Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:56, 25 January 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeopathy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 14 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

	Homeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 8, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 13, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Homeopathy (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Homeopathy and COPD

This study has been mentioned before, and Dana Ullman has introduced a ref to it in the Potassium dichromate article, stating that it shows homeopathy to be effective above placebo in treating COPD. If this is true then it is relevant for here, however I'm very sceptical, so could a few of us please give this journal a good review. It is from the Chest Journal (impact, rating?) and can be found here. Sorry if this has been discussed before --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Strange that the standard errors on the two groups actually overlap, particularly the errors of both length of stay and extubations. Since this is a very small difference in a very small clinical trial this isn't particularly convincing evidence of anything. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by your reaction. What errors are you talking about? Here is info on Chest. Click on the 'Chest" link to get detailed info. It is one of the most reputable journals. The difference between the 2 groups is significant. Anthon01 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not standard errors, but standard deviations. The difference will become significant if the number of cases is high enough, even if the overlap is large, as long as the means do not converge. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When that happens, it may be noteworthy. Antelan 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has happened, as the article shows. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I mean when the number of cases becomes high enough (current study had 50 cases). Favorite line from the study: The effect may be best explained by cybernetics, which means that the information of the homeopathic drug acts consensually on the regulator. Antelan 22:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And 50 cases proved to be high enough. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you say it was not due to the skewed distribution of healthier patients? Fifty is not exactly a large sample. David D. (Talk) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the assumption of a normal distribution was incorrect? It would not be decisive, I wager. Fifty is quite large for these purposes. Oftentimes, twenty is already enough. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying with a small number of patients there might not be a normal distribution by chance. This is always the big flaw with medical trials, Pharma or homeopath alike. David D. (Talk) 22:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The normal distribution is assumed for the population, not the sample. The parameters of the distribution are estimated from the sample, which is always open to uncertainty, but that does not necessarily lead to an overestimation of significancy. There is a lot more to it than that, but with 50 patients it is all likely to be a very minor issue. The thing to watch out for is the occurrence of outliers, which should always be investigated (e.g., they can be misdiagnosed patients). Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cybernetics" and "consensual" drugs? I think we can safely files this one under nonsense. Jefffire (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why? Please explain. Anthon01 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I think you do know. Now if you'll pardon me, I need to quantum rectify my tea with a flux capacitor. Jefffire (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't. Anthon01 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Gobbledygook. David D. (Talk) 23:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the definitions of those words. The study should be judge on whether it is a RS first, then study design, and not the choice of words in the discussion. Anthon01 (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Only 50 in the sample has been discussed. David D. (Talk) 00:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Probability was 1 in 10,000. You comments above seem to be based on a 'belief' that homeopathy doesn't work. Is that right? Anthon01 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the same for any trial with so few participants. It has nothing to do with homeopathy. David D. (Talk) 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That probability is the liklihood of the set of data representing a "real" difference in in the mean and variation that derives from the treatment, and is dependent upon the assumptions that 1. there was no "real" difference between the groups prior to the treatment and 2. no "real" difference in the application of the treatment compared to the placebo. I challenged that first assumption (see my comments on the other talk page). — Scientizzle 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your reason for challenging the first assumption? Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As the study was performed in 2005 and has not achieved a place in standard practice, has had no published follow-up research, and has received no citations that I have found, I don't see how this is noteworthy. Antelan 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two studies currently in the works. Anthon01 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When they report results, we'll chat. For now, see Scientizzle's point, below. Antelan 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This has gone off the rails a bit, and really should end--it's not helping the development of this article...further discussion could be held at Talk:Potassium_dichromate#COPD, but three of us have already hashed out a lot. Shall we all just agree to disagree and wait for the future replications to better confirm or disconfirm these findings? — Scientizzle 01:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, discussion would be appropriate here if the article were used to provide scientific evidence for homeopathy. I can see a difference (an error in the control preparation which could plausibly make a difference in effectiveness). But perhapsTalk:Potassium_dichromate#COPD would be better. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding the National Center for Homeopathy

I would like an admin to add an external link to the National Center for Homeopathy, the primary organization representing Homeopathy in the United States. Their website is http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org I do not believe that this warrants discussion because the organization is essential to Homeopathy, and an external link is an obvious addition. Thanks. Strubin (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not essential to homeopathy - it's an American homeopathic organization. That said, why don't you just go ahead and add the link yourself? Antelan 06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is currently fully protected...that's why. That said, I'm not convinced the link is necessary (which is why I haven't added it). Is the organization truly a standard-bearer for American homeopathy? Per WP:EL, does it "provide a unique resource" without serving as too promotional, and is there some overwhelming reason why this organization should be the only such one listed in the external links section? — Scientizzle 06:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it has a store page and an advertising page it is at least a little promotional. Also a google search for "America homeopathy" brings up this, as the first link. A search for "United States homeopathy" brings up this as its first link, a site which lists several USA homeopathy organisations. I see no reason to place the National Center for Homeopathy above all of these other organisations. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An even better question would be, why, if this organization is as important as Strubin claims it to be, has it not been added to the article until now? I think thats a better question. But regardless, its not really a necessary link. Just my 1.84 cents (damn American dollar). Baegis (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly not a non-controversial edit, so I've deleted the template without editing the page. Please do not re-add it unless you have an undeniable consensus to do so. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

tobe preferctly honest, i dont see why the foremsot site for homeoatphy is banned from beng mentioned on the article for homeoatphy. woudl you ban the CDC's website on the CDC's own page!? it is very disturbing and sems somewhat suspicious baring any actual ruels prohibitinmg its inclusion. Smith Jones (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The rule prohibiting its inclusion is the following, from WP:PROT: "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove content which clearly violates content policies, such as obvious vandalism or copyright violations, to make changes unrelated to the dispute, or to make changes for which there is clear consensus on the discussion page." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be ugly about this, but this isn't a good link, nor is it uncontroversial. I get the feeling this is being proposed because strubin's wife is on the board of directors. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What a delightful oversight on strubin's part. Hmm... Baegis (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there is only one Center for Disease Control and there are how many homeopathy organisations? If there was only one homeopathy organisation the link would be in there no question, but since there are several we are forced to evaluate whether or not the website is "the foremsot site for homeoatphy". JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what is this doing here? This is clearly a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies. I placed the blpdispute tag on the article and now the original author is threatening to block me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.104.203.106 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Obsolete medical theories

