation: cherry picking, ad-hominem attacks, straw man fallacies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.143.248.213 (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a place for ranting. Please address specific claims with proper sources. Darkdadaah (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Extreme bias!

Unhelpful comment, user indef blocked for trolling. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article claims that Homeopathy is "pseudoscience". Homeopathy works for many people, so to call it "quackery" is way off! Consider revising! [[Vic]] 05:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppression of Suppression (talk • contribs)

Mistakes, bias and misinformation all over

For instance - we read "Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[17][18] multiple systematic reviews have indicated that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. "

This is wrong only 1 of the multiply systematic reviews says that - the rest are positive but inconclusive according to the authors. Please correct. --JB200234 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Please name those "positive" reviews. And please remember that if the question to be resolved is "is there an effect greater than zero?" there are two possible answers: "yes" and "inconclusive". The second is a euphemism for "no". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
According to the authors of the reviews inconclusive and no are 2 different things. It is more accurate neutral to report what they say and not what one thinks they say, --JB200234 (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong. Inconclusive means no. If the results are inconclusive, the conclusion is that there is no demonstration of objective effect: there is no proof that it works. This is, of course, the third of the three issues with homeopathy, the first two being that there is no reason to suppose it should work and no way it can. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, you did not answer my request: "Please name those "positive" reviews". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Several reliable sources report -not me- that

'"Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo (Table ​(Table11).45-47' The first was carried out in 1991 by Kleijnen et al.45 They identified 107 published papers that scientifically evaluated the efficacy of homeopathically prepared treatments. Of these studies, 81 reported positive effects for homeopathy, with 9 of the 11 highest quality trials showing positive results.A second, extremely rigorous, meta-analysis was conducted in 1997 by Linde et al in an attempt to ascertain whether or not the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo effects.46 They evaluated 186 clinical trials that tested the efficacy of homeopathically prepared treatments. Of these, 89 reported sufficient data to be included in the main meta-analysis. After controlling for publication bias, and quality of evidence, their results showed that homeopathy performed significantly better (combined odds ratio was 2.45 in favour of homeopathy) than placebo, with a confidence interval of 95%.46 Additional scrutiny, including methodological revisions by the authors themselves in a subsequent paper, confirmed these findings.48-50"

which is the opposite the article states, --JB200234 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From the conclusion in JB200234s link ... As accessible, critical, science-based health care professionals, pharmacists should evaluate the research on homeopathy without bias, and then convey the facts to their patients and other health professionals. ... -Roxy the dog™ bark 11:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
So the reviews are Kleijnen, Linde and Cucherat.
  • Kleijnen is linked in the article as source 21, and the conclusion says "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."
  • Cucherat is linked in the article as source 17, and the conclusion says: "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."
  • Linde is linked in the article as source 185, and it is discussed in detail in the chapter "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy".
So, the papers you talked about are linked in the article, and they roughly agree with what the article says about systematic reviews: bad studies have positive results, good studies don't. The article does not misrepresent the science. But you do. You picked a few words you wanted to hear from the conclusion and then stopped listening to them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The reliable source I referred to reports that "Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo" not me. I included the entire text - the reliable source i referred to summarizes the evidence and the conclusions; the authors state exactly the opposite - compared to what the article states and what you are writing above. --JB200234 (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
But other analyses point out the systematic flaws in these positive conclusions, i.e. - the positive conclusions track with the inclusion of low quality, under-powered, or otherwise grossly flawed studies. Once these studies are controlled for, the positive effects disappear. Once the flaw of including these studies in any meta-analysis is identified, it becomes disingenuous to report on analyses which draw their conclusions from their inclusion. What you are pleading for here is akin to insisting that an article on thermodynamics give equal time to the notion of phlogiston. Once the flaw in the data or its interpretation is pointed out, it is only through special pleading for ideological fair play that the imagined "debate" continues. Useless research is useless research - and it has been pointed out as such in the pertinent literature - our article is in agreement with the best available evidence. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
This is your opinion and it cannot not have more weight than a reliable source. What I say is stated by a reliable source and It cannot be more clear . Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo etc -- you can read the entire text above. Of course, there are some sources which state that that it is all placebo. But including only these sources in an encyclopedia pretending that the other reliable sources, like the above, do not exist, is the worst kind of misinformation. --JB200234 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
There are many reasons to be highly suspicious about this paper. First, it is published in American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, which generally carries articles about the education of pharmacists, not the effectiveness of medication. Thus citing them for medical facts is a bit off, and this is a very low impact journal to begin with (its impact factor hovers around 1, so not exactly a top publication here). Looking at the article itself, the authors seems to take seriously criticism that other systematic reviews reject low-quality studies, as if they somehow add value. It's strange, and it suggests either scientific incompetence or an agenda. Indeed, if you look up the corresponding author, seemingly her entire career revolves around promoting the increased use of all things complementary and alternative by pharmacists and other professionals. All things considered, that paper is not a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
No kidding. The article in question is not a meta-analysis or a critical review, it is nothing more than an opinion piece and was published by the AJPE as a "statement" (first entry in the content list), which appears to be something less reputable than a "viewpoint" in their editorial hierarchy. Gimme a break. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This is not a matter of opinion, it is what WP:MEDRS compliant sources conclude. The analyses which have identified the effect of including poor quality studies have used formal, codified, and validated processes (such as Jaded analysis) to reach their conclusion. Also keep in mind that both the positive analyses and those that point out the flaws in these analyses are looking at the same pool of primary studies, so one directly supersedes the validity of the other. It would be a matter of opinion to give any prominence to an analysis that finds net positive outcomes using a methodology which a second review, using a formal validated process for treatment of the same data set, has demonstrated to be inherently flawed. It's like insisting on using undeniably debunked footage of bigfoot as proof of bigfoot. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
According to some reliable sources I cited above , WP:MEDRS compliant sources do not conclude what the article states. Unless of course whatever reliable source does concur with the notion Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo etc is ....not a ......reliable source. By definition. --JB200234 (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
So my sentence above "You picked a few words you wanted to hear from the conclusion and then stopped listening to them" applies to this "reliable" source of yours.
Let me tell you something you obviously don't know. We do not have to use every source the rules allow us to use. There are too many of those, so we have to choose.
That choice is done by things like the impact factor, as Someguy1221 did above. There is no way we use such a blinkered quote, which distorts the sources, by somebody with an obviously not reality-oriented agenda, from a low impact journal. You may believe that crazy stuff works somehow in spite of all the evidence, and you may bolster your belief with quotes based on flexible honesty, from other believers, but Wikipedia follows the evidence instead, thank you very much. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This is what I said.I agree. From the reliable sources you pick only the ones which tend to discredit homeopathy. This is convenient but also misinformation. --JB200234 (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
But there are no reliable sources that do not (as you put it) "discredit homeopathy". At least, no such source has been presented - you mentioned one source, and it has been conclusively shown not to be reliable. (Why do I feel we're going in circles here...?) And to be blunt, if a source were to claim that unicorns exist, it would take quite a lot for anybody to accept it as reliable. The same thing applies here. --bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
"Conclusively shown that it is not reliable? " Is this a joke ? The https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Journal_of_Pharmaceutical_Education&diff=prev&oldid=672995947 is not a .....reliable source? Or this ? http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=716100 or this source? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12634583 ? Are you sufficiently informed about research on homeopathy or you just want to say something? --JB200234 (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your first source is wikipedia, hence unreliable, the second two are too old to meet WP:MEDRS. and yes Bonadea, we are going round in circles. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok - The sentence "The American_Journal_of_Pharmaceutical_Education is not a reliable source is kind of a joke. The other 2 you say are old : they are more recent compared to almost all systematic reviews the article cites. --JB200234 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The specific paper you referred to in the Am J of Pharm Edu is not a reliable source. This was discussed in detail higher up in the thread. --bonadea contributions talk 14:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
A journal is reliable or not reliable. It cannot regarded as reliable but when you dont like the content of a paper to consider it unreliable. This is simple logic. IN general you should be able to articulate why a paper is not reliable not just to add your ...vote. --JB200234 (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
This is bullshit. Journals are specialized. As mentioned above, your source's specialty is pharmaceutical education, not pharmaceutical research. It is reliable when talking about its specialty and unreliable when not. You are grasping at straws by inventing crazy rules such as "A journal is reliable or not reliable." --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
"From the reliable sources you pick only the ones which tend to discredit homeopathy." We pick those which tend to have a high quality. That high quality is correlated with discrediting homeopathy is not our fault. If you want us to use low-quality sources (which is the only way of adding sources that do not discredit homeopathy), you will have to change the rules. That will not happen. Why don't you start your own low-quality-source encyclopedia? --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
' i m afraid that the quality of the arguments showing that http://www.ajpe.org/page/about is ........not a reliable source is getting lower and lower. Needless to say that by that token ( regarding as reliable source only systematic reviews and not other sources ) half of the sources of the lede should be excluded. They are not research papers, --JB200234 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Quoting from the link you provided 'Its purpose is to document and advance pharmaceutical education in the United States and internationally'. It is a journal about pharmaceutical education. That, alas, is not a medical journal, no matter how much you want it to be one. This is getting beyond tiresome. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
"the quality of the arguments [..] is getting lower and lower" That's rather poor reasoning: you are just asserting. What is bad about the argument that a journal about education is a journal about education? Why should anybody who has anything new to say about the status quo of the homeopathy evidence publish that news in such a journal?
"half of the sources of the lede should be excluded" - It's pretty easy: when talking about whether homeopathy works, systematic reviews beat everything, including that opinion piece by someone who does not do any science. But our article is not only talking about that. When it is talking about something else, other sources are used, which are good sources for that stuff.
You have no leg to stand on. Please drop the stick. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll just re-post this here as it addresses the issue with the reliability of the article in question. Even if AJPE is recognized as a reliable journal, the article itself does not come close to satisfying WP:MEDRS. The article in question is not a meta-analysis or a critical review, it is nothing more than an opinion piece and was published by the AJPE as a "statement" (first entry in the content list), which appears to be something less reputable than a "viewpoint" in their editorial hierarchy. Gimme a break. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh it is a reliable journal finally ? There was some ....controversy about it. Now lets see .  ? Is this a review? Does it satisfy MEDRS? Shelton, JW (2004), Homeopathy: How it really works, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, ISBN 978-1-59102-109-4 ? --JB200234 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've no idea. Why don't you start by telling us what you want to say using it? -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Reliability all depends. As others have pointed out, and based on what you are determined to focus on, it is a reliable source in the realm of pharmaceutical education, but it is not necessarily a reliable source for establishing efficacy of a given treatment, any more than the International Journal of Botany would be. In a general sense, AJPE is "reliable" but it is not "reliable" for informing the issue at hand, or issues of botanical taxonomy for that matter. But none of that matters since the article does not satisfy WP:MEDRS. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
As for Shelton's book, again, it depends. It may be a reliable source for definitions of homeopathy and descriptions of simple processes, assuming those definitions and descriptions don't conflict with the common understanding in the field. It is not, however, a reliable source in and of itself, for establishing claims of efficacy. Any claims made in the book along those lines need to be referenced to appropriate peer reviewed secondary sources such as meta-analyses or critical reviews. We're not concerned with Shelton's interpretation of the literature, but what the literature itself says - unless of course Shelton simply states the predominant scientific position that there is no good evidence supporting homeopathy. Even in this case, I would prefer proper secondary sources. Instances where the book has been referenced in our article seem appropriate and are qualified and contrasted with proper WP:MEDRS sources. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
He's bringing up Shelton's book because it's already used in the article. The answer about why we can use this source but not the one you like can be found in WP:PARITY and WP:REDFLAG. Shelton is not arguing anything controversial. So even though there is probably a better source than his book that comes to the same conclusions, it's not problematic. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Shelton's book is a comprehensive overview of the claims made by homoepathy, including the various conjectured mechanisms of action, and the evidence which supports and / or refutes them. It is comprehensively referenced with copious footnotes covering both proponents of homeopathy and members of the reality-based community. I would go as far as to say that it is probably the most comprehensive and detailed review of the field currently in print. That's probably why the homeopathists hate it: they think that the only comprehensive reviews of their doctrines are those give the sugar shills the last word at every point (if they allow any critical sources at all, which many don't). Guy (Help!) 20:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Shelton book was debunked some years ago. Park has bene debunked: http://iopscience.iop.org/book/978-0-7503-1293-6/chapter/bk978-0-7503-1293-6ch3

Sorry troll chapman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.128.225 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand what "debunked" means. Here's a clue: rants by believers who don't like the facts, does not count. The link you provided does not address the facts of the matter in any meaningful way. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. You're a beliver of Randi cult. Please, how your child cries debunk's the Berezin new book? Where is the evidence published in peer review paper with credible arguments from Randi follies and fallacies? Can you read the Berezin book or only cri with guerrilla pseudo-skepticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.232.4.246 (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The overwhelming consensus that homeopathy is bunk is not based on belief in the word of one man, that's homeopathy you're thinking of, not science. In science people can test anything. When homeopathy is tested honestly, it fails. Science has no dog in the fight, it just asks: is this claim true? And in the case of homeopathy, the answer is: no.
What is te "overwhelming consensus"? Can you show me the international peer review paper or is a your personal opinion? And, if the consensus were true, how this debunk the papers I was posted?
Wikipedia's skeptical tone on this article (and mine with it) pre-date GSoW. Wikipedia has always been reality-based, and homeopaths have always hated that.
Work like Berezin's will not change the consensus, because the chain of broken links is far, far longer than the tiny areas such books address. You'd have to provide objective evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid and repeatable basis of cure, that this is conferred by a universal property of matter, so will apply to all the remedies in use, you'd then have to show that the potency of this property of matter is conferred and strengthened by dilution and twerking, as homeopaths claim, you'd then have to show that it persists when the magic water is evaporated off a sugar pill, that it is transferred to the human body when taken orally, that it survives the enzymes of the mouth, that it is then transported to the affected tissues, and that it arrives there in sufficient strength to effect change. You'd also have to prove that this effect is specific only to the affected organs or tissues, and that it does not adversely affect others, because it is a well understood principle of phamacology that anything that has an effect, has a side effect.
Against that massive chain of missing evidence, we get things like Chikramae et. al. claiming that the presence of silicates in solutions prepared in glass, means homeopathy works - an obvious schoolboy error that no halfway competent chemist would make in print. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
What? The Chickramane paper do not support the efficacy, only corroborates the presence of nanoparticles in some high dilutions. The presence of nanoparticles of specific solute, not only silicates, is an stronger indicator against the biased skeptic "argument".

