| Revision as of 09:26, 2 October 2022 editDmol (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,803 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2022: reply.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:54, 16 November 2024 edit undoMcSly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers32,216 editsm Reverted edit by 2409:4080:8E1D:4AAB:0:0:6A0A:9811 (talk) to last version by TryptofishTag: Rollback |
| (171 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Biology|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
| Line 7: |
Line 6: |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
{{British English Oxford spelling}} |
|
|
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} |
|
{{recruiting}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN |
|
|action1date=03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|action1date=03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Line 82: |
Line 81: |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=GA|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Homeopathy |class=GA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Homeopathy}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine |class=GA}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |class=GA |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting |date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV. Its contents should be treated with extreme caution, and any material taken from it must be carefully verified.}} |
|
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV. Its contents should be treated with extreme caution, and any material taken from it must be carefully verified.}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
|
|author = ] |
|
|
|title = Ivermectin booster Dr. Tess Lawrie goes all-in for homeopathy for COVID and long COVID |
|
|
|date = March 6, 2023 |
|
|
|org = ] |
|
|
|url = https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-booster-dr-tess-lawrie-goes-all-in-for-homeopathy-for-covid-and-long-covid/ |
|
|
|lang = |
|
|
|quote = Lawrie, as is the case with most quacks, is not happy with Misplaced Pages. Indeed, she starts out by looking at Misplaced Pages: "Let’s start with the lies and misinformation about homeopathy. Here's how the internet's propaganda factory Misplaced Pages currently defines it:" |
|
|
|archiveurl = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. --> |
|
|
|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|
|
|accessdate = March 13, 2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
| author2 = Syeda ShahBano Ijaz |
|
|
| title2 = How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Misplaced Pages’s Credibility |
|
|
| org2 = ] |
|
|
| url2 = https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/ |
|
|
| date2 = 29 May 2023 |
|
|
| quote2 = Take the example of the Misplaced Pages page on homeopathy: from 2001-2006, the lead on the page described homeopathy as a “controversial system of alternative medicine.” From 2006-2013, the content changed to mentioning that homeopathy has been “regarded as pseudoscience” and sharing that there is a “lack of convincing scientific evidence confirming its efficacy.” By 2015, this description had stabilized to “homeopathy is a pseudoscience.” |
|
|
| archiveurl2 = |
|
|
| archivedate2 = |
|
|
| accessdate2 = 30 May 2023 |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
| Line 104: |
Line 125: |
|
__TOC__ |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mathematically impossible statement == |
|
== Update == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is the information on Homoeopathy not updated? As technology advances, new researches have been undertaken by CCRH, India , BSc students, IIT Mumbai and can show new evidences about working of Homoeopathy ] (]) 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Seems up-to-date to me. If you have new information, you are welcome to propose a change to the article. Don't forget to cite the ] backing the changes you are proposing. I also strongly suggest that you read the FAQ at te top of this page as well as the archives of this talk page to get familiar with previous discussions on the same subject. --] (]) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Homoeopathy is a science and therefore it is still existing.. Before claiming it as PSEUDOSCIENCE, kindly check the respective literature. One is unable to find medicinal particles in the dilution doesn't mean that it doesn't contain it. Similarly One can take example of Electricity. You know power house etc.. but when the switch you on makes the light on, do you see any visible energy? Homoeopathy Similarly works in this way. h ] (]) 14:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The relevant academic literature has exhaustive consensus against considering homeopathy as a science and regardless of the mechanism, no effectiveness beyond placebo has been shown as for its medicinal effect. ] (]) 14:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{tq|One is unable to find medicinal particles in the dilution doesn't mean that it doesn't contain it.}} |
|
|
:Resorting to ] is not a great argument. Your argument about electricity is just plain asinine, since we have ample evidence of how electricity works & can even measure its presence (unlike your "water memory"). — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{tq|…but when the switch you on makes the light on, do you see any visible energy?}} |
|
|
:The light wouldn’t be much use if you couldn’t. But quite apart from that, there’s no good evidence for efficacy, the ideas behind it are contradicted by what we know about chemistry, physics and arithmetic, and we have appropriate RSs that say it is pseudoscience. ] (]) 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Even by the standards of this talk page 'do you see any visible energy when you turn on the lights' has to be one of the weakest arguments yet. Dilution to non-existence doesn't improve efficacy around here. ] ] (]) 18:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::To answer the OP's question, as we owe them that much, YES indeed we do. I fear they may not understand the answer, as they certainly dont understand their own question. Ah well, nevermind. -] ] 19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, just as we have invented special devices for detecting energy, implicitly there should be some way to invent devices to detect the medicinal particles. Once such is invented, then homeopathy can be considered a proper science. ] (]) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::We have devices capable of detecting medicinal particles, lots of them. The funny thing is, when they are pointed at homeopathic remedies, no such particles show up. One assumes that is why they don't work. ]] 21:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wording of ineffectiveness of homeopathy == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the first paragraph, there is a sentence that says "Homeopathic remedies are typically biochemically inert, and have no effect on any known disease". This seems slightly misleading, as homeopathic remedies '''can''' have positive effects on diseases, just not more than a placebo would. I think a more technically correct sentence there would be something like "Homeopathic remedies are typically biochemically inert, and have no effect on any known disease when compared to a placebo". Thoughts? ] (]) 20:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:No. Changes seen in the placebo arm of a trial are not necessarily caused by the placebo effect, but are mostly just down to the natural course of the disease; what would happen if no treatment is given. This is why they are generally referred to as “nonspecific”. And the placebo effect itself is the result of the perception that a treatment has been received, not specific to the actual treatment. If they have no effect over placebo, then the remedies themselves have no effect. “No more effective than placebo” does not mean “has a placebo effect”. ] (]) 06:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article contains this statement: |