I don't see how a theory that is still being practiced can be called obsolete. Is there another term that could be possibly used?Tstrobaugh (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How long has it been in that category? I agree it sounds a little weird since there are medical doctors who currently prescribe such prescriptions along with a booming industry selling the stuff. Whether it works or not is irrelevant to whether it is obsolete, isn't it? David D. (Talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wiktionary, first definition: "(of words, equipment, etc.) no longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected (often by preference for something newer, which replaces the subject)." This is blatantly not the case with homeopathy in general. However, it gets a bit trickier when you consider it only on the basis of being a medical theory. Certainly, it's fallen out of favor among a majority of licensed doctors, but there is a notable subsect of them which uses it (and medical schools which teach it). Looking through the other articles in this category, they all seem to easily meet the standards of being obsolete, and I don't see any theories there which might be comparable to homeopathy. In the end, I think this category is best removed (once the article is unprotected, of course). --Infophile 20:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not aware of (American) medical schools that teach this. Medical schools teach about homeopathy as a matter of awareness. There are schools that teach homeopathy, but they are not licensed medical schools. That said, the theory of homeopathy is more in contradiction to mainstream medical science than it is obsolete. There's no category for the former, of course. Antelan 21:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in this list, which includes 5, possibly 6, licensed, American schools which teach homeopathy uncritically (most likely; it's impossible to know for sure without experiencing their classes). It's certainly not commonplace, given the total number of universities in the country, but it is a presence. --Infophile 23:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. After reading over a few of those, I didn't see any that actually taught this at the med school, but I didn't read through all of them. Antelan 23:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Further down in the post, he points out 6 which specifically mention homeopathy (well, one only mentions Hahnemann). Did you get to that section? --Infophile 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah, yes leave it to me to read only the first few items on a page. Let me read those and get back to you. Antelan 02:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's my take on that list - all of those are "clinical" pages, promoting services to patients. None of those actually deal with the med school curriculum, with the possible exception of UW (which itself doesn't teach Homeopathy, but instead teaches about it). Antelan 02:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you could be right there. I'm just assuming that university clinics that offer it would also teach it to interns (if not necessarily offer whole courses in it). In any case, it's not particularly relevant whether it's taught or not - that it's practiced at all by places like these is enough for us to say it isn't obsolete. --Infophile 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly with you there! Antelan 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It got added last July during a flurry of edits. Filll asked "I believe that this category is appropriate and accurate and will make the article easier to find. comments?" So belatedly, I do have a comment, i don't think it is appropriate given it is still in use today. David D. (Talk) 21:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the category is wholly inappropriate. As such, I've removed it from the article. — Scientizzle 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate on why I find the category inappropriate...while it may not have broad acceptance within modern Western medicine (which is not a philosophical monolith easily pigeonholed), it's sufficiently practiced by medical and nonmedical practitioners worldwide that it's clearly not "obsolete" in the colloquial sense. And since there is legitamite acedmic study of homeopathy (if for no other reason than attempting to determine conclusively that the practice is nothing more than an elaborate placebo effect), I cannot yet comfortably agree that it's truly obsolete in the evidence-based medical sense. Discussion here makes it sufficently clear that such a category is not supported by even those obviously skeptical of the practice, so I am comfortable with my removal of the category from the page. — Scientizzle 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this standard protocol for protected pages? I was of the understanding that it was inappropriate for administrators to make contested changes, regardless of their personal opinions. Jefffire (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the objections to the removal didn't appear until after it was done. At the time Scientizzle made the change, only comments supporting removal were present, so it didn't look controversial then. --Infophile 20:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was a triffle mislead by the rather defensive tone of the justification above. Whilst I'm not convinced of the accuracy of the category, it would appear that removal was premature if the removing admin feels forced to entering into direct debate on the topic. Jefffire (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

True. The point of my recent statement was to recognize that the discussion has shifted in timbre, but I am still confident that I made the right decision as I've yet to see a convincing argument that the category is warranted above what seem to be a variety of reasonable objections to said categorization. To put it another way, the onus of any categorization is on those that with to categorize the article, as the addition of a category conveys more information than the lack of a specific category. However, if I feel there is any wider dissatisfaction with my edit, I'm perfectly willing to revert and allow another admin to make a decision. Also, I will continue monitoring (and possibly participating) in this discussion, and if the status of consensus truly shifts, I'll take that into account and re-evaluate my action. — Scientizzle 20:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is obsolete as a medical theory, because it is considered false by medical science. The existence of a large number of non-academic racists in the world does not prevent scientific racism from being an obsolete theory in anthropology, for example. The category is wholly appropriate. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Although homeopathy is still practised, it is not part of modern medical theory and is therefore currently an "obsolete medical theory". This is both true and verifiable, and to get it changed here homeopaths would first have to get it accepted as a modern medical theory. --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW homeopathy is not a medical theory, it is a practical method about preparing and using drugs. However, having said that no fact or pratice is entirely without its adherent theory; briefly, then, homeopathy is far from obsolete and it is not a theory and so it fails to conform to the term 'obsolete medical theory.' my 10 cents Peter morrell 12:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not be a theory now, but it was once regarded as such. I disagree with you that homeopathy isn't a medical theory (it is clearly a theory of medicine), and I'm sure we can both find refs to back up our view of its current status. However, it was once considered a medical theory, and is no longer considered part of mainstream medical theory, and is hence an "obsolete" medical theory --RDOlivaw (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is principally a method, though as a body of knowledge it does contain theories. For the convenience of your argument you seem hell-bent on totally ignoring the fact that it still exists and is widely practised, is that correct? i.e. it is far from obsolete. Whether it is what you call mainstream or not is surely a side-issue. It is not an obligatory component part of it being what you call a theory or of it being what you call obsolete, so I fail to see how you can make this defintion stick. The application of this term to homeopathy is thus pure OR, and pejorative OR at that. Peter morrell 12:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't argued for or against inclusion, I'm just pointing out that as a medical theory it is obsolete. The methods, practices, and beliefs of homeopathy constitute the homeopthic medical theory (of which there may be more than one). I haven't ignored the fact that it "still" exists. It is the case that homeopathic medical theories were once current and widely practised, however they have no place currently in mainstream medical theories, hence they are obsolete medical theories. Homeopathy itself is not obsolete, whether this is good or bad, but currently the theories fit the definition of obsolete. If you add a pejorative onto it then that has nothing to do with me; the fact that homeopathy isn't part of accepted medical practice/theory is the problem. That can be fixed by scientific study of homeopathy, which will show it works if it does work. However, as it stands now homeopathy is an obsolete medical theory. I think this is the least of this articles problems, but is very much linked to the big problems facing homeopaths--RDOlivaw (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete means no longer in use or no longer useful. There is quite a bit of ongoing research on homeopathy. Here is a recent study published in highly regarded Chest journal. and 3 listed trials are using C30 dilutions.

There are currently 11 open homeopathy trials. Anthon01 (talk) Anthon01 (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the "medical theory" of homeopathy is obsolete hence the phrase "obsolete medical theory". As I've said about ten times already, I'm referring to the medical theory of homeopathy, and in current medical theory there is no longer a place for homeopathy - hence it is obsolete as a medical theory. Whether it exists or should be part of medical theory is different, but it is not up to wikipedia to judge --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Was it ever a relevant field of medicine? I was of the understanding that it was recognised as quackery from the beginning. Jefffire (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by homeopathy 'theory.' Please state the theory. Anthon01 (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a currently utilized health care modality. It is not an "obsolete medical theory" by any stretch of rational logic. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But the homeopathic theory of medicine is not a part of the modern theory of medicine. I believe it was one of many competing medical theories that were in competition with each other until the establishment of modern medicine, the theory of which is now evidence based. Hence homeopathy as a medical theory is currently obsolete Whether homeopathy is a "currently utilized modality" (lovely word) is irrelevant to its obsolescence as an accepted medical theory. The way some people here are misunderstanding a rather simple distinction is really quite odd. --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to remember that the "modern theory of medicine" as you call it isn't a single, easily-definable entity. In the US, there are many varied clinics/hospitals/schools which all of slightly varied takes on what all comprises medicine. And, as I pointed out earlier, a small number of these include homeopathy (along with other alternative therapies, often under the banner of "Integrative Medicine"). They're very small in number, true, but they do exist, and they do consider homeopathy part of medicine. --Infophile 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that there is no one "modern theory of medicine" - there are many theories. Among these many theories that are being promoted as accepted and proven "science" by many medical doctors:

• the prescribing of cholesterol reducing drugs to reduce heart attacks (as yet unproven, and potentially dangerous)
• the prescribing of Fosamax and other bisphosphonates to prevent osteoporosis (as yet unproven, and potentially dangerous) Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you're making generalized arguments against the validity of medical science, does that mean I no longer have to "assume good faith" on your part? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the logical connection there. I think the only time you can stop assuming good faith is when bad faith has been repeatedly demonstrated and vastly outweighs instances of good faith. I'd hardly call that the case here. --Infophile 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that User:Aburesz is not editing this article in good faith, but is instead advancing an anti-medicine, pro-homeopathy agenda. I don't expect the shortcomings of the AGF policy to be resolved here, I'm just pointing out that it only seems to be used as a bludgeon against editors who are concerned about factual accuracy and are fed up with mystical nonsense being inserted into Misplaced Pages, yet the other side can openly proclaim their hostility to science and no one cares. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont se the evidence that everyone is who supporting homeopathy shoudl by treated in bad faith, Randy Blackmoor. I think you shoudl continue to assume GOOD faith even itwh people who disagree with you, becuase doing other wise will lea dto an edit war when the article gets unprotected and end up with the whole thing having be to be prodected indefinitel.y. Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good God, now there are three of you, and you still make no "sesne". It's hardly in the spirit of homeopathy either :) I disagree with Randy however, I think we should treat these people kindly. It is like heaping burning hot coals upon their heads. However, I get annoyed when people move from specifics to generalities, such as Smith Jones has done here. He questioned AGF of one person, not all homeopathy supporters. However, this discussion isn't and shouldn't be about AGF. I think it has been established that this edit is slightly controversial (homeopathic theory is currently obsolete, for the one reason given about 50 times, is a verifiable view, even if some disagree or think it is pejorative). Let's not talk about AGF or the actions of rouge users here. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

A request was made for this article, or a prior version of it, to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors . Unfortunately, the request was denied – the reason for its refusal is given below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Proofread denied by Happy‑melon (19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)) – WP:LOCE/C#4 - full protection indicates article is not stable..

Creating a balanced article

I would remind everyone, especially Randy_Blackamoor, that personal attacks are not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Accusing other editors of having a "hostility to science" and "an anti-medicine, pro-homeopathy agenda" is not helpful in building a consensus on creating a balanced article on homeopathy.

Neutral point of view (NPOV) involves describing the different viewpoints in a controversial article, in order to create a balanced article THAT DOES NOT TAKE SIDES. It is not about deciding which view is "neutral" or "correct". That type of subjective bias has no place in an encyclopedia article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

How many times have we had this discussion? Editors are not required to be "neutral" between what is true/verifiable and what is false. Articles are not required to pretend that false ideas (e.g., homeopathy) are true. It is not a violation of NPOV to write articles about pseudoscience from a scientific perspective. This is well-trodden ground on this talk page. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i respectfully disagree with yhte above user. it makes no sense sofr and article to take sides on whetehr or not homeopathy science is valid ro not. the main goal shoudl be to compile source information ragardless of the opinions of the peopel ont he talk page. instead of screaming at eacho ther can calling each other "anti-science zealots" or whatever we shodul instead focus on gettin g as many valid sources as we can so that we can create an well-written article that contains all the verifiable information we can find so that this article can be unrpotected and finally become stalbe enough to submit to copy-editing and Smith Jones (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NOBODY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TYPING. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

<RI>There is a misinterpretation of NPOV here. First of all, we do not give undue weight to fringe therapies. Not all sources are equal. Not all theories are equal. NPOV does not require the article to say Some people think Homeopathy works, some do. No, it requires us to state what is Homeopathy, and the vast wealth of data in peer reviewed and reliable sources states that Homeopathy does not work. That is the neutral POV. This is exactly what our job is. This is a scientific article because "practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores both the physical and psychological state of the patient", which explicitly state that this is a medical science. As such, it is subject to all the rules of pseudoscience. OrangeMarlin 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackamoor, try not doing that kind of attack. OrangeMarlin 00:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the appropriate way to deal with someone who refuses to write in legible English? The idea of collaboration becomes a farce when, in addition to all the users who are coming in with an agenda, the most prolific writer on the talk page is producing large chunks of totally incomprehensible pseudo-language, and then demanding that others figure out what he means so we can "collaborate" with him. I feel like I'm trapped in a Samuel Beckett play on this talk page. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i am NOT sying that pro-homeopathy points of view should be given the same weight as anit-homeopathy. the VAST MARJOITY of scientific sources of homeopathy are skeptical and this article should relfect that. the only thing i take offense to is that some user want the article to objectively stat ethe homeopathy is wrong or evil, which IS a vioaltion of NPOV and possibly other rules of this encylcopedia. calling is a psuedoscience, is fine (AS LONG AS IT IS SOURCED, PREFERABLY MOLTIPLE TIMES) but any unsourced statements positive or negaitvie should be deleted. And Randy Blackamoor please stop it with the personal attakcs they are completely unhelpful and counterproductive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to state what Homeopathy is, and the vast wealth of data in peer reviewed and reliable sources that states that Homeopathy does work (as well as those studies that state that it doesn't work). That is the neutral POV. Apparently some that have expressed themselves on this page are unaware of the data in peer reviewed and reliable sources that states that Homeopathy does work Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i dont knwo about that, man. while i personaly believe that homeopathy is effectiv e in some cases, the majority of studies that i have seen so far sem to indicate that it does not always or consistently work. i think it would be a good idea to post a list of htose peer-reviewed and relaible sources here so that the other peoeple on this talk page can have a hcance to see them and evaluate them tos ee if they match what wikipedias requirements are. Smith Jones Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are these elusive studies that prove that Homeopathy does work? I have had my eye on this page for a good coupla months and haven't seen anyone put forth any reliable source that says homeopathy works any better than the standard placebo. It would be best if you go back and read over OrangeMarlin's comment above. It sums up all relevant polices for this article as clearly as possible. Baegis (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D (2003). Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 22:229–234.

• Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E (1997). Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 25:628–633.

• Taylor MA, Reilly D, Llewellyn-Jones RH, McSharry C, Aitchison TC (2000). Randomised controlled trials of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. British Medical Journal, 321:471–476.

• Frass, M., Dielacher, C., Linkesch, M., Endler, C., Muchitsch, I., Schuster, E., and Kaye, A. Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March 2005. http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/127/3/936

• Gibson et al. Rheumatoid Arthritis study 1980. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 1980. 9. p 453 Gibson and colleagues in Glasgow performed a double blind controlled trial of homeopathic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis patients with careful assessment of progress. There were only 23 patients in each group, both had full homeopathic interviews but one treated group received placebo instead of remedy. 19 showed improvement in the treatment group compared to 5 in the placebo group. p=0.001.

• Day C. Stillbirth in Pigs. Veterinary Recorder. 1984. 9114. p 216 This problem was reduced using homeopathic Caulophyllum compared with placebo. Veterinary experiments carry much dramatic effect as the placebo effect is considered less operative. A QED BBC TV Documentary program showed one half of a herd of cows being protected against mastitis by the addition of a few drops of phytolacca 30c to their drinking trough while the other half of the herd using a non-treated trough continued to have the problem.

• Reilly et al. Hay-fever study 1986. Lancet. 1986. p 365 A study by David Reilly and colleagues in Glasgow set out to determine whether they could find any evidence to support the hypothesis that placebo response fully explains the clinical response to homeopathy. They couldn't. The study was a double blind controlled trial of 30c homeopathic potencies of mixed grasses and pollens compared to placebo. The improvement was significant for the treated group who even exhibited an initial aggravation of symptoms as might be expected for a homeopathic response. The trial was well conducted and to a high standard.