Severe bias and double standard

The statement against of the inclusion of the paper published in American Journal of Pharmaceutial Education http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847554/ is very funny, in the same main article the Wikiarticle show one paper of the same journal: Pray WS (1996), "The challenge to professionalism presented by homeopathy", American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 60: 198–204

The lack of any demonstratio of homeopathy as a "pseudociencia" is very funny.

"Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific. Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition;[2][3][4][5]"

1. "Chapter 4: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt JC, Marcello P. Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 98. Springer. pp. 83–101.

Old review with more rethoric diatrabe.

2. "Smith K (2012). "Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical". Bioethics. 26 (9): 508–512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x."

Debunked here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01947.x/full

3. "Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?. Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century. Springer. pp. 19–57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2. ISBN 978-1-4614-8540-7. "

No evidence for the "within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery". Paper only show this "The dilution of the active ingredient is extreme: "a common dilution is called 30C" What is the evidence of the most common dilution 30C around the world? What happen with the low potencies?

4. "Ladyman J (2013). "Chapter 3: Towards a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience". In Pigliucci M, Boudry M. Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-226-05196-3. Yet homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience. It is neither simply bad science nor science fraud, but rather profoundly departs from scientific method and theories while being described as scientific by some of its adherents (often sincerely)."

Philosphical "arguments" and rethoric, not evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.128.225 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"The statement against of the inclusion" - Sigh. This has been explained above. A source can be a reliable source for one thing and not a reliable source for another. Go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Go away? Sorry, I have a read all comments. The papers are a biased piece of opinion. For example, the Pigliucci opinions: he never cite basic research or experimental evidences. Why this pieces of opinion are "reliable"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.128.225 (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You ignored what I wrote and talked about something else. At least try to be coherent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
You ignored what I wrote and "talked" about the five biased points and biased/old references from books without peer review. At least try rebunk this.

Debunked Grimmes paper here:

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5591362

Smith paper debunked here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01947.x/full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.128.225 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

These are in fact examples of rebunking, the restatement of discredited bunk. The second is particularly amusing: "The homeopathic principle of similitude is not based on the principle of vaccination but on the more general principle of inversion of effects, a widespread medical phenomenon." Delusional nonsense. There is absolutely no credible published evidence that symptomatic similarity is a basis of cure. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, the first paper is the debunk of the Grimmes paper. The second paper is a really scientific hypothesis about of simile principle. Please, what is "credible evidence"? Show me the paper about of exactrly definition of "credible evidencie". Without this definition your rejects are only child cries.
Nope. It's a homeopathic rebunking. Remember the three core problems with homeopathy:
1. There is no reason to suppose it should work. There is no credible evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis for treatment. Hahnemann's quoted basis for "similia" is a single false inference. Cinchona bark does not cure malaria because of symptomatic similarity, it kills the plasmodium parasite which causes malaria, and in order to do so it has to be present in pharmacologically active doses.
2. There is no way it can work. While homeopathists try to rescue some shred of credibility from tiny and specific effects, there is no property of matter whihc behaves as hoemopathic doctrine demands, and the dilutions render homeopathic doctrine inconsistent with all relevant knowledge gained since Hahnemann's time, including all of human biochemistry, pharmacology, molecular chemistry, and of course physcs (not just Avogadro, but also Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the law of conservation of energy, the laws of thermodynamics and indeed quantum electrodynamics). If your GPS works, homeopathy doesn't, basically.
3. There is no proof it does work. All experimental results are consistent with the null hypothesis and there is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything.
We have three separate government-level reviews and a mountain of other analysis all of which finds that homeopathy doesn't work.
Set against that, we have a hard core of true believers who will consider that any statement that sounds even vaguely plausible and is inconsistent with any part of any of these analyses, amounts to a total debunking. A bit like creationists who, every time a new transitional fossil is found, demand that a transitional fossil is found between that and the next, otherwise God did it.
Your so-called "debukings" are repudiations, not refutations. Learn the difference.
Check the archives of this talk page. Everything you say, has been said before, usually hundreds of times. We're bored with it. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to add that item 1 "There is no reason to suppose it should work" and item 3 "There is no proof it does work" are not for lack of trying. Homeopaths have tried to find both reason and proof and failed. When they think they found it, the result always turned out to be caused by a rookie mistake. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
How a new paper published in 2016 was debunked with your false prophecies and subjetive opinions devoid of any argument? How? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.232.4.246 (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You do have a bit of a problem here, in that you're using the language of religion. While I agree that homeopathy is a religion (actually more of a cult, but whatever), scientific criticism of homeopathy is not driven by any dogma at all other than the belief that the scientific method is the best way to tell truth from fiction. If any honest scientific test showed unambiguous evidence for homeopathy then the scientific consensus would change. In practice the trend is in the opposite direction as we get better and better at working out the ways in which experimenters can fool themselves. No scientist is dependent for their living on homeopathy not working, but virtually everybody publishing pro-homeopathy "science", is both ideologically committed to homeopathy and dependent on it for all or part of their income. That's why they use the "pharma shill gambit": they cannot comprehend the existence of a truly dispassionate observer, they cannot distinguish the agnostic from the atheist. No True Believer ever can: there are only fellow believers and heathens. For a homeopathist it's black and white: either you support homeopathy or you're part of the evil conspiracy to suppress it. To the scientific community, homeopathy is an irrelevance. The average scientist cares no more about homeopathy than they do about phlogiston or n-rays. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the way small children "argue": just copy the opponent's reasoning and turn it around. Grow up, but please do it elsewhere. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for your jokes. Can you debunk any argument posted by me?
Pick one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Pseudodebunks

"None of the hundreds of demonstrators in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US were injured and "no one was cured of anything, either".[138][139]"

This are not a demonstrators. The president of Argentinian Skeptikal Circle rejects the 10:23 challenge as demonstration:

http://circuloesceptico.com.ar/2011/02/privado-la-sobredosis-homeoptica-no-es-un-experimento-cientfico

So what? Guy (Help!) 08:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Child, read the declaration of Argentinian "skeptics": homeopathic overdose is not a scientific experiment.
Feel free to point out where I said it was. It's a publicity stunt designed to draw attention to the ridiculousness of homeopathic dilutions, that's all it ever was. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a joke? In Wikipedia 2C is a ridiculousnees homeopathic dilution? Maybe, you need help, loon Chapman! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.232.4.246 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The homeopathic approach to dilution is ludicrous. Some remedies are below the ludicrous dilution so may contain pharmacologically active quantities of the ingredient that has nothign to do with the condition under treatment, but most have none of the thing that has nothign to do with the condition. Picking 2C is absolutely classic cherry picking. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It is quite odd that you are concerned with the 2C claim. While it nicely demonstrates the dilution process, it also stands as an example of how homeopaths skirt the regulatory system. There are several products on the market that are 1X, 2X, or 1C dilutions and being sold as "homeopathic" simply because the knuckleheads who bottle the stuff label it with the jargon of homeopathy. These are real pharmaceutical agents at real concentrations; magic shaking doesn't do anything to make them more effective or less dangerous. Given that homeopaths - by definition - champion the idea of using poisons to treat people, such labeling practices are not only disingenuous but reprehensible abuses of regulatory loopholes. Perhaps we should go into more detail on how a 2C dilution is potentially very dangerous, while continuing to use it as an illustration of how the continued dilution nonsense becomes rapidly absurd. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Chapman "debunk" are based in bias

1. Sorry, in my Merck manual, Hahnemann is recognized as experimenter and scientist. You argument do not explain the symptoms observed with other toxic substances. Hahnemann do not try kill the plasmodium, try reinforce the natura medicatrix naturae. Not direct action on plasmodium.

Sorry indeed. An appeal to the authority of the Merck index is not going to cut it. The fact that Hahnemann may have been a scientist does not mitigate the fact that homeopathy was developed and continues to be practiced using a methodology which pretends to be scientific without actually satisfying the criteria of the codified scientific method. Hahnemann may have been a scientist in some regards, but homeopathy is clearly pseudoscience (neither "provings" nor homeopathic "treatments" are scientific, they are examples of verificationism - i.e. chasing a foregone conclusion). In addition, and as has been pointed out in several appropriate sources, current attempts at scientific trials of homeopathy almost exclusively rely on low quality, flawed research methods proposing to establish unjustified conclusions - i.e. pseudoscience. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah! Merck manual is a standard book on medicine. If you argument is true, any paper is an appeal to authority. Wow, why Hahnemann need "satisfying the actually criteria of the codified scientific method" in 1796 when the Jenner experiments do not satisfyng the same modern standars? Double razor! Please, feel to free and explain the criteria of the codified scientific method. And, you can't go without specify the "Hahnemann may have been a scientist in some regards, but homeopathy is clearly pseudoscience (neither "provings" nor homeopathic "treatments" are scientific, they are examples of verificationism - i.e. chasing a foregone conclusion).", when I post the link about of this topic, read the abstract: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5591362
Again, The Merck index referring to Hahnemann as a scientist does not establish that homeopathy is scientific. A "scientist" publishing his personal delusions on magic shaking is no more a matter of science than Einstein publishing his personal philosophy on religion or his favorite flavor of ice cream. Being recognized as a scientist doesn't mean that everything you do or write about is science. Homeopathy is clearly not. And who cares about Jenner (tu quoque)? His original tests may not have been scientific, but that has no bearing on the fact that his process and conclusion were later able to be validated through scientific inquiry and have yielded a mechanism of action which is coherent with the rest of the knowledge base that defines the physical sciences. Hahnemann's hypotheses began as unsubstantiated nonsense which deny the coherent mesh-work of all other scientific knowledge and they remain so to this day. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

2. There is way it can work. Homeopathic theory does not proposed the new "property of matter wich behaves as homeopathic doctrine demands". Your fallacy argument of "homeopathic doctrine inconsistent with all relevant knowledge gained since Hahnemann's time, including all of human biochemistry, pharmacology, molecular chemistry, and of course physcs (not just Avogadro, but also Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the law of conservation of energy, the laws of thermodynamics and indeed quantum electrodynamics)", is absolutely false. Check the paper: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5591362

A single abstract from a Spanish language journal called "Medicina naturista" doesn't satisfy WP:MEDRS. Any homeopathic apologist can rant about whatever he pleases in such journals - that doesn't make it a fact. It appears to be no more than an opinion piece, based on the available abstract. We will need to see the entire article (preferably in English, seeing as this is the English language version of WP), though it does not appear to be readily available at this time (at least not through my VPN). I assume that you have actually read the entire article, as we have seen the problems that come from merely skimming an abstract many times before. Can you supply an accessible link? EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, the most bibliography cited in the main article doesn't satisfy WP:MEDR. The main example is this: " Grimes, D. R. (2012). "Proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are physically impossible". Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies". Please, why Grimmes paper satisfy the WP:MEDR but do not the refutation of the Grimes paper?
Ah, I have confused myself chasing your various complaints. The Grimes paper is not making a claim about clinical research, so the WP:RS standards are different (we went through this a couple of years ago in detail). What he is stating are simple contradictions between the claims of homeopathy and known physical laws. Your source, as it stands, is a Spanish language abstract in an obscure journal dedicated to "natural medicine" (which has little to do with homeopathy, as homeopaths will put anything into a bottle and shake it up). We are not going to reference that as a reliable source to refute the fundamental laws of physics.
The inclusion of non WP:MEDRS compliant sources in our bibliography is absolutely justified since many of our sources are not making specific claims of clinical efficacy and safety, but rather are included as valuable historical/factual/cultural commentaries which do not refute the best available scientific and WP:MEDRS compliant information. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

3. There is a proof it work. Your statemente of "All experimental results are consistent with the null hypothesis and there is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything." is false. The Hahn review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200828 To conclude that homeopathy lacks clinical effect, more than 90% of the available clinical trials had to be disregarded. Linde Klausius and Robert Mathie are agree with the Hahn conclusion.

An opinionated abstract from the German Journal of Complementary Medicine is hardly a reliable source. The entire methodology section of the paper states:
Oh, wait, the main article cites the opinion of Wendell Holmes!!!!
Enough with the tu quoque nonsense already. Holmes'report is merely a refutation of Hahnemann's own unsubstantiated opinions as published in his hypothesis development (an hypothesis which Hahnemann never actually tested scientifically). You are trying to introduce a WP:MEDRS non-compliant source to refute the best available evidence as established in reputable meta-analyses. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
"Evidence-based medicine initiated a decade of struggle between believers and non-believers in which meta-analyses were used as the tool of analysis. All of them were based on virtually the same material, but authors arrived at different conclusions. The aim of the present re-appraisal of this period was to scrutinize the arguments used and to illustrate what non-believers rely on to advocate abandoning homeopathy in the evidence-based era."
There is no indication of any method being applied at all. In its place, the author has stated that he simply wants to complain about ("re-appraise" without out any clear methodology) the findings that he doesn't like. As per usual, it champions Linde's '97 analysis and ignores his '99 re-analysis which finds that quality matters, except of course to complain that it isn't fair. Lind's '99 analysis (and others) also offer the justification for ignoring "more than 90% of the available clinical trials". EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Ignore the 1999 re-analysis? Did you read the paper? Hahn cleary states: found that the strength of a meta-analysis became gradually poorer when dealing with studies of higher quality, but the relationship was not linear.

Hahn's claim that the relationship is not linear has no bearing on the fact that it is real. Again, he has stated no method about how he "analyzed" the data. I'll also point out that it is likely not linear because "quality" was defined by a simple Jaded analysis. The bulk of the papers that were still included in Linde's '99 analysis are underpowered and suffer from a variety of other flaws that are not captured in the Jaded analysis. Linde stopped with a Jaded analysis because, if he had used more strict and reasonable definitions of "quality", there would have been nothing left to analyze. This observation doesn't affect the content of our article in the least; I just wanted to point it out to save you from the delusion that Hahn actually has a point. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

4. "We have three separate government-level reviews and a mountain of other analysis all of which finds that homeopathy doesn't work." Please, show me the three reviews. Oh, sorry. The Brisith Government publish a pseudoreview based only in 47 pages. The definition of homeopathy is a joke, page 5: " but the important distinction is that homeopathic products are extremely diluted and administered according to specific principles". This is an opinion. Old Chapman, can you explain this contraditcion with the Wikipedia page? For example: "A 2C dilution requires a substance to be diluted to one part in 100, and then some of that diluted solution diluted by a further factor of 100." Thwe 2C dilution is not extremely diluted.