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2022 == |
|
|
|
"A 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum, would require 10^320 universes worth of molecules to contain just one original molecule in the final substance." |
|
|
This does not make any sense. For one, the volume of diluent would have to be (literally) astronomically large. For two, I'm pretty sure no known scientific process achieves this level of purity. If homeopaths in fact claim to achieve this level of purity, I suppose that's just another false claim: but I don't think it should be treated as a fact. ] (]) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's supposed to be earth atmoshpheres not "universes", I think.<span id="Usedtobecool:1722222132127:TalkFTTCLNHomeopathy" class="FTTCmt"> — ''']''' ] 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
::No, it's universes. The math is supposed to show how aburd homeopaths' claims are. Of course, homeopaths do not do the diluting all at once: take one "duck liver molecule" (whatever that may be) and 10^320 universes of water. They do it step by step, and in summary it amounts to that. --] (]) 04:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's precisely the point, though: no human can perform a dilution "step by step" that achieves anything even remotely resembling 1 molecule in 1 galaxy's worth, much less 1 universe's worth. This 10^320 universes must come from bad math or some mistake somewhere. If the idea is to discredit homeopathy, it would be best not to do so with logically impossible math / physics. ] (]) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Demonstrating that something is mathematically impossible seems to me to be a darned good way to discredit it. ] (]) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The ''maths'' itself is correct - a 200C dilution is genuinely that small a resulting number of molecules. And it's actually not that difficult to dilute something to that level - it's only a 1:100 dilution performed 200 times. If you were diluting in bigger amounts of solvent you could do it very quickly. ] 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If this is all ], it doesn’t need to be included, mathematically sound or not. It’s like refuting creationism with the ]— you don’t need to prove something with no basis in science, that clearly is incompatible with science on a macroscopic scale (it doesn’t work) is ''also'' incompatible with science on a microscopic scale. That should be obvious. ] (]) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It cites a source. ] (]) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It still seems like kind of a strange statement to include for the same reason I already described. Does this help the reader understand the topic or just double down on the fact that homeopathy obviously has no basis in science in a weird, overly technical way? ] (]) 16:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I made this edit, to make clearer to readers that it isn't OR: . --] (]) 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 == |
| ⚫ |
{{Edit semi-protected|Homeopathy|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{collapse top|Collapse AI blather}} |
|
This article is an attack piece and unfit for an encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages. Some editors seem to have cherry picked the poor studies to attack Homeopathy. and show it is effective if its principles (of similarity and minimum dose) are followed.- ] (]) 01:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
⚫ |
{{edit semi-protected|Homeopathy|answered=yes}} |
|
:Many celebrities, including ] take Homeopathy but this article doesn't mention that. Why?-] (]) 01:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This critique of homeopathy focuses on the system's funding, pseudo-scientific aspects, and the flaws in its purported benefits, rather than providing an objective overview of the system itself. It targets and undermines the supporters of homeopathy, leading me to question Misplaced Pages's reliability. For instance, some people assert that vaccines are scientifically proven to be beneficial, while others, presenting genuine cases of side effects, argue against them. If I were to present only one-sided arguments on Misplaced Pages, how would the extensive research in this field be valued? My concern is that Misplaced Pages should not provide a platform for biased views to propagate. The sheer number of references does not necessarily validate the claims, as opposing viewpoints are often supported by numerous sources as well. If Misplaced Pages lacks the ethical standards to prevent the publication of content without considering the writer's bias or without an editorial board to set boundaries, readers like me may lose trust in the platform. |
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 01:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{collapse bottom}} |
|
:: Please remove this: {{TQ|"All relevant scientific knowledge about physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology contradicts homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies are typically biochemically inert, and have no effect on any known disease. Its theory of disease, centered around principles Hahnemann termed miasms, is inconsistent with subsequent identification of viruses and bacteria as causes of disease. Clinical trials have been conducted and generally demonstrated no objective effect from homeopathic preparations.: 206 The fundamental implausibility of homeopathy as well as a lack of demonstrable effectiveness has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as quackery and fraud."}} from the lead.-] (]) 04:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Why? - ]the ] 05:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 09:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::{{tq|Many celebrities}} What is encyclopedic about that? --] (]) 06:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
:{{notdone}} Please use this template for precise editing requests on matters where consensus has been achieved. ] (]) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::The section you seek to remove has about 15 references. You haven't given any valid reason for trying to remove any of it.--] (]) 09:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
The article contains this statement:
"A 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum, would require 10^320 universes worth of molecules to contain just one original molecule in the final substance."
This does not make any sense. For one, the volume of diluent would have to be (literally) astronomically large. For two, I'm pretty sure no known scientific process achieves this level of purity. If homeopaths in fact claim to achieve this level of purity, I suppose that's just another false claim: but I don't think it should be treated as a fact. Andrewbrink (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.)
A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Misplaced Pages include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Misplaced Pages policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics.
Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.)
A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline.
Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)
A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence.
Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.)
A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction. This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Not done Please use this template for precise editing requests on matters where consensus has been achieved. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)