• Fisher et al. Fibrositis study 1989. British Medical Journal. 1989. p 365 Fisher and colleagues found a significant improvement in fibrositis cases in a rheumatology clinic using 6c potencies of Rhus tox. when those patients had the well known modalities of being worse when cold and better with continued movement. Previous studies had failed to show any difference but hadn't taken care to use the homeopathic indications for Rhus tox.

• Reilly et al. Asthma study using house dust mite 1994. Lancet. 1994. p 1601 A follow-up study by David Reilly and colleagues in Glasgow to the hayfever study of 1986. The study was a double blind controlled trial of a 30c homeopathic potency of house dust mite compared to placebo. Of the 28 patients used 77% showed an improvement compared to only 33% showing an improvement with placebo. p=0.08. The trial was well conducted and to a high standard. The study was supervised by a consultant respiratory physician who recruited the patients for the study.

I can provide you with many more. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Acute maxillary sinusitis

Efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) in patients with acute maxillary sinusitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a demand for clinical trials that demonstrate homeopathic medications to be effective and safe in the treatment of acute maxillary sinusitis (AMS). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this clinical trial was to demonstrate the efficacy of a complex homeopathic medication (Sinfrontal) compared with placebo in patients with AMS confirmed by sinus radiography. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial was conducted for a treatment period of 22 days, followed by an eight-week posttreatment observational phase. SETTING: The clinical trial was conducted at six trial sites in the Ukraine. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirteen patients with radiography-confirmed AMS participated in the trial. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-seven patients received Sinfrontal and 56 patients received placebo. Additionally, patients were allowed saline inhalations, paracetamol, and over-the-counter medications, but treatment with antibiotics or other treatment for sinusitis was not permitted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome criterion was change of the sinusitis severity score (SSS) from day zero to day seven. Other efficacy assessments included radiographic and clinical cure, improvement in health state, ability to work or to follow usual activities, and treatment outcome. RESULTS: From day zero to day seven, Sinfrontal caused a significant reduction in the SSS total score compared with placebo (5.8 +/- 2.3 points vs 2.3 +/- 1.8 points; P < .0001). On day 21, 39 (68.4%) patients on active medication had a complete remission of AMS symptoms compared with five (8.9%) placebo patients. All secondary outcome criteria displayed similar trends. Eight adverse events were reported that were assessed as being mild or moderate in intensity. No recurrence of AMS symptoms occurred by the end of the eight-week posttreatment observational phase. CONCLUSION: This complex homeopathic medication is safe and appears to be an effective treatment for acute maxillary sinusitis.

Anthon01 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not reputable, not authoritative, and not important. Jefffire (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the journal. Please clarify. This is an RCT that suggest an effect from a homeopathic preparation. Anthon01 (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to have to go through every homeopathy pubmed reference now? This seems to be the direction things are heading. Folks, can we try to focus on important papers (you can get a very rough sense of this based on how many citations they have received) in archive journals that some have modicum of authority (if you don't know, impact factor can be used as a surrogate)? Antelan 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a waste of time to bring up individual primary sources. There are plenty of secondary sources available, and these are the ones that common sense and Misplaced Pages policy say we should use. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

another study

Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB.

Münchener Modell, Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, Technische Universität/Ludwig-Maximillans-Universität, München, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible, but has widespread use. We aimed to assess whether the clinical effect reported in randomised controlled trials of homeopathic remedies is equivalent to that reported for placebo. METHODS: We sought studies from computerised bibliographies and contracts with researchers, institutions, manufacturers, individual collectors, homeopathic conference proceedings, and books. We included all languages. Double-blind and/or randomised placebo-controlled trials of clinical conditions were considered. Our review of 185 trials identified 119 that met the inclusion criteria. 89 had adequate data for meta-analysis, and two sets of trial were used to assess reproducibility. Two reviewers assessed study quality with two scales and extracted data for information on clinical condition, homeopathy type, dilution, "remedy", population, and outcomes. FINDINGS: The combined odds ratio for the 89 studies entered into the main meta-analysis was 2.45 (95% CI 2.05, 2.93) in favour of homeopathy. The odds ratio for the 26 good-quality studies was 1.66 (1.33, 2.08), and that corrected for publication bias was 1.78 (1.03, 3.10). Four studies on the effects of a single remedy on seasonal allergies had a pooled odds ratio for ocular symptoms at 4 weeks of 2.03 (1.51, 2.74). Five studies on postoperative ileus had a pooled mean effect-size-difference of -0.22 standard deviations (95% CI -0.36, -0.09) for flatus, and -0.18 SDs (-0.33, -0.03) for stool (both p < 0.05). INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. Anthon01 (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this published in? Does it have a pubmed index? Adam Cuerden 21:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added it above. Published in the Lancet. Impact factor 99.7. Anthon01 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, please see my suggestion above (that we don't just go through all primary papers referencing homeopathy, but instead be much more selective about what we choose to bring up on this talk page). Antelan 21:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i disage e with the prolbme. the main point of the talk page is to bring up as many rlevent sources as we can. then we can look through them and decide whithch ones that are good enought o be included in the article. after all isnt wikiepdias policy to Be BOld'Bold text'? Smith Jones (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the point of a talk page is to be conducive to forming a good article. If this were a subject that had only a dozen relevant papers, this may be an acceptable approach. Homeopathy is a vast topic, making this approach inappropriate. Antelan 22:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

i see your point but how we oudl we decide which ones were aprporiate enough to be brough up for the talk page? Smith Jones (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a metric above; essentially, look at the journal's impact factor, then look at the # of times the article in question has been cited. Even if someone knows nothing about the journal or the topic, this will help them discover if it is considered important by others in the field.Antelan 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks you a lot for yourls help. sorry for not noticing the metrric above before i asked my quesiton. Smith Jones (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from above:

Regarding "It's not relevant to the Misplaced Pages article anyway, since it's a primary source," can you please explain the policy to me? Anthon01 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." (my emphasis) I said it already here, and JamesStewart7 did a good good of explaining it in the second paragraph of this edit. --Art Carlson (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon, what is it that you don't understand about the problem with primary sources? --Art Carlson (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Arions arguemtn makes perfect sense to me. if everoyne else agrees to include those articles if necesary and posibel, then i see ::now reason why we cant askfor the raticle to be unlocked form editing. Smith Jones (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)::

This is from Lancet. Art: Not everyone agrees with you. Primary sources can be used in certain occasions. BTW, this is a secondary source. Antelan: I believe your metrics have been meet. Anthon01 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize. I shot from the hip. Of course the Lancet article is a secondary source so this criticism does not apply here.
• The criticism, to which you have not responded, still applies to your previous edit.
• On the other hand, what point are you trying to make? This paper is already in the article as reference 14.
• And concerning policy, do you not agree that "Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources."? If you propose to add a primary source to the article, then you are obligated to explain why secondary sources are not sufficient in that case, and why that particular primary source should be chosen above all the other ones available.