What is your concern with the statement:
" but the important distinction is that homeopathic products are extremely diluted and administered according to specific principles"
How is this an opinion (beyond the fact, of course, that it is a fair summary of Hahnemann's opinion on the magical nature of water)? What homeopath would object to the notion of "extreme dilution according to specific principles"? Isn't "seccussion" a specific principle that must be applied during the dilution process?
Your other concern with the description of a 2C "potentization" is also unfounded. That statement merely gives an example of what a 2C dilution entails; it is not intended to be an example of an "extreme" dilution, just the dilution process. Carrying that process out to 30C yields an absurd dilution. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, not. The 2C is cleary a homeopathic potency. Obiously is not a extreme dilution, is a low potency. What is the relation of 2C with the 30C "absurd dilution"? Dilutions are not absurds.
You are missing the point. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

5. "Set against that, we have a hard core of true believers who will consider that any statement that sounds even vaguely plausible and is inconsistent with any part of any of these analyses, amounts to a total debunking. A bit like creationists who, every time a new transitional fossil is found, demand that a transitional fossil is found between that and the next, otherwise God did it." This point is a very good example of ad-hominem attack and piece opinion with lack of any level of evidence. The straw man comparation is at the kinder level.

6. "Your so-called "debukings" are repudiations, not refutations. Learn the difference.". Sorry, can you repetan any coherent argument? You can't debunk the paper as I have posted? How can your opinions and fallacies debunks the peer reviewed literature?

7. "Check the archives of this talk page. Everything you say, has been said before, usually hundreds of times. We're bored with it." What is the relevance? Please, what does mean a "good evidence" and "plasuible" explanation? Show me the peer reviewed papers. The Onnus probandi is for you, now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.232.4.246 (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hahnemann was not a scientist, he pre-dates the scientific revolution in medicine. He was a doctor of the period before evidence-based medicine. Virtually everything that doctors "knew" back then was wrong and the process by which we discarded bloodletting, purging, the idea of the four humours and all the other garbage of Galen and Paracelsus (which would have formed Hahnemann's medical education, by the way) is precisely the process which led to homeopathy being discarded by the reality-based medical profession. As long ago as 1842, homeopathy was debunked as a delusion. Hehnemann was simply wrong. His ideas are not threatening to science or medicine, in fact if they were correct there would be some really interesting science to do. There's no remotely plausible reason why doctors would reject homeopathy if it actually provably worked. Look up Marshall and Warren to see what happens when an idea that challenges orthodoxy, can be conclusively demonstrated to be correct.
I can tell you in very simple terms what would change my mind about homeopathy:
  1. Robust evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of treatment;
  2. Identification of the property of matter by which this works, and proof that it is widespread if not universal;
  3. Objective proof that this property of matter persists through dilution, evaporation of the solvent when applied to pillules, and the enzymes of the mouth, to cross the cellular barriers into the body;
  4. Objective proof that it is then transported to the affected tissues and can act on them;
  5. A solid body of independently authenticated cases where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything.
I have asked a goodly number of homeopathy believers to come up with a similar list of things that they would accept as proof that homeopathy is bogus. I have yet to see a single such list that did not include at least one item that amounts to Saul not having encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. For example, one homeopathist said they would only be convinced if I could show that these hundreds of cures they had observed, had not happened. The substitution of a prosaic explanation for the mystical homeopathic one was, needless to say, rejected out of hand. That's how it is: science has an explanation for all the observed facts which is complete, coherent, and both internally and externally consistent. Homeopathists do not like that explanation, but the one they wish to substitute is incomplete, lacks coherence, is not internally consistent, and is entirely inconsistent externally (i.e. with relevant scientific knowledge in reality-based fields).
Incidentally, there's another giant red flag that marks homeopathy out as religious doctrine, not science. Any reality-based practice will from time to time discard ideas that turn out to be wrong. Medicine discards treatments all the time. Not just drugs, either: surgical inerventions and other practices. Can you identify a single remedy in the history of homeopathy which has been withdrawn form all repertories after being found to be incorrect? It is after all entirely implausible that homeopathy, a human endeavour, would be entirely immune from error. That's before we get into vexed questions like classical v. combination, OTC remedies or the imponderables. These disputes result in schism because any objective test of "is A true, or is B true" comes up with "neither" (or, as believers would see it, "both", despite them being mutually exclusive). Guy (Help!) 10:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The utterly biased Holmes "tests"? What is the name of journal of medicine in the was published the paper of Holmes?

Marshal and Warren take the pseudoskeptics block campaign in his theory? 1. Oh dear, in vitro evidence is a roubst evidence of the like cures likes. 2. By the way, today the physicochemical experiments are robust and high quality. 3. Oh dear, the Elia experiment prove the water memory in the evaporation of the solvent. Are you kidding me? If the nanoparticles are true, they can go to the cellular barriers into te body. 4. Obviously, if the effect is induced in the brain or cell membranes, they can modulates the networks of the body. See Bellavitte papers. (Oh, yeah, you can't understand the basis of biology and complex systems theories, sorry). 5. "A solid body of independently authenticated cases where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything." This is a joke? Medical cases of homeopathy independently authenticaded are published in thousands of journals per year. 6. "Homeopathists do not like that explanation, but the one they wish to substitute is incomplete, lacks coherence, is not internally consistent, and is entirely inconsistent externally": Wow, I post the papers about of explanation, (https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5591362) Guy Chapman rejects the paper in basis of personal opinion or in own standards of evidence based in opiniology pseudo-skepticms on Wikipedia (EBOPW). 7. "Can you identify a single remedy in the history of homeopathy which has been withdrawn form all repertories after being found to be incorrect? It is after all entirely implausible that homeopathy, a human endeavour, would be entirely immune from error." Duhh, what is the link of the "immune to the error" on individualized homeopathic rules? Please, feel to free and explain the contradiction. 8. "That's before we get into vexed questions like classical v. combination, OTC remedies or the imponderables" Wait, OTC remedies usually sold are low potencies. Thank for show me your own contradicctions with the Ernst urrely biased definition of homeopathy. Good job Guy, goo job. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.189.158 (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. Marshall and Warren were quite clear that the skeptical reaction to their early papers was amply justified. Their response was to bring better science. That persuaded the scientific community. The parallel here is that homeopathists react to science that contradicts them by bringing much worse science and then complaining that the universe is biased against them. It's the difference between a conclusion from observed, if unexpected, facts and a belief system learned from a holy book, the Organon, where all conflicting data and findings are ignored or waved away.
I asked for a single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything. Your response is to claim that many are published every year, yet you fail to cite one. Do feel free to do so. Remember, it must be independent of the treating homeopath or the homeopathic industry generally, it must be objective, so proven by pathology or similar, and it must be a cure which is provably a direct result of homeopathy, not passage of time or natural course of disease. Most of the case reports I have seen are of the form: a man with a cold took oscillo and was better in under a week, hallelujah praise be to Hahnemann. I'd be interested in seeing some that rise above this level.
You don't seem to understand the implication of the failure of homeopathy ever to disprove a single remedy. It is this: homeopathy is a human endeavour, no human endeavour is immune to error. Provings are conducted by people from a variety of backgrounds some of whom are, bluntly, differently sane. It is utterly inconceivable that no error has ever been made, yet I have yet to be given a single example where homeopathy has identified or corrected an error. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Marshal and Warren are irrelevant for the experimental evidencie in homeopathy, they not talked about homeopathy in their books. About the question of the contradictions of science, only the old vitalism contradicts the knowledge of diseases, not more. The effect of high potencies and the simile rule are another questions in naturalistic approach independent of vitalism philosophy (in modern sense). How does this topics contradicts all laws of physics, chemistry and biology? Still no evidence of this. Yes, you asked for a single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, but you can't ask for the paper. So, you need a only case, one, not more. 2 Cases, not one, two: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4052594/

Wait, Oscillococcinum? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26038386 Read the text: Although controversial, clinical evidence, gathered by comparing oscillococcinum to placebo, does exist to support this claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.143.250.54 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You just cited a case report, the lowest form of clinical evidence, and the statement that osci is effective was not even the subject of this report. It's become quite clear you don't know how to read scientific literature, and I'm not sure you really care to learn. You keep cherry picking original research articles to try and prove some point that disputes reviews and meta-analyses. It has become boring and repetitive. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The relevance of Marshall and Warren is that they show how to go about turning science on its head. It hinges on bringing better science. Homeopaths instead bring more and more junk science.
Your first source: "both patients were treated additively with classical homeopathy". In other words, they received reality-based treatment and were not cured by hoemopathy.
Your second source: a patient who was using a proprietary product based on the non-existent oscillococcus bacterium, coincidentally suffered some other health problem with no objectively demonstrated connection to the product.
Yup, that's exactly the kind of crap I mean. Now bring me an independently authenticated case where homeopathy (not reality-based treatment plus homeopathy) has been objectively shown, through pathology, biological assays or whatever, to have cured anybody of anything, rather than simply amused them while nature did its work. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
You before: "I asked for a single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything". You after: "You just cited a case report, the lowest form of clinical evidence". Your contradictions are more funniest I ever seen around the Wikipedia! About of the the statement of Oscillo as an effective against syntoms, is very relevant, there is not about of inexistent bacteria, is based on liver duck (virus of flu). Youn can only repeat bored ad-hominem's as " It's become quite clear you don't know how to read scientific literature". Wow, Marshal and Warren, Marshal and Waren, blah, blah, and still no evidence against the positive evidence of homeopathy I was posted. The party begins! In "In other words, they received reality-based treatment and were not cured by hoemopathy." Oh, you can't the basis of medicine and adjunctive treatment? Wow, why do you can't not offer any argument? Your great response is a "kind of crap I mean."? The most funny is this "to have cured anybody of anything, rather than simply amused them while nature did its work." Well done, please feel to free and share the extraordinary evidence of your beliefs in each person of the world!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.170.208 (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
"has been objectively proven" was perhaps not a very easy-to-understand wording. It means that the proof should fulfil certain minimum quality requirements. A case report does not fulfil them. You never know whether a patient has been cured by the therapy or only during the therapy, so, for every given bogus treatment, it is very easy to find cases where sick people recovered while being given that treatment. This is why people believe in bogus treatments in the first place. (This reasoning is called superstition, by the way.)
The idea you should get into your head is: you are not only fallible (being a human), you are massively ignorant of the humongous extent of your fallibility - and of the humongous extent of your ignorance. The fact that you seriously consider case reports evidence shows, to everybody who is aware of how science is done and why, that you know nothing. This is not ad hominem. Ad hominem means: your reasoning is ignored because of who you are. This is the other way around: your reasoning is so bad that people tell you how much you have to learn until you can sensibly talk about any such matter as validity of medical treatments.
On top of that, you should read through what you wrote before you click "Save changes" to make sure it makes sense. Your contributions are full of incoherent sentences and half-sentences. I have to read many of them several times to find out what you could have been trying to say, and often fail. It is your responsibility as a writer to communicate clearly, especially when you are trying to convince people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, GuyC said: "I asked for a single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything". What does mean for you a single case? Case, not RCT. All your ad-hoc excuses are really bad, in some cases the RCT is not feasible in medical conditions as the example that I posted. You can't not ask me. You only throw typical ad-hominem attacks of Gerbic trolls as "you are massively ignorant of the humongous extent of your fallibility - and of the humongous extent of your ignorance". That's all, this your argument, and ad-hominem attacks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.143.248.213 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
So what happened in this case? Someone got better after getting homeopathic treatment. Where is the objective proof Guy demanded that the treatment was the reason for the improvement? There isn't any, just the bad logic of superstitious people who believe that two consecutive events must be causally connected. What you want to do cannot be done in principle. These are not ad-hoc excuses, this is just the way science is done. Or rather, your way of thinking is the way science is not done, and has been for centuries. Pointing out that your reasoning is crap is not ad hominem, and telling you to learn how to do it is not ad hominem. Please go away. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
What Hob Gadling said. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Biased propaganda

The WP:MEDRD include the Grimes paper but not this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732215312277 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.189.158 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree the paper concludes:

The results indicate that even in extreme dilutions the molecules of acidum salicylicum may be present in these homoeopathic formulations. Both the presence of acidum salicylicum as well as succussion phenomenon may be responsible for the variation of the physicochemical properties of these homoeopathic formulations. --Kthelen (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

We do not include primary studies making extraordinary claims published in journals with no proper expertise in the subject. And frankly, even if the finding were true and repeatable (which it almost certainly is not), it would be irrelevant because (a) there is no evidence linking most homeopathic products to the conditions they purportedly treat and (b) there is no evidence that the tiny and barely-detectable traces of these substances found by papers like this (and Chikramane et. al and a handful of others) would transfer to the body via the intermediary of being evaporated off a sugar pill, let alone that they would do so in a quantity capable of having any objectively testable effect. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, Journal of Molecular Liquids is a journal of specific field in physical chemistry of water. So, what is a "extraordinady claim"? How the supramolecular organization in water is a "extraordinary claim"? Obviously, the paper is not a clinical trial, but the paper confirms the Chikramane results in another setting with another measures. Arount the question of transfer to the body, can you understand the Montaigner papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.143.250.54 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
This is just one in a number of journals that have been duped into publishing irreproducible "high dilution" research that would be rejected by journals whose reviewers were properly aware of the Trojan horse they represent. Come back when there is solid evidence in high impact journals showing that like cures like as a general or common principle, that the property of matter by which this is conferred persists and is strengthened through dilution and twerking, that it persists through the standard method of evaporation onto a sugar pillule, that it survives the enzymes of the mouth and crosses the barriers into the bloodstream, is transferred through the body, arrives where it is required, and that it does so in a way that results in specific and objectively testable effects on the relevant tissues. It's a matter of Hyman's categorical imperative: Do not try to explain something until you have demonstrated there is something to be explained. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

..::Still no evidence of "number of journals that have been duped into publishing irreproducible "high dilution" and "trojan horse". Sorry Chapman, yout ad-hoc excuses is only an great example of the corruption by Guerrilla Skepticism. Again, what does mean "solid evidence"? Why do you personal beliefs validates the "high impact journls" and questionable Impact Factor? How does the IF validates the facts in science? Around the "that it persists through the standard method of evaporation onto a sugar pillule", you cant view the Elia papers. The HYman arguments is irrelevant, I posted the links, when you only excludes the evidence with bored excuses or rethorical pseudo debunks. I need the exactly definiton of solid evidence and "extraordinarya claims" without not more ad-hoc excuses (they argumentes need based in peer review papers, not Randi beliefs or gangs as CSICOP). Still no evidence Chapman?