--Art Carlson (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Then it's already mentioned. But also superceded by the later study. Adam Cuerden 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is already mentioned and where? Why should the later study supersede this one. Science is not composed of only the last study. Anthon01 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you only knew... Antelan 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Now what does that cryptic message mean?:) Anthon01 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, it means "I would love it if that were true / in a better world you would be right." Antelan 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on this, but I'm tired of this pubmed dredging. This isn't how science works, and it isn't how Misplaced Pages works. There are primary sourcing with every concievable outcome, simply because of the manner in which statistics works and how some researchers are just crap at science. That's why it's daft to pick up every tatty piece of positive research ever done. What matter is if it was well regarded by the scientific and medical community who have judged it by their own expertise. Jefffire (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To make another point, quantity does not make up for quality when it comes to science. A ton of poorly-designed studies do not add up to good evidence. Even if you throw in a meta-analysis of them, Garbage in garbage out still applies. In judging what's true, you have to pay more attention to quality studies. Of course, we aren't in the business here at Misplaced Pages of making that judgment ourselves. That's why we rely on reliable secondary which will have judged that for us. --Infophile 06:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many people make ill-informed reference to the above Lancet's article that says: "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition." It is necessary to note that the researchers defined "efficaciousness" as having at least three high quality clinical trials each conducted by independent researchers. At the time of the above Lancet meta-analysis (1997), there were only 2 trials testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza (or influenza-like syndrome). In 1998, however, a third independent trial verified its efficacy. It can now, therefore, be asserted that Oscillococcinum is more effective than placebo in treating influenza (note: it has not been found to be effective in preventing the flu). Even the Cochrane report has asserting that these results are "promising." It should also be noted that the above meta-analysis found that when reviewing only the "high quality" clinical studies and when adjusting for publication bias, there was still a 1.78 odd ratio, suggesting a clinically relevant effect from homeopathic medicines above a placebo effect. Dana Ullman 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

List of homeopathic remedies

An excellent suggestion was just made over at Talk:potassium dichromate. We should make a list called List of homeopathic remedies. This list can be exhaustive and cited to homeopathic sources and link to the substances that homeopaths say they use in preparing the remedy. That way we don't have to have discussion of homeopathy on the dozens of mainstream plant and chemical articles (except where measured to be prominent by independent mainstream reliable sources). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

that seems like a briliant idea and maybe we can incoroprate all the individual homeoapthic remedies listed on wikpiedia into that one article, with links to the major ones that actualy have articles. Smith Jones (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but we'd have to say what the remedy actually is, cite everything, and choose inclusion criteria, e.g. are we using Hahnemann? Kent? Kent plus a brief list of comercially notable additional remedies? Adam Cuerden 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with what's currently used and reliably sourcable. Also, I'm thinking it might not be a bad idea to make this a category as well/instead. --Infophile 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The basis of the article might be User:Peter_morrell/List_of_common_homeopathic_remedies, but this will need more sources before we move it into mainspace. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very poor basis as it stands, though - it doesn't even say what things are, and is effectively a long list of easter eggs, most of them FAILED easter eggs at that. Adam Cuerden 05:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

...Also, that list contains "Water" and "sugar". While that may be the main ingredients of many homeopathic remedies, one rather suspects that Peter has just saved a copy of the corrupted list that got deleted for no context a while ago. Adam Cuerden 05:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good source if you are really looking for a source. Homeopathic Pharmacopœia. Anthon01 (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a separate list of homeopathic medicines would not and should not negate the possibility to inclusion of a reference to fact in an article in wikipedia on that plant, mineral, or animal substance as a homeopathic medicine, as long as there is some special notability of the substance as a homeopathic medicine. Dana Ullman 05:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be a huge article! I think notability should be a factor, with a listing of the most popular ones. (For example, see Chiropractic treatment techniques.) Listing all possibilities would get us into promoting the special and weird preparations by individual homeopaths, and we don't do advertising here.

Here's a skeptical description of one of the most popular ones:

• "Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

-- Fyslee / talk 05:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Fyslee, are you next going to say that the atomic bomb was a placebo because the actual size of an atom is so so small that it couldn't possibly cause any problems. But the real problem with your silly math is that you are ignoring three large (over 300 patients) independently conducted double-blind and placebo controlled trials. Stop the theorizing about what you think are placeboes. Theorizing isn't science. Look at the results...or show me results where Oscillococcinum didn't work in the treatment of the flu. Wiki is not a place for theorizing; it is a place for results. Dana Ullman 06:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think that comment is at all useful, Mr. Ullman. Adam Cuerden 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course such a comment isn't worth a reply. Dana Ullman has just disappointed me. I would have expected something better. I guess this incivility can be added to the evidence against him. It's sure piling up! -- Fyslee / talk 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Theorising isn't science?? I've been doing it wrong then... but then I am a theoretician. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record:

Vickers AJ, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes., Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. - not enough evidence to recommend its general use

van der Wouden JC, Bueving HJ, Poole P. Preventing influenza: an overview of systematic reviews. Respir Med. 2005 Nov;99(11):1341-9. Epub 2005 Aug 19. PMID 16112852 - its popularity is not justified by the evidence. 06:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I want to get involved in this, but DU's example not really effective: Mainly as there are all these reactors that kind of prove the theory while a Japanese city or two wishes it was a placebo. BTW Misplaced Pages isn't about results it's about verifiable information from reliable sources. FWIW the article should be on the subject (ie/ homoepathy) with elements from all sides - including the rather large amount of evidence saying it doesn't work and a smaller section on the evidence which says it works, just like any other WP:FRINGE subject. We may not like it, but thats why Misplaced Pages has it's policies :-/ Shot info (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Potassium dichromate#Category: Homeopathic remedies, we would include citations to substances, their homeopathic names, and the symptoms they purportedly cure. Yes, I realize that many remedies don't contain a single molecule of "active ingredient," but such a list would be 200C better than Category:Homeopathic remedies, as we now have. With a list we can explain upfront that many remedies have been diluted to nil. Categorizing things like sodium chloride as a homeopathic remedy would be absurd, and creating an homeopathic content fork for Natrum muriaticum (like Ferrum Phosphoricum) is a sickening proposition to me.

With all but the most notable homeopathic remedies, it would be undue weight to note their homeopathic use on the main article, but this list will solve the problem. We don't have to mar coffea by writing about how coffee is diluted in homeopathic sleeping pills. We just list it on the table of homeopathic remedies, where it's not undue weight, and be done with it. We should limit listed remedies to commercially-available mass-produced preparations.

I think it has the potential to be one of the most illuminating and useful articles about homeopathy. Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On sources: we should be able to find some homeopathic treatises that list common remedies. For example, this book picks 60 "common" remedies out of "literally thousands," and this book names 15 remedies which the author says conventional pharmacies should stock. We can combine several such lists of "common remedies" and source them, listing each source as a reference on each substance and purported symptoms on a table. It would look like:

Natrum muriaticum | sodium chloride | dehydration, headache, ect.

I think that would be easy for readers to parse. If we only use secondary sources listing "common" remedies we'll avoid OR, and we'll also keep the list manageable. The real challenge will be selecting the most authoritative secondary sources. Cool Hand Luke 07:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It should have common dilution information too, in both homeopathic and scientific notation. Perhaps a not on dilutions beyond 12C that there is none of the substance remaining, and a link to the appropriate section of the homeopathy page. --RDOlivaw (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see such an article becoming very long, unmanageable and pointless. But then again, it's not been tried yet. Jefffire (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If we have rules for keeping it concise (so no discussion of individual remedies, just a table of info with wikilinks and refs) plus some footnotes for things like dilutions, then it shouldn't be too bad. We might have to be strict about the notability (specifically that it's in common use) though. I think it's worth trying, and will remove some heat from this and other articles. Kept in one place it's easier for all parties to keep tabs on, and rules for inclusion should be reviewed every now and then, and additions discussed on it's talk page with a justification. Maybe it won't work, but it sounds a bit more positive than some things that have been happening. It will also still be under wiki policies of undue weight and fringe too. I think it could be a disaster, or it could just tidy things up a lot --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on the proposal. I understood it to mean that there would be a link from List of homeopathic remedies to (for example) Potassium dichromate, but (normally) not a link in the other direction (or indeed any mention in the main article of the application in homeopathy). Is this correct? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the links to the substance would be one way. A link from the substance to homeopathy would remain as rare as it is now (in some cases rarer, as stubs can be replaced by the list). So there would be no link from Potassium dichromate --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, there is a rationale developed for this. I actually came up with it in discussing whether redshift quantization should be linked at redshift. Remember the good ol' days, Art? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that the current article omits information as to how particular substances come to be identified with a particular therapeutic property. Such explanation would need to be provided preliminary to the compilation of list under discussion, lest WP become a repository for lists of merely arbitrary character. Such an explanation can be theoretical, and need not engage that point that there is no evidence for the efficacy of any of the claimed effects. Naturezak (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the section on provings not clear enough? --Art Carlson (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Would this be a good source? Homeopathic Pharmacopœia.

I think a published copy could be a good source for purported symptoms cured, but as a list it's much too long. We should confine the list to the most common remedies. Cool Hand Luke 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we use the whole list, just highlights. Anthon01 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A good reputable source is though oibviously it has a few more remedies than is planned for here! It can be used as a good source for the common ones. Peter morrell 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Remedies that are on the shelves of normal high-street pharmacies or have significant, independent press coverage should certainly be included in the list. Perhaps a another good general test would be if the remedy has been discussed in the journal Homeopathy? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources and Notable + NPOV

I think this would be helpful. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Misplaced Pages, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Misplaced Pages passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation ... Examples of primary sources include ... written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research;

Copied from Anthon01 (talk) (User talk:Danaullman15:25), 22 January 2008

--David2008 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I was about to post that here. Anthon01 (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned. Those currently in the article are used to blatantly editorialize that homeopathy is worthless, except for possible placebo effects. The actual facts of the research found in hundreds of primary sources - that has been extensively performed world-wide - which is supportive of homeopathy has been deliberately not allowed into this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A frequent argument for or against inclusion is notability. From my reading of WP:Notable it appears that notability is being misused.

Within Misplaced Pages, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Misplaced Pages article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right.

Please clarify. Anthon01 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the problem with using scientific papers as primary sources: Even though you can easily report what the study says, what you can't judge is what it means. Scientific studies are done and come out by the barrelfull. By chance alone, 1 in 20 studies will show a statistically significant effect even when there is none (and another 1 in the 20 will show a significant effect in the other direction). Publication bias then leads to these significant studies being significantly more likely to appear in journals. Add on top of that that for subjects like this, the proponents are notoriously sloppy with design, and in the end you end up with a number of studies that show positive effects rivaling those that show no effect (the exact ratio depends on many factors, including what quality of journal you look at).

What this means is that you can't look at a single study to judge whether something like Homeopathy works. Even if the study seems to have been designed perfectly, shows a large effect, and has a large sample size, you still can't judge from one alone. You have to allow other, independant scientists to attempt to replicate the results. Remember cold fusion? Seemed awesome at first, but failed replicability.

Over the history of homeopathy, there have been hundreds of studies performed. It would be idiotic for us to discuss all of them. What makes sense is for us to go one level up, to look at reliable summaries of these studies. So instead of relying on individual studies, we look at meta-analyses and reviews. That is, rather than discussing what every single primary source says, we go to the secondary sources and discuss what they say. When the discussion leads us to want to zoom into specifics, we cite primary sources that argue a particular point, granted, but this does not mean that every primary source is automatically deserving of a mention. There is nothing in particular about the study you're putting forward that merits it particular mention - save perhaps as a notable failure of the peer-review process (though we can't put that in until it's notable and some secondary source has reported on it). --Infophile 18:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Since there are primary sources currently mentioned in the article that are not supportive of homeopathy, then primary sources that are supportive of homeopathy must also be mentioned". I agree with this. Second option : We could also exclude all primary sources, positive and negative, and use only metanalyses.—Preceding unsigned comment added by David2008 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the essay. You said, "notable failure of the peer-review process" What are you talking about here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that in regards to how that potassium dichromate/COPD study made it through into Chest. There are numerous problems with the study that should have been caught by peer-review and yet weren't. Of course, as I mentioned before, this is simply personal opinion until some reliable secondary source covers this topic. If you wish for me to go into details, I could do so, but I warn you that it gets rather technical (I'm not doing it already as my analysis of the study doesn't have much place on Misplaced Pages). --Infophile 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The history of publication (preponderance of high quality evidence) part I understand, although even meta-analyses need to be reviewed also since they can include original research, poor design, etc ... I think I'll be ok since I have a extensive science background. Please understand that I am trying to nail down inclusion criteria for WP. Happy to here your opinion and would like to know how your opinion applies to the WP inclusion criteria. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability is about articles, not sources and citations "Within Misplaced Pages, notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Misplaced Pages article. The topic of an article should be notable". It has no relevance to the discussion about sources, which are covered by WP:CITE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE etc --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that. However the term notable is used sometimes by editors on WP to exclude a citation, a misuse of notable. That is the point of my quote from WP:NPOV. Anthon01 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Every instance of the word "notable" on Misplaced Pages talk pages does not mean "notable" in the hyperlinked, inclusion guideline sense. WP:N quote for you: Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Misplaced Pages as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles. Even if one discovers a particular study that confirms one's preconceived bias on the topic at hand, its inclusion in the article is still subject to community consensus (which can include determining whether the citation is relevant and/or appropriate) and must fit all relevant policies and guidelines in its presentation (i.e., NOR, NPOV, V, FRINGE, COATRACK, and many other all-caps shortcuts). Many have also clearly argued that the inclusion of any single study as evidence that a homeopathic remedy works is fallacious: definitive statements about the efficacy of any treatment cannot be determined from any single study (indeed, I stated as such: "Only through careful weighing of the entire scientific literature on a subject can the development of a scientific consensus occur... study, ultimately weighted by the soundness of its methodology and the ability to reproduce these results, will become a part of that literature. From it, future work can be designed, methodologies tightened, and hypotheses tested that will better determine if this is a true effect...whether this particular remedy, at this particular dilution, given at this particular dose, aiming to treat this particular ailment, in these type of people, is in fact an effective treatment").