Iris Bell has a publication history consisting of one paper per journal for some years. I also mentioned Chikramane et. al. (in Langmuir, but I'm sure you're familiar with it). The fact that you are unaware of this practice does not mean it does nto happen.
I am nothing to do with GSoW, I have been an admin here and editing this article since before GSoW ever existed.
What I mean by solid evidence is: well-conducted experiments that can be independently reproduced (unlike, say Benveniste). There is no need to scare quote high-impact journals, journal impact factors are a standard metric and have been for years. It's crude but has some basic utility.
Now let me ask you the standard question I ask of homeopathy proponents. What evidence would you accept as showing that you are wrong, and homeopathy is based on false beliefs?
Incidentally, this is Wikipedia. Here I am known as JzG or Guy. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
No, you need ask me the first question. What is the a "good evidence"? What evidence would you accept as showing that you are wrong, and homeopathy is based on evidence? Still no evidence of "number of journals that have been duped into publishing irreproducible "high dilution" and "trojan horse".
Your comments are difficult to parse, I guess English is not your first language. If you are asking me what would cause me to re-evaluate my view of homeopathy, I can tell you very simply. One or more of the following:
  1. Robust evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of cure, showing the property of matter by which this is achieved and demonstrating that it is present in most, if not all, substances used in homeopathy.
  2. Independently authenticated cases where homeopathy alone is objectively proven to have cured organic disease.
  3. Conclusive proof that some property of matter behaves as hoemopathy would require - retaiing and gaining potency through dilution, persisting through evaporation from a sugar pill, passing to the body through absorption in the mouth, and arriving at an objectively testable level in the affected tissues.
What would persuade yout that homeopathy is wrong? Guy (Help!) 10:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Puddin bias=

1. Hahnemann began the practice with mother tinctures and low potencies in CH scale. 2. If the formerly point is true, why James Randi don't take homeopathic massive water solutions of 2CH (in 100 ml) of belladona or arnica montana? 3. The legal status of homeopathy in European Union is recognized as homeopathy any product hand made in accordance of HPUS books. This include low potency and mother tinctures. Again, the questions, answers and discussion about of this confussion is avaliable in the next link: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5591362 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.143.250.54 (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Once again, a primary study in an unregarded Spanish journal of quackademic medicine is not going to trump the numerous high level high impact sources already in the article. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Ad-hominem attacks as "journal of quackadamec". Sure, sure, Guy. Why Focus on Alternative and Complementary Medicine edited by Ernst is not a quack journal?
No, ad hominem would be an attack on an individual This is a non-notable journal of quackademia, no impact factor, appears not to be indexed by PubMed. The sources on the article are at a vastly higher level. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Ad-hominem attack apply when you excluded any paper that contradicts your beliefs. Pubmed in an only data base, not a journal, not the tribunal of truth.
And, once again, you are missing the point. The legal recognition of 2C and other such high concentration real dilutions is a matter of the regulatory loopholes which I referenced above. Just because the law arbitrarily classifies something as homeopathic and allows it to be marketed as such does not mean that the product in question is anything more than a pharmacologically (not homeopathically) active material. The legal process is not the scientific process. If the homeopaths had their way, they would perform a 1X succussion of morphine to yield the standard dose and claim that it is homeopathic and stands as proof of homeopathic value. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Loopholes? Sorry, you cna't understand the fact of Hahnemann use of low potency and mother tinctures. This is not only a legal matter. 2C is homeopathy. See example of Ernst Systematic Review published in JAMA (1998). Table 1: Key data from placebo controlled clinical trials of homeopathic arnica. See Hildrebrant: D2 to D8 potencies. This potencies is solutions below the Avogadro number. Can you read this basic contradictions in your discourse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.170.208 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Odd that you failed to understand what Ernst was getting at there. Arnica cream is a standard vanising cream base plus 2C arnica, it is a herbal ointment and may indeed have some small effect. This could even be more than the effect of the base cream, though there is no actual evidence for this. Does that prove that light of Venus cures inertia and unfocused thinking? Nope.
Herbalism does not work on the doctrine of similars. Arnica has been used for bruising, as a herbal remedy, for centuries, well before Hahnemann plucked homeopathy out of his organon. You can call it homeopathic if you like, and technically and legallistically that might be so, but according to any reality-based view, no, it is not.
The scientific community is aware of all the observed facts, and the scientific explanation for homeopathy (nonspecific effects, i.e. placebo) i fully consistent with all those facts, and with other well-established principles. Homeopaths' views are incoherent, often mutually contradictory, and at odds with all other relevant knowledge, and this is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Your comment prove the lack of basic understand in the topic. Herbalism is not homeopathy, correct. The Systematic Review of Ernst cleary states: "The homeopathic remedy most frequently studies in placebo-controlled clinical trials is Arnica montana". Can you read the part of homeopathic remedy?
I have read Ernst's writing on this, and have discussed it with him in person. Arnica cream is branded homeopathic but fails to validate the claims of homeopathy because it contains active ingredients, and is also prepared in a base cream which also has demonstrable effects. The evidence for the arnica having effect over the base cream, incidentally, is very weak indeed. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Bias WP:MEDRS

Sorry, the Grimmes paper made claims about of clinical research: "Many clinical trials investigating the efficacy of homeopathy have failed to show any benefit of the therapy beyond a placebo effect. Patients who receive benefit from homeopathy may do so because of the non-specific effects of the therapeutic encounter." The FACT journal is obscure, the IF is very low: 0.17, H index = 7 in 2016. The journal of MedicinaNaturista show more less the same level. The difference? The paper is not about of clinical research, is only about the plausibility of low and high potencies. Again: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5591362 The paper do not refute the laws of physics, is a debunk of Park and grimmes arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.170.208 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying "debunk" when you mean "repudiate". Please stop. The difference is that the FACT paper addresses a real question whereas the one you keep pushing is of the form "aluminimum threads may be woven into carpets, therefore carpets fly by the same mechanism as jet aircraft". Guy (Help!) 22:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Repudiate? Again your straw man attack's. Please, the paper https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=5591362 is not about of flying carpets. What happened with your false claim of supposed "lack of clinical research" in Grimmes paper? Why the Grimmes Paper apply selective WP:MDR?
There is no way we are modifying an English language WP article based on a poorly translated abstract from a Spanish language journal of no consequence, so you can stop pushing that link. I'd be happy to read the full article if you can produce a tolerable English translation of it, though that doesn't necessarily mean it will be found to be of any more value. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this one, Guy. Now all we need is a clinical trial to show that carpets with aluminium threads sometimes fall slower than ones without, and then magic becomes real. Heptor talk 22:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Homeopathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathy

As a proposed replacement for the lede, this fails at every conceivable level. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a system of medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur) The word “homeopathy” is derived from two Greek words: homoios which means “similar” and pathos which means “suffering.” Homeopathy's basic premise is called the “principle of similars,” and it refers to recurrent observation and experience that a medicinal substance will elicit a healing response for the specific syndrome of symptoms (or suffering) that it has been proven to cause when given in overdose to a healthy person. While it can scarcely compare in antiquity with Chinese or Indian medicine, homeopathy is the longest established CAM to have arisen in Europe. It was founded by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), who grew up in Meissen in Germany, received his medical degree in Erlangen in 1779, and died a millionaire in Paris in 1843. The aspect of homeopathy that is not acceptable or hard to belief for some people is that the medicines are often – though by no means always – diluted to the point where there may be no molecules of original substance left. One of the leading current proposals for how such ‘ultramolecular’ dilutions work is that water is capable of storing information relating to substances with which it has previously been in contact 

Homeopathic medicine has its own sophisticated system of using substances from the plant, mineral, chemical, and animal kingdoms. This article will describe--in a modern and even futuristic fashion--this fascinating and powerful method of strengthening the body's own defense system. It is important to note that immunizations and allergy treatments are two of the very few applications in modern medicine today that actually stimulate the body's own defenses in the prevention or treatment of specific diseases, and it is NOT simply a coincidence that both of these treatments are derived from the homeopathic principle of similar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taanish Kumaar (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
"It is important to note that immunizations and allergy treatments are two of the very few applications in modern medicine today that actually stimulate the body's own defenses in the prevention or treatment of specific diseases, and it is NOT simply a coincidence that both of these treatments are derived from the homeopathic principle of similar." Nonsense. Immunization descends from the practice of variolation, which predates not only homeopathy, but Hahnemann himself. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The article currently claims "Dilution typically continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain." THIS IS NONSENSE! The "active" substance exists somewhere. For instance, if I take 1 molecule and mix it into 10 Liters of water, and then divide the water into 1 Liter bottles, one of those bottles will (probably) contain that original molecule. (assuming its not absorbed, lost, nor degraded during the mixing and transfer processes). I propose this factually false statement be replaced with:"The original substance is diluted beyond any real likelihood of finding a single molecule of the original substance in a litre of the product." Which is a modification of a similar sentence in the homeopathic dilution article.
Also, the article fails to point out that the principle mainstream criticism is that the dilution produces a product with no active ingredient present BECAUSE the enormous dilution factor. The problem with this is that this analysis fails to evaluate the likelihood that a significant amount of material may be absorbed onto the glassware's surface so that the concentration in the final product is due to surface absorption/desorption and may be many orders of magnitude higher that what is simplistically calculated. In a scenario where material preferentially is absorbed onto its container's inner wall, then the amount present in the bulk liquid will depend on the turbulence of mixing, and whether the containers are reused, among other things. 71.31.91.125 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The meaning is abundantly clear in context, and supported by sources. Your idiosyncratic interpretation is unpersuasive. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I almost feel bad pointing out that you have proven the point that you are challenging in your own example. If the one molecule in your original 10 liters shows up in one of the liters that the original volume was distributed into, how much of the original 1 molecule is in those other nine 1 liter bottles? With every 10 fold dilution, the bulk of the material is likely to be left behind in the 9/10 that is not carried forward into the subsequent dilution.
As for absorption and desorption, you are arguing against one of the primary tenets of homeopathy. Hahnemann didn't say "shake and dilute and depend on material sticking to the glassware" he said "the more you dilute it, the more potent it becomes". Besides, if any substantial amount remained it would be detectable. Any argument that residual active molecules are responsible for the effects of homeopathic preparations is an argument against homeopathy and an argument for classical pharmacological effects. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
In practice, many commercially sold homeopathic remedies are not as dilute as they are claimed to be. This can be due to a number of factors, such as materials getting absorbed by their container to form a reservoir, insufficient mixing (especially an issue with hydrophobic solutes), and outright fraud. There was a paper in the journal Homeopathy about this that I had thought was mentioned somewhere in this article, but apparently not. Though of course it's hard to trust anything from that journal. But I'm sure some reputable scientists have put absurdly diluted homeopathic remedies through a mass spec to see if they are actually prepared the way they are supposed to be. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Whereas some are more dilute: Nelsons were found not to be adding the magic to one vial in six, and their method of preparation meant that even when the magic was added, most pillules were not exposed to it. Funnily enough - and I know you will find this really hard to credit - not one customer noticed the difference. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Never mind. After rereading the original post, I see what the concern is. I've just become accustomed to expecting gibberish from the anonymous IP contributors on this page and read it through too quickly. Sorry.
Agree with Guy though that it is fairly clear in context. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathic preparations suspected in infant death and poisonings.

Should there be some mention of this in our article?

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-homeopathic-teething-product-is-being-investigated-in-the-deaths-of-10-babies

EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It would seem to be backed up by the FDA, at: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm230762.htm so, yes.

LeadSongDog come howl! 19:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about this with info about the FDA investigation, CVS (pharmacy) withdrawal of the homeopathy products from sale and Hyland's discontinuation of the products in the US. At the time of writing I don't think the FDA has comprehensively pinned the blame on the products, testing still ongoing etc, but given that almost exactly the same thing happened six years earlier it's a bit unfortunate. JoBrodie (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
My friend JoBrodie just added it. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks JoBrodie, looks nice. I wasn't trying to make work for anyone else, just wanted the go ahead and check before changing the article. :oD EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wirral (UK NHS) scraps funding of homeopathy

In 2016 NHS Health Chiefs in Wirral, UK cut funding for homeopathic remidies. Other areas which still fund homeopathy have since moved into the private sector, meaning that the UK NHS no longer funds homeopathic remedies. Ministers in the UK dept of health are discussing adding homeopathy to a black list of treatments (formerly known as schedule 1), which GPs will be barred from prescribing to patients, which will effectively cut homeopathic remidies from the NHS --- feel free to add the above text verbatim or otherwise to a relevant part of the article.

The article currently states that this is in progress - that process has now in part concluded. Here is the latest.

Citations as follows:

Other links to medical boards in UK can be found in body of cited links ---prefer to propose edit on talk page first due to sensitive nature of this page.Edaham (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We already have the following in the article:
"Following a threat of legal action by the Good Thinking Society campaign group, the British government has stated that the Department of Health will hold a consultation in 2016 regarding whether homeopathic treatments should be added to the NHS treatments blacklist (officially, Schedule 1 of the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) (Prescription of Drugs etc.) Regulations 2004), that specifies a blacklist of medicines not to be prescribed under the NHS.[309][310][311]"
I'm happy to see clarification and detail added as you've suggested (some combination of the text perhaps, so long as it doesn't get cumbersome). That's just one man's vote however. EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a legitimate point. Homeopathy is now funded by NHS CCGs in only three areas: London, Bristol and Glasgow. Wirral ceased funding this month. blacklisting is a separate issue. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
according to the two most recent of the cited links (sorry there are so many of them from different dates), London is the only one left depending on how we read the articles...
* "Bristol and London are believed to be the only areas left paying for homeopathy, according to the Good Thinking Society, which is campaigning to have it blacklisted on the NHS." http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-37556514 (5th October 2016)
and in this
* "There are now only two NHS centres offering homeopathic treatments - in London and Glasgow. Another two former ones - in Bristol and Liverpool - have moved into the private sector, but still see NHS patients (although it was announced this week the last health body funding the Liverpool one was going to stop sending patients)." http://www.bbc.com/news/health-37557083 (6th October 2016)
So the information is getting a little muddled. It's more than possible that the news source being used as the main source of info here hasn't clearly construed the overall picture. I suggest rather than make an edit at this time we keep an eye on the topic and make a change when clear and well sourced information becomes available. Obviously there is a potential shift in poilicy in progress which, depending on the outcome will affect the accuracy of the information in the article. Doesn't hurt to be prepared :) Edaham (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
As far as I understand it, Bristol and Glasgow CCGs both fund homeopathy in the clinics that are all that remain of what were originally homeopathic hospitals. The Royal London Hospital for Magical Thinking Integrative Medicine also offers homeopathy, and this is funded by an unknown number of the London CCGs fund treatment there. Spend is around £3m annually in London, IIRC, and £300k in Bristol. Scottish quacks are trying to get the Scottish Government to fund the Glasgow clinic since the NHS has, or is set to, drop funding due to lack of evidence of efficacy of any of its treatments.
Also, Les Rose's dogged pursuit of homeopathy charities, notably Maun, has now been picked up by the Good Thinking Society, and the Charities Commission is to review the status of alternative health charities by July 2017.
Homeopathy in the UK is on the ropes, big time. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Great job Wikipedia on this article

Great job Wikipedia on this article !

Looks very high quality and educational.

It's helpful that you can find all those sources backed up right there in the introduction section -- very useful !

69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving of a content acoss sections.

Recently,I have moved(more appropriately selectively merged without data loss) the lone paragraph from the section-"Official conclusions and recommendations",to the "Government Level Reviews" sub-sub section under the "efficacy" sub-section under "Evidence and efficacy" section of the article.Previously it contained two parts of the same data(About the the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia recommendations and conclusions) at two different places but each part had some extra lines which were not mentioned at the other part!i believe the current style serves the article best.Anybody with any problem/offer/advice may write below for developing a consensus without rapidly reverting the edits!Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 09:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There was "data loss", in that you removed the headline conclusions from the NMHRC review. I don't think anyone minds reorganising and tidying the article, in and o itself, it's the loss of these conclusions that is significant. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Apostrophe needed

Under "United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2015 hearing," in the second list item, "products" in "the products claimed active ingredients in plain English" needs an apostrophe. It should be "the product's claimed active ingredients..." I was reading it as subject + predicate sentence construction (plural noun = "products" + past tense verb = "claimed") and it didn't make sense. Took me a minute to figure out what was meant. 2602:304:AB1E:E619:8043:3ECE:4D8D:8C17 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Switzerland

The 2016 information was correctly removed: this is a political, not an evidential response, the evidence has not changed, no new evidence assessment has been performed, there is still no evidence it works, but lobbyists have managed to secure funding (with a few basic safeguards for patients). That is possibly relevant to prevalence and provision, but is not in any way relevant to efficacy, because it doesn't even pretend to address it. The shutdown of NHS hoemopathy, on the other hand, is relevant because it is entirely the result of evidence assessments. For the same reason, if the NHS adds homeopathy to the prescription blacklist that will be a major development. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable interpretation of events. Politically, making any sort of change is almost always more difficult than leaving things as they are and allowing time for "more study" (and, ideally, another election cycle...). If the Swiss manage to actually demonstrate efficacy, that would be a significant event. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The 2016 information was correctly removed as it was in the wrong section. The information that was there, and is there this morning, has a link to a citation, which is incorrectly quoted. I amended this to show, in abbreviated form, what the linked page, published on Jan 1, 2012, said: "Interior Minister Didier Burkhalter announced that five therapies previously struck off the state insurance list – meaning they would not be reimbursed – will be reinstated as of 2012 as part of a six-year trial period. The sting: all must prove their “efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability” by 2017.

The therapies include: anthroposophical medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy and traditional Chinese medicine.

Back in 2005 the interior ministry rejected the therapies, arguing they failed to meet the legal requirement of “scientific proof” of the three efficacy criteria. The reversal in policy follows a nationwide vote in 2009 in which two-thirds of Swiss came out in favour of including the therapies on the constitutional list of paid health services."

The current statement is incorrect as it says: the Swiss Federal Health Office have each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding. I added the sentence "The Swiss Federal Health Office allowed a period of five years to enable homeopathy to prove its “efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability” by 2017."The funding has continued to be in place from January 2012. So at the time the current statement was inserted, the funding was still in place and will continue uninterrupted.

From May 2017, it is fully reinstated and paid for. This information was published by the source already quoted — swissinfo.ch — on March 29, 2016. It includes: "After being rejected in 2005 by the authorities for lack of scientific proof of their efficacy, complementary and alternative medicines made a comeback in 2009 when two-thirds of Swiss backed their inclusion on the constitutional list of paid health services.As a result of the vote, these treatments are covered by basic compulsory insurance as part of six-year trial period from 2012-2017. However, they were all required to prove their “efficacy, cost-effectiveness and suitability” by 2017.

"In a statement released on Tuesday, the interior ministry said it had come to the conclusion that it was “impossible to provide such proof for these disciplines in their entirety”.

"They will thus be treated on a par with other medical disciplines, when it comes to health insurance.

The ministry plans to continue allowing reimbursements of treatment costs by compulsory health insurance, provided they are administered by certified medical doctors."

Your validation for removing the information that I put "this is a political, not an evidential response," is supported by a comment about the UK NHS. The closing of certain homeopathy provisions in UK is a political not evidential response. Individual Health Trusts voted on whether to keep hospitals open. They decided where to put their very limited and stretched resources, not on the empirical evidence of patient outcomes for the hospitals; evidence from which can be found here http://facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/clinical-outcomes-studies/ Two hospitals remain funded by the NHS.

The central policy behind Wikipedia is to portray information in a neutral and objective way — I was trying to assist by amending incorrect information. Most of the rest of the article seems factual though the statement here "Efficacy

No individual preparation has been unambiguously shown by research to be different from placebo" is certainly incorrect. One Swiss hospital study, specifically conducted to fulfill all research criteria clearly shows the remedy does the job it was prescribed for. Few people are likely to know of it I assume, as when offered to the Lancet, the editor declined is as "of little interest to our readers".

Some items under Regulation and prevalence may need updating as they don't reflect current practice in some of the European countries stated.

Talkinghorse (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Talkinghorse

I understand that the lobbyists have successfully persuaded the politicians that their beliefs should not be subjected to tests that they cannot pass. This means nothing: the reason you can't prove that homeopathy works is that homeopathy doesn't work, and the results of political machinations do not change that. There is no new evidence. The evidence still says that homeopathy is bogus.
It is false to assert that your one study refutes the fact that no individual preparation has been unambiguously shown by research to be different from placebo. The result is consistent with the null hypothesis. Every outcome of every homeopathy trial, is consistent with the null hypothesis. If this were not so, there would be a cataclysmic shift in the science of matter.
As Ioannidis rightly points out, P=0.05 is not a valid test for entirely implausible interventions. It is quite possible for all of the positive results ot be false, and extremely unlikely for them to be anything else as (a) there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work since like does not actually cure like and symptomatic similarity was based on miasmal theory which has been known to be wrong for over a century; (b) there is no way it can work, since its claims are inconsistent with all relevant scientific knowledge; and (c) there is no proof it does work, including not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively demonstrated to have cured anybody of anything, ever.
You are trying to use one study to rebut three Government-level reviews of the totality of evidence, despite the fact that those reviews incorporated all valid evidence, whether positive or negative. Simply put, that's not how it works. You are also showing all the hallmarks of a sleeper sockpuppet, by the way. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how the evidence for homeopathy actually relates to the incorrect text that I edited. I was neither disputing the correctness of otherwise of the statements about whether it works or not, nor how. I was correcting the statements about whether it was funded. The information you state above is also incorrect in part: and (c) there is no proof it does work, including not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively demonstrated to have cured anybody of anything, ever.

I offered you an example. Of course nothing should be subjected to tests it cannot pass. However if it can prove that a valid scientific test shows something to be true, the whole argument against saying it is false is invalid. This is a basic principle of Mathematics and Logic.

I have looked up "sleeper sockpuppet" as it's a term I am unfamiliar with. I have not edited in some time, because I was part of team gathered together in North Wales in 2014, to create local information which was then accessed via a QR code displayed in various locations in the area. The team was managed by Robin Owain info@cymruwales.com who was employed by Wikipedia in Wales. The last contact I had with the team was when the local county council was requested to issue a content release note as a bot removed the content the county council asked to be included. I have not lived in Wales for some time and now live in Austria. I assume that covers the sleeper part of your allegation. I have awoken over time to correct such things as a link to the current Runcorn–Widnes Bridge that was in a description of the Transporter Bridge demolished in the early 1960's and there may have been other occasions when I noticed something minor that was incorrect too.

The sockpuppet aspect is easy to refute, as I have only ever had one account, used from time to time over a number of years.

I look forward to receiving your agreement to making the corrections I suggested. I will not alter anything else, without running my proposal through you here first.

Talkinghorse (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Talkinghorse

The only reason homeopathy cannot pass the tests of objective science, is that it's bullshit. You might as well say that the earth being flat should not be subjected to tests because it cannot pass. The test is perfectly valid, the idea is not.
The changes you made served to obscure the fact that homeopathy is objectively bogus, according to the Swiss Government's evidence process, which agrees with that of the UK and Australia, and also the more recent review by the US Federal Trade Commission.
The article title is tendentious: "Swiss to recognise homeopathy as legitimate medicine". No, they can't turn it into legitimate medicine by paying for it, that would be legislative alchemy. It's not legitimate medicine. I see no byline on the article, it seems ot have been written by one of the many quackery apologists who are active in Switzerland. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"The only reason homeopathy cannot pass the tests of objective science, is that it's bullshit." I am astounded. Could you explain how this statement is compatible with Wikipedia Policy: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, …?

"The article title is tendentious: "Swiss to recognise homeopathy as legitimate medicine". No, they can't turn it into legitimate medicine by paying for it, that would be legislative alchemy. It's not legitimate medicine. I see no byline on the article, it seems ot have been written by one of the many quackery apologists who are active in Switzerland." Might I ask then, why you include an incomplete quote from exactly the same source? Both are from the official english–language Swiss Government information outlet. If the Swiss Government spokesman chooses those words to express the opinion of the Swiss Interior Minstry and they are published in a government sponsored publication, we can surely assume their credibility; particularly if the man in charge has been chosen because he has a Swiss PhD in Law. If not, anything else from this source is called into dispute.

The Swiss do not say they are turning it into legitimate medicine by paying for it, but because they do not yet have the means to disprove its inefficacy. The one piece of research evidence in the Swiss ADD / ADHD double-blind study, where the research team proved under rigorous scientific conditions that homeopathy is effective in hyperactive children is sufficient to cause them to say that.

Talkinghorse (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse

You will notice that this is a talk page. There's no requirement to adhere to the stricter standards of article space. The correct statement in scientific terms is that homeopathy is a belief system based on extrapolation from a single incorrect conclusion, whose principles have been refuted for over a century, and for which there is no plausible mechanism, whose supporters have engaged in relentless pseudoscience for decades in order to obscure the fact that every single relevant scientific finding is entirely inconsistent with their belief sand claims.
To save time and bytes, we can use, on a talk page, the shortcut: bullshit.
The article title is tendentious, there is no byline, the Swiss have not validated homeopathy, they have just decided not to have the fight with the quackery shills, who are well funded and lobby assiduously - this is hardly a surprise as any intrusion of reality-based policy will be fatal for their lucrative business. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathic hospitals cost £1,000,000 each to fund. Patient benefit studies from the remaining three homeopathic hospitals show 70% of follow-up patients reported improved health, 50% referring to major improvement. The best treatment responses were reported in childhood eczema and asthma, and in inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, menopausal problems and migraine in adults. Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. "Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year university-hospital outpatient observational study". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2005; 5: 793–798. Clover A. "Patient benefit survey": Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital. British Homeopathic Journal, 2000; 89: 68–72. Richardson WR. Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine. British Homeopathic Journal, 2001; 90: 158–162. This is good value compared with the wastage reported from NHS estimates of unused medicine it prescribes: £300million every year.

According to the NHS information on their website http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx#available: Homeopathy is usually practised privately and homeopathic remedies are available from pharmacies. The price for an initial consultation with a homeopath can vary from around £20 to £80. Homeopathic tablets or other products usually cost around £4 to £10. Could you please supply your evidence of the vast sums homeopaths get to bribe governments from the small amounts their work makes?

Talkinghorse (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse

Sorry, what's the point of this discussion? Homeopathy is obvious bollocks and that must be the context for everything Wikipedia says about it. If something odd is going on in Switzerland it mustn't undermine the obvious facts about this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
It takes a special kind of optimism to read the NHS documents on homeopathic hospitals as any kind of endorsement. A handful of CCGs in the UK still fund homeopathy, two more (Wirral and Liverpool) stopped last year, and Glasgow funding is also apparently at an end. The official NHS page on homeopathy - the very page you cited - puts "treatment" in scare quotes. You cited the Faculty of Homeopathy earlier as if they are a neutral source: they aren't. They are engaged in a rearguard action to protect their business and beliefs from the inevitable. Like does not cure like, dilution reduces potency, miasms don't cause disease, homeopathy is nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
And the Swiss government cannot change that magically by making a decision. Talkinghorse, you should read Indiana Pi Bill, which describes a similar attempt to change reality by voting on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

My reference to the NHS document was in respect the the amounts they quoted for a homeopathic consultation and the cost of the remedies prescribed. I asked for the evidence that showed how they could produce large sums to influence politicians.

I gather none of you have had time to go through the thirty RCT experiments here http://researchinhomeopathy.org/database/clinical-research/ — these are just the Clinical Research ones, there are hundreds of others. Nor are you aware that the country I live in includes homeopathy as part of the training for all doctors, vets and pharmacists. As the evidence submitted to UK Parliament when Homeopathy was being considered shows in Hansard, seven french universities teach homeopathy to their doctors and 25,000 french doctors prescribe it. There are 60,000 in Germany and 20,000 in Italy whereas UK has just 500 homeopathic doctors. I really suggest you read the Hansard report of the debate https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2010-06-02/debates/1006037000001/IntegratedHealthCare you will see that the picture you present of Britain, in regard to homeopathy is incorrect.

In addition I should remind you that nine million organic farm animals in the EU cannot be admitted into the food chain if they are treated with anything other than phytotherapy (herbs) or homeopathy. Almost all receive homeopathy and have done so for many years.

I doubt if I have to ability to override your bias, but I am shocked that personal opinion is allowed to influence what is published as fact. It is difficult to imagine that "[Dogs] can detect parts per trillion- that’s the equivalent of one drop of blood in two Olympic –sized swimming pools,” (2x 2,500,000 litres) according to Dr Claire Guest co-founder of the group Medical Detection Dog, but the NHS were prepared to put their money on it. Because it cannot possibly be explained how they do it — like detecting heroin which has not smell — isn't evidence that it doesn't happen.