I've already stated on this talk page, "Primary sources...I think are useful in sections that present the various treatments that have been scientifically explored, and noting methods for those explorations, but shouldn't (generally) be used for any definitive claim concerning the overall efficacy (positive or negative) of a specific treatment for a specific illness." I then provided a list above of every major literature review and metanalysis (these are secondary sources), in a section above, available on PubMed, published since ca. 2003. These have seemingly been lost in fog of this talk page. So, where does that leave us? I don't see many examples of primary sources being misused, and would welcome anyone to point out such an instance. — Scientizzle 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement. Some editors say a citation can't be used because it's a primary source, others say you can't use a citation because its not notable. It both cases their justifications are wrong. Anthon01 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your summary, though short, is incorrect. He said a lot more things, that are more relevant --88.172.132.94 (talk)

Anthon01, your summary is completely devoid of nuance, making it an incorrect paraphrase of my response. There are certainly times in which a primary source cannot be properly used, and the argument that a particular publication is not notable (not notable, just "notable" in the colloquial sense) with respect to the article's subject is a perfectly valid argument to make. — Scientizzle 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The limitations of a text only media. I agree with almost everything you have said above. My summary was not an attempt to recap or paraphrase your comments. I was recaping the points that I was making with the above quotes. The beginning of your your essay reflects my understanding of WP:Notable. My reason for raising it here was the use of lack of notability to exclude citations here. Sure notable in the colloquial sense is premissable. Perhaps I have mistaken the colloquial use of notable by some or all editors for the 'misuse of WP:Notable.' The only exception or caveat that I would offer regards meta-analyses; they are not necessarily the best way to determine effect. I will review the ones you have listed above. Anthon01 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

okay so are primary sources bads or not? i visited all the ALL-CAPS shortucts that Scietnizzle linked to and it didnt seem to me that NOR or COATRACK were relevant at all. no-one is sguesting including their OWN research in the article and this article is not obviously a cove r for a bunch of biased trash relating to something unrelated (its still up in the air whether or nto the COVERAGE of homeopathy itself is biased but id ont think that anyone in either camp has acused us of being biased one way or another against something that is unrelated to homeopathty to be certain). so all i wanted clarificd was whether or not primary sources would be dismissed automatically or not. Smith Jones (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ???

Then you should reread them and this discussion until you understand. They are not automatically worthy of inclusion, nor unworthy. This is decided by concensus, guided by the wikipedia policies noted above --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

thats just it. ive read and reread ths debate like 6 times and it still looks like a debate or an argument wrather than a statement of the consensus on this talk page relating to the poliycy. at first it looked like we werent supposed to use primary sources, then it looked like we were supposed to use priamry sources if they were approved by consensus, and then it switched back for a bit, then it looked like several users misinterpeted what the other users were talking about, and now User:Anthon just declared that "we are in agreement" but about what i have no clue at all. I think we should clearly state the consensus somethwere else to avoid wasting any editors times, sicne i know that im not the only one here who doesnt understnad what everyone is talking about. Smith Jones (talk) ???

I'm sorry if I've confused you. I agree for the most part with Scientizzle's inclusion criteria. All primary or secondary sources require consensus, especially on this page. Primary sources can be used, to describe aspect of that primary source, like topics of research, research methodolgies, even the results of a particular study, etc ... But a primary source can not be used to prove or disprove homeopathy. I know you've suggested in the past that one positive study proves it, but it takes a preponderance of evidence over time to come close to proving anything. I haven't looked at references from the text Arion 3x3 posted below. Anthon01 (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of primary sources being misused in this homeopathy article to create the wrong impression that the only research that has been done on homeopathy has led to the conclusion that it is worthless (except for placebo effects):

Since homeopathic remedies at dilutions higher than about D23 (10) contain no ingredients apart from the diluent (water, alcohol or sugar), there is no chemical basis for them to have any medicinal action. While some articles have suggested that homeopathic solutions of high dilution can have statistically significant effects on organic processes including the growth of grain, histamine release by leukocytes, and enzyme reactions, such evidence is disputed since attempts to replicate them have failed. Newer randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials using highly-diluted homeopathic preparations also fail to find clinical effects of the substances.

Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for asthma or dementia, or induction of labor. Other researchers found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for osteoarthritis, migraines or delayed-onset muscle soreness.

This is an obvious attempt to editorialize that homeopathy is worthless, except for possible placebo effects. The actual facts of the research, found in hundreds of primary sources and which is is supportive of homeopathy has been deliberately not allowed into this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Which parts specifically do you disagree with? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusrezc|Arion 3x3 i agree iwth your position but i think that we should wait until consensus has approved all of your soruces before we use them in the actual article, since it was mentioned about that someone of those sources are not valid scientificaly or notable. Smith Jones (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

"One of numerous studies that show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo was published in European Journal of Cancer in 2006." I think sentence needs to be changed. Anthon01 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence should read to the effect.

One study which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in Cancer was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2006."

--Anthon01 (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's accurate the way it was, if inadequately sourced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What? You mean It's accurate the way it was, if adequately sourced, is that what you mean? Anthon01 (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean it's clearly accurate. Additional sources should should be added to support "Studies show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo...". (I'm not saying there aren't some studies showing effectiveness, and the vast majority of published studies are so badly designed that they show nothing.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So have to show numerous if you are going to use that language. For now the sentence is not properly sourced. The sentence I provided is supported by the citation. Anthon01 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sentence is biased, as it implies there is only one source. Perhaps we could settle on "A study which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in Ccancer (treatment) was published in the European :Journal of Cancer in 2006,", for the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not bias. It is reflective of the citation that was placed at the end of the sentence. I submit that as it stands the sentence is editorializing. "One study" is stated without prejudice. Does "A study" suggests there's more? If not, I'm ok with "A study." Anthon01 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

←Let's zoom out to the original paragraph:

One of numerous studies that show no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo was published in European Journal of Cancer in 2006. The study was a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio and chemotherapy done since 1985. Three of the trials were randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The author's concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer.

Why not this:

A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer.

— Scientizzle 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to turn one study into six. It is the result of one study, and not six trials that we are commenting on. Anthon01 (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a secondary source analyzing six trials: it is the results of six trials. (In fact, there were "55 potentially relevant studies, of which six met inclusion criteria") — Scientizzle 02:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I should note that the source quotes that "five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study". This should be fixed, for sure. — Scientizzle 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Never mind, the statement was accurate given the info in Tables 2 & 3. — Scientizzle 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is published as one study. The results are not the result of six individual trials but a compilation of extracted data from six trails. Anthon01 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It's published as a meta-analysis of six studies. Do you know what a meta-analysis is? (honest question, some don't) There are six citable trials that were analyzed. — Scientizzle 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do. The data is extracted and manipulated and a conclusion is reached; the data is not a summary. Anthon01 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Scientizzle's version is improved, although the concluding sentence isn't obviously related to either version of the rest of the paragraph. I'll have to assume that it really is their conclusion. As for Anthon01, "one study" clearly implies (the false statement that) there are no more, while "a study" seems neutral to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a fair compromise. Let the reader form their own impression. Remember we are trying to be NPOV.

A study which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in cancer was published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2006. The study was a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapy, including radio and chemotherapy done since 1985. Three of the trials were randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. The author's concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer.

or something to that effect. Anthon01 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what was POV about my version, and I honestly think mine read better. — Scientizzle 02:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is one meta analysis not six trails. Six is bigger than one. Anthon01 (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this.

A study published in the European Journal of Cancer in 2006, which showed homeopathy to be ineffective in cancer, was a meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic, radio and chemotherapy treatments, from 1985. Three of the trials were randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Anthon01 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a meta-analysis of six trials. What's wrong with the wording there? --Infophile 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me too. -- Levine2112 02:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just needed to walk away from it for awhile. It seems fine to me too. Let me see if I can improve on the text. Anthon01 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are two suggestions.

A 2006 meta-analysis of six cancer trials comprised of homeopathy, radio and chemotherapy treatments, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo.

A 2006 meta-analysis of six cancer trials comprised of homeopathy, radio and chemotherapy treatments, found no evidence of homeopathy being effective beyond placebo. The study included three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Anthon01 (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

These misunderstand that the homeopathic treatments were for ameliorating the negative effects of chemo & radiation. — Scientizzle 03:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the study. Do you? THe abstract certainly isn't clear in that regard. Are you saying that the study was to treat the side-effects of cancer therapy? if that's true then the next sentence is wrong. The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy to treat cancer. Anthon01 (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't right now...and upon re-reading the abstract, I'm inclined to agree that something isn't clear. I'll check it out tomorrow when I have full access and report back, okay? — Scientizzle 05:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E (2006). "Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment". Eur. J. Cancer 42 (3): 282–289. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2005.09.025. PMID 16376071.