Talkinghorse (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse

Collecting studies with positive results and ignoring the others is called cherry picking. It is a rookie mistake. The correct way to do it is meta-analysis, which starts with all available studies but takes into account the quality of the studies.
You should also read up another rookie mistake: Argumentum ad populum. Homeopathy does not magically stop being bullshit when enough people believe in it.
And while you are at it, read Dunning-Kruger effect. Everybody here knows more about how to do science than you do. Your way of reasoning shows everybody here that you are extremely ignorant in that regard. It's like a boxer slipping before the first enemy contact and falling out of the ring. No contest. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

How a meta–analysis can take in all available studies I cannot imagine, though it would be good if it could. Certainly it would prevent selective inclusion or exclusion, publication bias and the dusty file drawer. Then how many meta–analyses do you need? Linde Lancet: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. Oh, of course, wrong answer, let's do another one.

Why I am required to 'do science' to correct a misquote from a source on a page baffles me. I am not here for sport, just to correct a simple error, and support the neutrality that Wikipedia supposedly upholds.

Talkinghorse (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse

"I cannot imagine" You don't need to. There are enough people who can and do.
"Certainly it would prevent selective inclusion or exclusion, publication bias and the dusty file drawer." No. The studies in file drawers are not available. The researchers are aware of that.
Of course you are quoting this one sentence from Linde. That is the only sentence from all the meta-analyses ever made that says anything pro-homeopathy, and Linde took it back later. See Homeopathy#Efficacy. Again, cherry picking. You do not get to pick the only sentence that confirms your worldview and ignore all the rest.
Why don't you just stop repeating all the bullshit those five hundred other pro-homeopathy editors unsuccessfully repeated before? See Talk:Homeopathy/Archive index. Neutrality, in WP, does not mean pretending both sides have valid points, aka "half-way to Crazy Town". It means we say what the science says. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Boiron is a homeopathic manufacturer, it has revenues in excess of €600m. Most homeopaths in the UK are not funded by the NHS. It is also a core doctrine among naturopaths and the Steiner cult. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

So I say meta-analyis should include all research even "the dusty file drawer." You say "There are enough people who can and do." and then say, "No. The studies in file drawers are not available. The researchers are aware of that." so actually they don't include all research.

You say my quoting Linde is cherry–picking! Yet, it seems, leaving one sentence in the article, with an incorrect implication from a website whose source you dispute later, and removing my sentence, from the same source, that corrects the information is not cherry–picking?

Neutrality is not supporting one side in a contentious argument. Your article at present is not balanced. Giving opinions from both sides is important so that readers can make an informed choice. Whether you like it or not.

The comment I added was nothing to do with science, it was to do with funding.

I'd never heard of Boiron before, but I note that the pharmaceutical companies, with a 1000 times the turnover, have nothing to fear from the world's largest manufacturer of homeopathic remedies. I am aware that I most homeopaths in UK are not funded by the NHS, I was the person who wrote "According to the NHS information on their website http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/homeopathy/Pages/Introduction.aspx#available: Homeopathy is usually practised privately"

Talkinghorse (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Talkinghorse

This is all covered in WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL (and less formally in WP:Lunatic charlatans). We don't put nonsense on an equal footing with reality: that is neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Meta analysis can only include what is properly published. There are two ways to do meta analysis of homeopathy: one is to include crap studies and come up with a positive result, the other is to include only well conducted studies, in which case you get a negative result. Here's a discussion of the former: [1]. Linde et. al. concluded that the likelihood of a positive result is highest when the study quality is poor, and lowest when study quality is high. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate content about homoeopathy

Good morning, I am here by starting this talk to draw the attention towards the inappropriate description and negligence of clinical facts and practices in writing of this article. Homeopathy here being called a pseudoscience is a complete misnomer. The patients or the people who get benefited from homeopathy and the ones whose lives were saved because of homeopathy and its principles along with millions of homeopathic physicians completely disagree with this ideology. I being a homeopath along with my team am ready to show you the efficacy of homeopathy and how it saves lives of patients when every other system failed to do so. All this can be verified via clinical cases and patient interviews and reviews. A homeopath works so hard his entire life in learning and implementing the knowledge of medicine along with the pure principles of homeopathy and i am disheartened to read such an article about the science which saves patients lives. In this modern world wiki has become the ultimate destination of knowledge and information and articles like these does not stand with that image. I would like to conclude by saying lastly that Homeopathy is a life saving science and every proof can be presented in support of it whether in form of clinical reports or patients own reviews. Help us in making the information better by editing this article.

As someone said once - "THERE IS A GREAT SCOPE OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE ONE"

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vipulmalhotra (talk • contribs) 05:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi homeopath. We can get right to that, but please help us by posting links to double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy for... anything. As soon as we see the reliable sources demonstrating that homeopathy functions better than a placebo, we'll add that right to the article. And no, case reports and patient testimonials don't count. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Small addition: the clinical trials have to be reproducable too. And N must be high enough. Small, non-reproducable double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials do exist, as expected for well-researched quackery. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I found the following fallacies in your reasoning:
See? This is why homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Its proponents cannot tell a good reason from a bad one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, so many red herrings, so little time. Let's not forget the mirage of imagined pith and pseudo-profundity that a good old tautology can bring to the table. After all, as a man of perfectly average wisdom is about to say: "THERE IS A GREAT SCOPE OF INANE NONSENSE IN THE MOST CREDULOUS ONES".EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been asking homeopath for years to provide a single independently verified case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever. Aside from showing that they do not understand most of the actual words, they have not responded. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, just as the number of hardworking magicians proves the existence of magic, much as a hardworking astrologer proves the veracity of astrology, much as a hardworking alchemist would prove the science of alchemy, so does the hardworking homeopathist prove the value of his craft. - Nunh-huh 05:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hyland's Homeopathic on Amazon

Considering the company has several products for sale on Amazon, I am thinking more research should be done on this article Hyland's - right now it is stub article quality, and could use some references to comply with WP guidelines for companies and NPOV, as well as additional info on the Homeopathic products that they sell. Appreciate any help on this. Shaded0 (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There's this FDA warning letter: [2]. There's also the belladonna scandal, resulting in this: [3]. But all that is already in. I agree that Hylands, as one of the few homeopathic companies to have actually killed babies, should probably have a longer article. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Russian Academy of Sciences memorandum

I suppose this can be added to the article.


The Russian Academy of Sciences has called homeopathy a “pseudoscience” with no scientific basis, saying that its methods contradict chemical, physical and biological laws. The academy also stressed that homeopathy is not to be confused with phytotherapy.

The memorandum on homeopathy was released by the Commission to Combat Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research, a part of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian chief scientific body, on Monday.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-academy-of-sciences-homeopathy-treaments-pseudoscience-does-not-work-par-magic-a7566406.html https://www.rt.com/news/376514-russia-homeopathy-pseudoscience-alternative/

Pavelgubarev (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017

Soumya Dey (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You didn't specify what change you had in mind, - Nunh-huh 13:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

In History, Hahnemann's concept, there is a random 128 in the text. It is unnecessary as it does not connect to Source 37 or Source 128. Just a small spelling mistake.

The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and first appeared in print in 1807.[35] Hahnemann conceived of homeopathy while translating a medical treatise by the Scottish physician and chemist William Cullen into German. Being sceptical of Cullen's theory concerning cinchona's use for curing malaria, Hahnemann ingested some bark specifically to investigate what would happen. He experienced fever, shivering and joint pain: symptoms similar to those of malaria itself. From this, Hahnemann came to believe that all effective drugs produce symptoms in healthy individuals similar to those of the diseases that they treat, in accord with the "law of similars" that had been proposed by ancient physicians.[36] An account of the effects of eating cinchona bark noted by Oliver Wendell Holmes, and published in 1861, failed to reproduce the symptoms Hahnemann reported.[37]:-----128------ Hahnemann's law of similars is a postulate rather than a scientific law.[38] This led to the name "homeopathy", which comes from the Greek: ὅμοιος hómoios, "-like" and πάθος páthos, "suffering") Noprocking (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but the "128" is a slightly obscure way of providing the page number in the reference. It comes from {{rp|128}} which uses {{rp}}. References are tricky and there is no problem-free way to provide one reference which is used in several places, each with a different page number. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Individualized/non-individualized homeopathy

At face value adding this 2017 review[4] may seem reasonable, but what is "non-individualized homeopathy"? Upon closer inspection, the lead author is from the Homeopathy Research Institute and had previously garnered some attention for touting the efficacy of "individualized homeopathy" in a 2014 review in the same journal.[5] [Edit: this post is the more relevant one.] This earlier paper was also included in the Wikipedia article. I would argue that neither paper belongs. The 2017 paper assures us that the laws of physics are still the same in 2017 as they were before (hardly noteworthy), and 2014 paper has the issues mentioned in the Ernst post.

Indeed the whole paragraph starting "Some clinical trials have tested individualized homeopathy..." seems questionable, not least because it doesn't even explain what individualized homeopathy is. Manul ~ talk 16:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with removal, the article is junk. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The editor concerned has done this before. He seems to haver a CIR problem with regard to assessing the quality of his additions to this page. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Homeopathy is effective

homeopathy is scientific and not a pseudoscience or not a placebo effects, some criticizers are used to say like that and they are given sources of criticizers only. so many homeopathic books and websites and journals are there. and it is medical system in world for more than 200 years. this page is created and added only by whom dislikes homeopathyhomeopathy. about homoeopathy we can know proper from homeopathic books, and from homeopathic degree, post graduate,and PhD holders.Drhishamct (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please substantiate your claims with actual sources. Read the article, read the discussion archives, and read the rules of Wikipedia. Darkdadaah (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Although it should also be available near the top of this talk page, please also see Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ for more information. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with above comments. Wikipedia is meant to provide information and not to prove or disprove anything. Mentioning that its not effective is clearly biased with malign intention. It is on individual discretion to use any method of medication or not; saying that it is not effective based on few scientific journals is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 06:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
We can provided thousands of reference article with actual results that homeopathic is effective way of medication. Infact, in some cases much more effective than other treatments[1]. Further, homeopathy treatment is used by over 200 million people worldwide [2].
  • This discussion is POV pushing. Homeopathy is a well-established pseudoscience. It's clinical effect, if any, is attributed to placebo. Delta13C (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If it was very effective, it would not be alternative medicine, it would be used extensively in actual modern medicine. Believing that mainstream medicine censors alternative medicine for purely commercial reasons is an erroneous conspiracy theory. This does not mean that pseudoscience is not a striving business, unfortunately. I'm repeating myself because I already pointed to it, but please read: Talk:Homeopathy/FAQ. More importantly, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fringe_theories_and_pseudoscience. These are about Wikipedia policies, community decisions and discretionary sanctions on the subject. We do not report on our personal point of view, but in that of the reliable sources which themselves report about experts in the relevant fields. This talk page is also not a forum for discussion of the topic (WP:NOTFORUM), but is to discuss specific changes to the article. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 07:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Whatever reference provided above conflicting itself - it is not Neutral point of view when we conclude that it is effective or not. Saying Alternative Medicine is not effective and not scientific is not correct. Anyhow, Wikipedia only provide information and not VERDICT.Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Content again reverted without consent and complete discussion. It if it is done further will be reported to Wikipedia Administrator.
  • You seem to be making threats. You need to ask yourself why you are so motivated to disregard the scientific consensus on homeopathy being a pseudoscientific system of placebo therapy. Delta13C (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It is not threat - as per Wikipedia - we need to provide sufficient time to the user before reporting content/user to Wikipedia Administrator. This will be used as archive Deepeshdeomurari (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
That's just not how it works. Please familiarize yourself with policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
See the extensive FAQ at the top of the page. --tronvillain (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/homeopathy-cure-gives-heart-patient-a-new-lease-of-life/articleshow/58099736.cms
  2. ^ http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/homeopathy/what-is-homeopathy

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homeopathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

excessive Negative Claims

The article is bloated out in the lead itself, on why not to use it and also what is wrong with it. I am not claiming it is right or wrong, but the article is not balanced and is leaning towards one side. the references seems to be cherry picked and there is no mention who claims what but a blank statement suggesting that the it is wikipedia's point of view ! not a encyclopedic material by any stretch Shrikanthv (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia "leans towards" reliable sources in accordance with the WP:PAGs, and the article does this well after a lot of hard work by many editors. Alexbrn (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Please also see the archives (this claim is perennial), such as Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_63#Homeopathy_is_effective. To complement what Alexbrn said, note that WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE are not about representing all point of views with the same weight. We must report about what the reliable sources say, not our personal opinions; the weight given to claims must also correlate with what those experts wrote. Without this quality control, Wikipedia would become a collection of fringe claims and a vehicle for promotion, rather than an encyclopedia. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 08:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Also see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. —PaleoNeonate - 08:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, Do not take me for wrong I do not have any preferences, and have been editing in wiki for long time but in other fields like biography, war, history.. I see your concerns about fringe claims by "new" found doctors but I think we have to divide the personnels, institutes with the actual subject itself. I am unable to read it!, it just contains affirmation and denials in single sentences. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Where? And to what would you like to change the affirmations and denials? If you have been editing for a while, you presumably have sufficient editing privliges to change these issues yourself, provided that there really are differences between the cited text and the sources from which they are drawn. Edaham (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

New evidence indicate that extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials

My modification made on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&oldid=788305180 was reverted by User:TylerDurden8823. I don't really understand why has it was sourced from up-to-date research from scientific journal. For reference this is what I added: "But new evidence seem to indicate that extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials.[1] This suggest that homeopathic high dilution cannot be considered merely placebo.[2] Also some gene expression seem to be influenced by extreme low dose of Gelsemium sempervirens.[3]"

To be clear, links between those research are not from my own analyses, but those research are citing each other.

--Gagarine (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Chikramane, Prashant Satish; Suresh, Akkihebbal K.; Bellare, Jayesh Ramesh; Kane, Shantaram Govind (2010-10-01). "Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective". Homeopathy. 99 (4): 231–242. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2010.05.006.
  2. ^ Bellavite, Paolo; Marzotto, Marta; Olioso, Debora; Moratti, Elisabetta; Conforti, Anita (2014-01-01). "High-dilution effects revisited. 1. Physicochemical aspects". Homeopathy. 103 (1): 4–21. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2013.08.003.
  3. ^ Marzotto, Marta; Olioso, Debora; Brizzi, Maurizio; Tononi, Paola; Cristofoletti, Mirco; Bellavite, Paolo (2014-03-19). "Extreme sensitivity of gene expression in human SH-SY5Y neurocytes to ultra-low doses of Gelsemium sempervirens". BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 14: 104. doi:10.1186/1472-6882-14-104. ISSN 1472-6882. PMC 3999908. PMID 24642002.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Whether you measure 1 part per million or 1 part per hellaillion it still isn't an active ingredient. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I was about to say the same: the point is that oftentimes, the dillution is so great, that it's possible for no original material to remain. If some remains in minute amount, this is still not sufficient to have any effect. Moreover, even non-dilluted herbal products usually do not have the purported benefits. This is very different from approved medications where select molecules known to have certain effects are found in precise doses. —PaleoNeonate - 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

These are two fringe journals. Might as well cite Journal of Creationist studies or Journal of Cryptozoology. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I double-check the journals and agree they are bullshit. As a side note: I think it would be more constructive when someone do a revert to give a reason. Even "those journals are not solid enough" would be enough. The "we don't have the time" reason is not an acceptable answer has it take at the end more time... or worst turn writer out of Wikipedia.. --Gagarine (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you about the revert summary. Also, thank you for opening this discussion after being reverted, this is the recommended practice. —PaleoNeonate - 02:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The reported results in the first of these articles are very hard to credit. It is because of low-quality publications such as these that we point to the WP:MEDRS criteria for what kinds of citations are acceptable in health-related articles. I agree, though, that an edit summary should give a reason for the change. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I didn't feel the need to perform an undo edit and write a few word edit summary because I thought it was plainly obvious these articles are inappropriate for inclusion. I maintain that's the case. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Tyler. When removing obvious bullshit, an edsum is hardly needed. I was about to do the same thing, but he beat me to it, and I thanked him, as I recall. -Roxy the dog. bark 09:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: I am not accusing anyone of anything, but I'll explain why I agreed with Gagarine about the summary. It's not policy, only an information page, but WP:FIES: "especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors", then we have WP:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback which stresses that because no edit summary can be provided it should only be used in specific cases. I don't consider POV-pushing or badly sourced additions to be blatant vandalism. In any case, it's nothing major, because if BRD is practiced, the editor will soon learn why the edit was reverted, like happened here. Failure to discuss and edit warring is of course where the trouble begins... —PaleoNeonate - 10:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
What's wrong with BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine? It is peer-reviewed with IF 2.88. ? Cathry (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Is beingpeer review and cited all that's necessary for an open access journal devoted to alternative medicine to be considered credible? Looking at what else they've apparently [[ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/17/the-fallacy-of-moderation-at-bmc-complementary-and-alternative-medicine/ published]], it's not obvious that it is. --tronvillain (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Generally, we don't use cell-based primary studies (especially in low-middling journals) to suggest medical relevance or conclusions; see WP:MEDRS. Speaking specifically to this study, the absolute effect sizes shown are very small and appear to represent a torture-the-data-until-it-confesses-something analysis approach rather than a meaningful finding.
My personal experience with the BMC-series journals (though I can't speak to Comp Alt Med specifically) is that their editors are relatively young and inexperienced, and they're frankly a bit lazy at ensuring that they select referees for papers who are both independent of the manuscript authors and appropriately qualified to review the content. Journal Editors are also often assigned to several journals simultaneously; this saves on salary costs, but means that the journals don't always benefit from full-time attention or the best-qualified and deeply-knowledgeable editors. The business model is driven by publication fees, so there's a financial incentive to move manuscripts to publication with as little fuss as possible. (This is a potential hazard with any open-access publisher, but the rapid growth of BMC's journal portfolio and the relative lack of experience among its editors may mean that it lacks the institutional inertia to resist business pressures as well as some other journals.) This is not to say that I would consider BMC a 'predatory' publisher, but I would also tend to take many of their publications with a larger-than-usual grain of salt. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem with BMC(in general) is that it often allows the author to choose their own referees.May-be it's time and cost-saving for them.But for us, it heavily degrades the valuability and/or credibility of any research published there-in!Winged Blades Godric 17:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, it's easy to see, with just a tiny amount of thinking, that the result must be spurious: if the claim were true - and if the diluted stuff were measurable in every beyond-Avogadro dilution - there must have been a miraculous multiplication of the substance because then all the substance in all the dilutions would add up to much more than the original. Very simple math, but still more than the peer reviewers could muster.
If it is not in every beyond-Avogadro dilution but only in some, which happened to end up in this experiment, then the dilution process is inhomogenous and thus faulty. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

NHS to scrap H.

We previously had a discussion in which we looked at areas within the U.K. Where homeopathy is still being funded by the NHS. The discussion resulted in some edits but for the most part we decided to wait for further info. The above developments are relevant and the corresponding parts of the article can be reassessed based on them.

Of other interest in the BBC article is

  • this quote from Simon Stevens, NHS England chief executive, "The public rightly expects that the NHS will use every pound wisely, and today we're taking practical action to free up funding to better spend on modern drugs" describing H. As "at best a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds".
  • a table which details a lot of NHS spending on other woo. Edaham (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I want to know if they are buying their homeopathetic drugs at cost? £100k approx. That's an awful lotta water. -Roxy the dog. bark 20:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the text has been added using an alternative news source. - I've added further info from the BBC site (a reason for the cuts) along with the link I initially proposed. Thanks. Edaham (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Homeopathic repertory page

The editing done in Homeopathic repertory page was reverted. I have personally verified the content added by the editor and it is verifiable. Moreover neutrality of the content is maintained. The homoeopathic repertory page has never altered or questioned the 'broad consensus' of 'Homeopathy' wiki page. If left without reverting, I'm sure more editors will fill content as per the guidelines of wikipedia.I strongly feel that rest of mankind can learn different techniques of construction of lexicon using mathematical logic through this page. Dr Kurian John Poruthukaren 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpjkurian (talk • contribs) 15:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please sign your edits on Talk pages with four tildes, like this "~~~~" Thanks. Roxy the dog. bark 17:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The deletion of Mohandas petition

As per the Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources (medicine) page, only" position statements from national or international expert bodies" are allowed not individual responses.
Dr Kurian John Poruthukaren 18:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpjkurian (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood either the reliable source guidelines or misunderstood what is being reported. There is no rule that says that Jithin Mohandas and his petition can't be mentioned. PepperBeast (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Statement of the European Academies' Science Advisory Council

This [1] is another body of experts discarding homeopathy as a valid therapy system. You may want to include this into the article. Rka001 (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Homeopathic products and practices: assessing the evidence and ensuring consistency in regulating medical claims in the EU" (PDF). European Academies' Science Advisory Council. September 2017. p. 1. Retrieved 1 October 2017. ... we agree with previous extensive evaluations concluding that there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect.
The source appears to be quite good. However it is very recent. It would be good if some secondary sources that have picked it up and cited it could be listed here. By the way, our article on this source is seriously lacking citations. I've linked to the EASAC section of that article, but the whole thing is missing inline cites. Do you have any familiarity with this source and know where to find information on it? If so it would be great to help out at that article. Edaham (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The conclusions are listed here for convenience
  • Any claimed efficacy of homeopathic products

in clinical use can be explained by the placebo effect or attributed to poor study design, random variation, regression towards the mean, or publication bias. Among these, the placebo effect can be of value to the patient but there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect.

  • Homeopathy raises issues of concern

for patient-informed consent if health practitioners recommend products that they know are biologically ineffective.

  • There are also potential safety concerns for

homeopathic preparations because of poorly monitored production methods, and these require greater attention to quality control and assessment of adverse effects.

  • The scientific claims made for homeopathy

are implausible and inconsistent with established concepts from chemistry and physics. In particular, the memory effects of water are too short-range and transient (occurring within the nanometre and nanosecond range) to account for any claimed efficacy.

  • The promotion and use of homeopathic

products risks significant harms. First, by incurring delay in the patient seeking appropriate, evidence-based, medical attention or, even worse, deterring the patient from ever doing so. Secondly, by generally undermining patient and public confidence in the nature and value of scientific evidence for decision making in health care and other societal priorities.

  • In the absence of similarly robust evidence for

homeopathic products in veterinary medicine, it is an error to require organic farmers to use these products in preference to prevention or treatment for which there is demonstrable efficacy and an established mode of action

Edaham (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been picked up by various news outlets, but i am not sure if they are compliant to MEDRS or if that is what you expect (i.e. citations by other medical science sources). Examples: 1. LA Times. 2. Independent. 3. Der Standard (austrian). 4. Die Welt (german). The EASAC is a relatively new organization comprising of the scientific research societies of the EU countries. I dont know much about them. I guess this new source is similar to the one published by Australian authorities. Rka001 (talk) 13:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Well the fact that the source has been used by news organizations with fact checking policies makes it verifiable and from what I understand about the source it already passes wp:MEDRS/WP:MEDORG if the material sourced from it is limited to what it does as an organization, which is issue health recommendations. I would think that the community here which is knowledgeable on medical topics would rate it as a low-medium source, while being above the threshold for sources of its type, based on its national status and its relatively new formation. I would likely support the addition of content from this source if you wanted to use it to add or replace info in the article. You mentioned that it discards homeopathy as a medical treatment. It does this most clearly in its conclusion which is why I listed it above. There are numerous other pieces of info which might be suitable for inclusion. What edit are you proposing and to which section? Edaham (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, EASAC has been around since 2001 (see their About page). At least nominally, the organization itself isn't "new"; indeed, as it was formed as an umbrella group for the various European national academies, its roots are quite deep. That said, it's a bit concerning that their profile has remained so low that we don't seem to have a Wikipedia article about them. (On the third hand, that absence of coverage may reflect to some extent English Wikipedia's U.S.-centric, English-language-centric bias.) I guess what it comes down to is whether or not their their self-described role as the "collective voice of European science" is currently accurate or merely aspirational.
Bureaucratically speaking, as an umbrella organization representing a double dozen scientifically-advanced nations, their pronouncements should only fall about a half-step below those of the WHO and other global organizations. At least in principle, we should weight EASAC's statements quite heavily on that basis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
MEDRS is probably more important to support medical claims than to dispel beliefs (i.e. see WP:PARITY). On the other hand, the latter is mostly for cases where finding reliable sources criticizing the topic is difficult (if MEDRS sources are available for this it's always better). —PaleoNeonate – 22:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
As a further aside, in the discussion above it seems there may be some misapprehension of what MEDRS requires. See the section WP:MEDORG, which explicitly states "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." Statements from such organizations are often legitimate secondary sources in and of themselves; they don't need to be re-cited in another venue before they can be employed as sources of medical information. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
"Reputable" an important word here. There are organizations that are wholly industry supported and may be biased in non-obvious ways. David notMD (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That is true: many organisations promoting quackery are indeed industry funded. That applies especially to chiropractic and homeopathy.
EASAC is an umbrella group, its member academies include bodies like the Royal Society. I think it is pretty reliable. I'm not sure how you could get a more reliable source for an overall assessment of the state of knowledge of a scientific question that is not, in the end, subject to real research, because no real scientists believes it to be worth looking at. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
For context, see [the ALLEA page], which begins "SAPEA (“Science Advice for Policy by European Academies”) works within the European Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) and is carried out by the five European academy networks (Academia Europaea, ALLEA, EASAC, Euro-CASE, and FEAM)." Collectively these networks within SAPEA inform the EC's science policies. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Homeopathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Improper use of the word "despite" in lead

The use of the word "despite" in this sentence in the article's lead section strikes me as wrong:

"Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidence that it does not work, has been criticized as unethical because it discourages the use of effective treatments…"

It seems to me the intended meaning is one more of "due to" or "in light of", as it directly agrees with the concluding statement, as opposed to being contrary to it as one would expect with the use of "despite".

A simple rearranging of the sentence makes this more obvious. Unless I'm missing something, this is not the intended meaning:

"Continued homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical because it discourages the use of effective treatments, despite the evidence that it does not work." Logan1337 (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think removing the commas would correct it: "Continued homeopathic practice despite the evidence that it does not work has been criticized as unethical because it discourages the use of effective treatments…" --tronvillain (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Removing the punctuation does not correct the issue. Rewording would read better. E.g. "Due to the evidence that it does not work, continued homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical because it discourages the use of effective treatments…" Lkingscott (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes it does. What the sentence is supposed to mean is: "To continue homeopathic practice in spite of the evidence that it does not work has been..." What you suggest is also true but has a slightly different, more complicated meaning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with removing the commas as being the solution. violet/riga [talk] 14:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect statistic

Oscillococcinum would thus require 10320 more universes

This is wrong. It should read "Oscillococcinum would thus require 10320 more atoms", as per Homeopathic_dilutions#Potency_scales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speaktorob (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is pure comedy gold. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 04:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
200C is 10−400. The universe has 1080 atoms, therefore in order to be certain to find one atom that once formed part of the duck liver that doesn't contain the non-existent oscillococcus that doesn't cause the viral illness influenza, you would indeed need 10320 universes. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Turtles all the way down. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
But isn't it the water's power of memory of that non-ingredient that makes it so powerful? That's why it gets more potent with every dilution: it remembers another generations back. If you want magic to be real, you must never look behind the curtain, it can only disappoint. The Wizard started out selling snakeoil in Kansas, after all. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum requires 200 vials of test-tubes...which is probably a couple gallons of water. Anyone who says or suggests that creative math is just creating fiction, not reality. The strange math that some people use contort reallity...and ignore the evidence that nanodoses of each homeopathic medicine persist in water solutions, even at the 200C potency....and these numbers resemble the nanodoses that our body regularly uses in hormones and cell-signaling agents. This first reference is to the journal, LANGMUIR, which is published by the American Chemistry Society...and the second reference verifies the nanodoses of our body's intracate biology. Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation. Langmuir. 2012 Nov 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23083226

Eskinazi, D., Homeopathy Re-revisited: Is Homeopathy Compatible with Biomedical Observations? Archives in Internal Medicine, 159, Sept 27, 1999:1981-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10510983

There have now been four double-blind placebo controlled trials that have shown its efficacy in the treatment of influenza or influenza-like syndrome. Here's one link to a study published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology: https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2125.1989.tb05373.x DanaUllmanTalk 19:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I like the bit here that says "....all of the nanoparticles levitate to the surface and are accommodated as a monolayer at the top" - maybe adding water to my whisky is not such a bad thing, all my whisky nano-particles will levitate to the top as a uniquely strong mono-layer. If only.............  Velella  Velella Talk   21:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Snark isn't inappropriate here. The scientists were reporting their observations in a controlled trial and used three different types of spectroscopy. Unless you can verify something else in a major scientific journal, I suggeset that you keep your humor for the comedy shows, not here. A reasonable request.
For the record, previous scientists found that 6ppm of silica fragments were floating in the water as a result of the vigorous turbulence and the bubbles and nanobubbles blanching against the sides of the glass vial. Each medicinal agent is pushed into the silica fragments, creating what other may call "the memory in water." 14:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC) DanaUllmanTalk 16:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI, since your ban, we have instituted discretionary sanctions on all topics relating to pseudoscience, see the note at the top. Your advocacy for homeopathy is a matter of record, but asserting your beliefs as if they were fact is not acceptable and if you continue your advocacy you will likely be topic banned.
The finding of silicates in a solution prepared in glass vessels is not a validation of homeopathy, it's evidence of sloppy technique. Every preparation in glass will contain silicates. Electrochemists wash glassware with concentrated hydrofluoric acid to minimise this. There are a handful of papers by true believers that attempt to provide some minimally plausible rationale for homeopathy, but none rises above the level of asserting that carpets can fly because they contain traces of titanium, which is used in the manufacture of aircraft. Take those silicates, drop the water on a sugar pill and let it evaporate, and then use any objective test you like to compare with a globule from which plain water has been similarly evaporated. You'll be gone a while, we'll wait for you. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Mr. Ullman remains subject to a richly deserved, discretionary topic ban from all pages on homeopathy broadly construed. 65.96.223.83 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I provided evidence published in a leading high-impact scientific journal that verified using three types of spectroscopy that nanoparticles of the original medicinal agents persist in water solutuions. Please provide evidence that silicaates can be prevented from falling of the walls of glass vials, or more important, that preventing the silicates reduces the biological activity of homeopathic medicines. The bottomline is that this research provided a viable explanation for how homeopathic medicines persist, despite hundreds (!) of dilutions of 1:100. This research also confirms that reference to Avogadro's number has NO meaning in any discussion of homeopathy because Avogadro's number doesn't accommodate the inclusion of the silicate fragments or the turbulence and bubbles/nanobubbles created by the vigorous 40 succussions that take place in-between each dilution. DanaUllmanTalk 14:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Langmuir article suggest that sometimes actual dilutions may not reach actual theoretical dilution, at least with certain materials and techniques. The key technique in the article appears to be using something that will float after shaking (in this case, lactose) and skimming off the top layer for the next dilution. For gold without lactose: "In the dilutions of bare AuNP's with simple dilution, Au was not detected in the TL and ML samples." That homeopathic dilutions may not actually be diluted properly might be worth a small mention if there isn't already, but it can't be extrapolated to all homeopathic dilutions and doesn't establish efficacy. --tronvillain (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It boils diwn to: true believers may have found some evidence that rarher than containing none of an arbitrarily selected substance that has nothing to do with the condition, it may in a few cases be only *virtually* none. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanx User:Tronvillain for confirming that the homeopathic process of making its medicines does result in the persistence of nanodoses of the original medicinal agent. As it turns out, there is solid evidence that even a single atom of a pheromone can have dramatic effects on moths (Reference: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/38/15455/), and likewise, our bodies hormones and cell-signaling agents are known to be responsive to exceedingly small doses in the order of 10 to the negative 12, 15, 18 (reference: Eskinazi, D., Homeopathy Re-revisited: Is Homeopathy Compatible with Biomedical Observations? Archives in Internal Medicine, 159, Sept 27, 1999:1981-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10510983). The doses of the original medicinal agent in the homeopathic solutions were more than enough to catalyze physiological processes. Anyone who says that homeopathic doses are "virtually none" has to admit that homeopathic medicines are NOT the same thing as "none" or "nothing." In this light, it would seem that this article should change whatever statement that says or implies that there is "nothing" or "virtually nothing" in homeopathic medicines.
Further, because the succussion (vigorous shaking) of the homeopathic water leads to the silicate fragments to be pervasive in the solution, and then float to the top when the water is still, the math that this article uses ignores the facts that the LANGMUIR study has found. Until or unless this evidence is disproven in a respected scientific journal, it may be worthwhile to include reference to this evidence. Further, other statements in this article that assert that there is no compelling evidence that homeopathic medicine could possible work probably needs to change.
I remember reading from conventional (non-homeopathic) material sciences reseaerch that the silica fragments are in the 6ppm range (I'll try to bring a proper reference to this memory soon). This article needs to accommodate new evidence especially when this evidence is published in leading scientific journals. DanaUllmanTalk 02:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Nope. Remember the three core problems of homeopathy:
  1. There is no reason to suppose it should work, as like does not cure like.
  2. There is no way it can work, as the claims of homeopathy are inconsistent with all subsequently gained knowledge about the nature of matter, human physiology, biochemistry and every other relevant field.
  3. There is no proof it does work, since all results are fully consistent with the null hypothesis.
If the paper in Langmuir were ever independently replicated, which it has not been, and if this were then shown to apply to actual remedies as normally produced, which it has not been, and if this could then be shown to be deposited on the sugar globules, which it has not been, and if the manufacturers are not "doing a Nelsons" and failing to add the magic water to a proportion of their globules, then that might constitute evidence that some trace of the starting material persists through the homeopathic serial delusion process. However it would not materially address any of the three core problems because you'd still be up against (1) the fact that there is no reality-based connection between these substances and the conditions they purport to treat; (2) the amounts will be biologically and chemically insignificant per the law of mass action and (3) there are still no results that are objectively inconsistent witht he null hypothesis.
At some point, though, you do need to get off the fence and decide whether the claim is that the substances are still present, or that homeopathy works through woo-energy. Those two are mutually exclusive. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I "confirmed" no such thing. What I said was: "The Langmuir article suggest that sometimes actual dilutions may not reach actual theoretical dilution, at least with certain materials and techniques." You seem to have ignored that for gold without lactose: "In the dilutions of bare AuNP's with simple dilution, Au was not detected in the TL and ML samples" - you can't generalize to all substances. Even if you could, you'd have to establish that homeopathic dilutions are always done by only skimming off only the top one percent of liquid... which we already know isn't the case, given that the Korsakov method exists, but it isn't established for the standard method either. As for the 1999 "Homeopathy Re-revisited" article, see the many comments on it in Archives of Internal Medicine listed on that page.--15:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

In the interest of keeping discussion on track, the topic here is "incorrect statistic." It is incorrect to refer to Oscillococcinum as requiring ANY specific number of universes. As I mentioned originally, the total water content in the making of Oscillococcinum is 200 testtubes. The LANGMUIR research confirms that nanoparticles persist even in the 200C potency (and THIS is the same potency used in Oscillococcinum). Because the math used to create the exceedingly high over-estimation of "universes" has NO meaning or accuracy in the light of the research published in LANGMUIR. Unless someone can explain clearly this math AND accommodate for the 6ppm of silicate fragments in the water, no reference to this number should be provided.

For the record, here's the link to the study that found 6ppm of silicate fragments in the water: J.L. Demangeat, P. Gries, et al., Low-field NMR water proton longitudinal relaxation in ultrahighly diluted aqueous solutions of silica-lactose prepared in glass material for pharmaceutical use, Appl. Magn. Reson. 26 (2004) 465.

The statistic is for how many atoms would be required to find a single atom of the original ingredient at the dilution specified. It may only take 200 containers to produce Oscillococcinum, but that is irrelevant to the mathematical implications of the dilution. As previously discussed, the Langmuir paper suggests that imperfect dilution may result in nanograms of original material remaining even at 200C... with certain materials and techniques. That's one unreplicated paper which provides no reason to think it applies generally. --tronvillain (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It would be a novel synthesis to claim the Langmuir paper as any kind of rebuttal to the simple mathematics of serial delusion. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
And the "Each medicinal agent is pushed into the silica fragments, creating what other may call 'the memory in water.' " from above appears to be completely unsupported speculation. --tronvillain (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
As for replication work of the LANGMUIR study, here's a reference to further evidence for the persistence of nanoparticles that persist: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/nanoparticle-characterization-of-traditional-homeopathicallymanufactured-gelsemium-sempervirens-medicines-and-placebo-controls-2155-983X-1000136.php?aid=58024 The bottomline is that no one here has shown any math on the "ative ingredient" that incorporates this evidence from Langmuir and now other studies. Without this evidence, the math about multiple universes is simply wrong. DanaUllmanTalk 14:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
That's not replication, and the study itself does nothing to establish that the detected nanoparticles are the original component as opposed to contamination. Even if it was conclusively established (it's not) that there was regularly some minute amount of original substances left in homeopathic preparations, exactly what would you want in the article? Something like "Actual dilution may sometimes be less than theoretical dilution"? --tronvillain (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
See OMICS group. And the reason nobody has included any mathematics incorporating the Langmuir content is, as you have been told several times, that there is no actual evidence that it is true, generalisable or relevant. I'm curious, though: how much of the duck liver that doesn't contain the non-existent oscillococcus bacterium that doesn't cause the viral disease influenza, has been objectively measured on any given oscillococcinum pillule? Guy (Help!) 18:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Guy, you are pretending to have never heard of the "bird flu." I hope and assume that you know that ducks are birds...and biologists and epidemiologists have asserted that ducks carry numerous types of flu viruses in their digestive tracts...and that they are one of the known carriers of one type of flu from one part of the world to the other. Homeopaths have been impressively aware of this connection since the 1920s when Oscillococcinum first began being used. The logic of giving nanodoses of flu viruses to help fight the flu is obvious, and there have been at least three double-blind and placebo controlled trials showing efficacy in the TREATMENT, not prevention, of the flu (of flu-like syndrome). You've been told this numerous times in the past. Hopefully, you'll GET it now. A reasonable request. DanaUllmanTalk 20:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

But wait. Even though ducks sometimes carry flu, surely not all ducks carry flu. Some ducks are healthy. I am no avian epidemolgist, but perhaps the majority of ducks don't have flu. If you are a bit unfortunate and whack a healthy duck for your quack, there won't be any flu in its liver, even before you remove it by dilution. The consumers have been lied to no matter how you put it. Heptor (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Consumers are not asked or recommended to "whack" ducks. This work is done by scientists who work for homeopathic pharmacies. Heptor's assertion that "consumers have been lied to" is unfounded. In addition to homeopaths using well-founded epidemiological information, the 3 double-blind and placebo controlled trials showing efficacy of Oscillococcinum shows scientific and professional integrity. I wish to encourage us all to provide reasonable references to our assertions. And here's reference to one of the three such studies: Ferley, JP, Zmirou, D, D’Admehar, D, et al., A Controlled Evaluation of a Homoeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndrome, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March, 1989,27:329-35. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2655683 DanaUllmanTalk 22:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. There is flu virus in some ducks, but no flu virus in most ducks most of the time. So Oscillococcinum has no flu virus, only inert substances. Heptor (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ehhhh...the result managed to scrape into statistical significance (p=0.03 at its best; see Figure 2) for a 24-hour period before wandering off again. It's the sort of result that might be used to justify the sale of other mostly-useless, mostly-harmless OTC remedies (say, dextromethorphan or docosanol); it doesn't do a particularly credible job of affirming efficacy. The paper's authors note explicitly in their abstract: "The result cannot be explained given our present state of knowledge, but it calls for further rigorously designed clinical studies." So, it's been 28 years—was the result reproducible in a rigorous clinical evaluation? TenOfAllTrades(talk)
User:Heptor is simply fabricating things here. Let me be explicit: Boiron tests ducks used in the making of Oscillococcinum for flu viruses. As for User:TenOfALlTrades, whether the p-value was 0.03 or 0.05, this IS still statistically significant. And just as NO ONE questioned the use of aspirin prior to our greater understanding of its mechanism of action, the clinical and experimental success (and the epidemiological rationale) for using Oscillococcinum warrant the use of this exceedingly safe and dirt cheap OTC drug. THIS information is worthy of inclusion of the article here. If people here can't or won't see this, I will need to make a call-out to the RFC. DanaUllmanTalk 02:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Statistical significance is not the magic wand you are using it as. If a study's result is significant, scientists (at least those who know what that means) say "meh", just like TenOfAllTrades did here, since random chance will result in significance 5% of the time (by definition). That is just one of the reasons we at Wikipedia do usually not accept primary sources.
Just wait until the result has been solidly reproduced, and it will appear in the article. Only then it will be reasonably certain that it is not a fluke. We do not accept such evidence even for ordinary ideas, let alone magic sugar.
Homeopaths unsuccessfully tried to find scientific evidence for their superstition, as well as a theoretical foundation for it, for over 200 years. Do you really expect Wikipedia, or the scientific community, to accept such flimsy evidence for such a loony idea with such a lousy track record? --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not true to say that nobody questioned the use of aspirin prior to greater understanding of how it works, but in any case that is irrelevant because science now fully understands how homeopathy "works", it's just that believers refuse to accept it. The scientific explanation is complete, coherent, internally consistent, and also consistent with all other knowledge. Homeopathic nostrums are usually inert, and the claimed effects are due to a combination of observer bias, expectation effects, regression to the mean, natural cause of disease and other expected outcomes for a null treatment. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, Oscillococcinum is apparently prepared using the Korsakovian principle of dilution which makes all of your "studies" even less relevant. --tronvillain (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Dana, as usual you are fighting a straw man. I am well aware of avian flu. I am also well aware of the actual history of oscillicoccinum, specifically, of Roy's faulty observations leading him to conclude that the non-existent oscillococcus bacterium was the cause of flu (and many other diseases). We have an actual article on this. I am amused by the bait-and-switch to avian flu here, but there are some pretty serious issues with that, including (a) lack of evidence that any given "million dollar duck" is anything other than healthy and (b) the fact that there is no such thing as "bird flu", it might be H5N1, H7N9 or H5N6, for example.
So even if the unreproduced Langmuir finding turned out to be replicable (no evidence of that), generalisable (no evidence of that) repeatable (no evidence of that), valid for the methods used by Boiron (no evidence of that), and persistent through application and evaporation (no evidence of that), it would still be a clinically insignificant amount of a virus that is probably unrelated to what the patient actually has. Maybe that's why the results are all consistent with the null hypothesis.
Once again, you are basically claiming that magic carpets can fly because some threads contain titanium. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The bottomline is that this statement is the article is obtuse and has no place in this article. "As there are only about 1080 atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C. Oscillococcinum would thus require 10320 more universes to simply have one molecule in the final substance.[100]" I recommend that it be deleted. These numbers are based on "simple math," and medicine and biology is much more complex than simple math. DanaUllmanTalk 22:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The bottom line is that it explains clearly and concisely the absurdity of homeopathic setial delusion. You obviously don't like this absurdity bein explained cleary and concisely, but you are quite open about being a homeopathy propagandist, so we're entitled to ignore you. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Ulman you are actually accusing me of fabricating? Unless by chance your duck happens to have flu at the time you murder it, you are selling a fake product which doesn't have anything to do with the flu it's supposed to cure. Also, read what the others are writing about type II errors, repeatability of scientific results, lack of physiological plausibility and so on. Heptor (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_63&oldid=1136801083"