"The main outcome measures we considered were efficacy of homeopathic remedies for treating symptoms in cancer patients and cancer survivors. Secondary outcome measures included tumour response and quality of life."

Conditions investigated: Radiation reaction, Chemotherapy-Induced stomatitis x2, Radiodermatitis, Menopausal symptoms, Estrogen withdrawl symptoms. It doesn't seem like they are treating the cancer itself.

Anyway they basically go on to say that the results are positive but many of the studies were poorly done (there are many more criticisms not quoted).

"Five out of six trials included in this systematic review yielded positive results, which suggest the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies for cancer care. Cancer patients appear to have benefited from homeopathic interventions specifically for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis, radiodermatitis and general adverse events from radiotherapy. Breast cancer survivors, suffering from menopausal symptoms, experienced a general improvement on their quality of life." ... "The main limitation of our systematic review is the lack and sometimes poor quality of the primary data. The studies we evaluated were highly heterogeneous in virtually every respect. In some studies, individualized remedies were applied. Although individualization of therapy allows homeopathy to be practiced in its traditional fashion, this increases the complexity of comparing outcomes. In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing. Further research should attempt to answer the many open questions related to homeopathy."

I'll take a shot at fixing the quote to more accurately reflect the reviews. I think it should be mentioned that there were positive results but the results are perhaps questionable. By the way this is particularly suspicious, "Statistical analysis for significance was performed in all the studies, but only four provided statistical features in their result sections." as is this "This study also lacked complete information regarding patients and remedies, as well as essential methodological details, such as randomisation method." I think I'll summarise these problems with something like "the authors stated that several of the studies contained incomplete methodological details or statistical results." JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok as my edit was reverted can someone please enlighten me as to how I may "Report the conclusion of the entire thing, rather than its parts". I felt a change was necessary as the last sentence is demonstratably inaccurate but I don't really see what was wrong with my revision. I could cut it down to
"In a 2006 meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found that the evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy in this area was "encouraging but not convincing"
This wording is very close to the current content with the inaccurate statment removed (see my quotes above) and the quotation is from the second last sentence of the article. Hopefully this qualifies as "the conclusion of the entire thing". JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Actually I'm going to make an edit which just corrects the inaccurate statement and we can discuss any other changes here. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted because I thought the version gave undue weight to the component parts of the study with positive results. They were the weaker parts, and entirely contradicted and overwhelmed by the stronger negative parts. To avoid confusion to reader without the relevant statistical experience (and the lead is not the right place to start explaining statistics), it is far more appropriate to simply report the overall conclusion of the study. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the positive results are overwhelmed by the stronger negative parts. However, it should be noted that the stronger negative parts are not larger studies that found negative results. There was a positive trend found in the meta-analysis. This trend was disregraded (and rightly so) in light of the rather poor quality and poor reporting of some of the positive studies. However, it seems most of this adjustment was done post-hoc (above quotes were from the discussion) instead of just excluding the studies before any analysis (like Shang did for example). Now, I can see why they did this (only 6 studies) but from your response you would think their decision was purely based on the statistical analysis but that is not my (albeit brief) reading of the study. Don't get me wrong, I probably would have done the same thing if I was the researcher but it was not a statistical judgement so I don't see why the reader would require statistical knowledge. It was a judgement based on the rated quality of the studies.

Perhaps we can elect not to include "five out of six trials" but I believe it is inaccurate to ay the researchers found "no evidence" for homeopathy. This is not what they said at all. They said there was evidence but it was not convincing, "In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing." This makes this statement, "The authors concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of homeopathic therapy for cancer care" a poor representation of the author's actual conclusions. I can see your point about the changes being confusing to someone without statistical knowledge but I think we need to amend that statement somehow. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept your correction on the post-hoc analysis, and agree that more accurate wordings are possible. It's tricky not to write something that could be misinterpreted though. Jefffire (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will do at least temporarily.

A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials of homeopathic treatments for recovery from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found insufficient evidence of homeopathy being effective in cancer care. The authors concluded that the evidence was encouraging but not convincing.

Anthon01 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Paper quotes

Alright...direct from the paper itself, the authors descibed the presented findings of the six studies as

Five out of six trials included in this systematic review yielded positive results, which suggest the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies for cancer care. Cancer patients appear to have benefited from homeopathic interventions specifically for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis, radiodermatitis and general adverse events from radiotherapy. Breast cancer survivors, suffering from menopausal symptoms, experienced a general improvement on their quality of life.

The conditions studied are listed as:

• "Radiation reaction"
• "Chemotherapy Induced-Stomatitis"
• "Radiodermati-tis"
• "Chemotherapy-induced stomatitis"
• "Menopausal symptoms" (post-breast cancer treatment)
• "Estrogen withdrawal" symptoms (post-breast cancer treatment)

The authors concluded:

The main limitation of our systematic review is the lack and sometimes poor quality of the primary data. The studies we evaluated were highly heterogeneous in virtually every respect. In some studies, individualized remedies were applied. Although individualization of therapy allows homeopathy to be practiced in its traditional fashion, this increases the complexity of comparing outcomes. In conclusion, the evidence emerging from this systematic review is encouraging but not convincing. Further research should attempt to answer the many open questions related to homeopathy.

This was summarized thusly in the abstract:

Six studies met our inclusion criteria (five were randomised clinical trials and one was a non-randomised study); but the methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies. Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.

Given the above information, I think this is an accurate and fair synopsis:

A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials evaluating homeopathic treatments to reduce side effects from cancer therapies such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials, found "encouraging but not convincing" evidence in support of homeopathic treatment; the meta-analysis authors concluded that variability in the methodological quality of the six studies provided "insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care."

Any objections to adding this? — Scientizzle 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we shorted that? Jefffire (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I think the clause of "including three randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials" can be readily removed (it may be slightly misleading, too, as the studies had variable blinding, randomization & controls), plus a couple of other tweaks, producing this:

A 2006 meta-analysis of six trials evaluating homeopathic treatments to reduce cancer therapy side effects following radiotherapy and chemotherapy found "encouraging but not convincing" evidence in support of homeopathic treatment, however variability in the methodological quality of the six studies provided "insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care."

— Scientizzle 19:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good wording, but too long for the intro (it has become something of a bloated cow). Might it be a better idea to move it into the main text? Jefffire (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I never intended this for the lead, if that's what you're saying...this is merely to replace the slightly erronious main text explanation. — Scientizzle 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My error, just with everyone talking about the lead...:) Jefffire (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this was well done. My only objection isn't content but readability. I think it needs to be two sentences. It may be easy for you or I to read it, but tedious for others with less education. Anthon01 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Page unprotected and How to write a lead

The page is now unprotected; protection is only temporary and it has been more than a month in a protected state. I would hope that during the protection editors have engaged in constructive discussions on how to resolve their disputes. Any further disruption to this page may not result in further protection, but may result in editors losing temporarily their editing privileges. Let's hope that neither would be necessary. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The WP:LEAD needs to be a summary of the main article. As it stands it is not. The lead would benefit from compliance with the guideline, that advises us (my highlights):

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain which parts of the lead are causing you problems, or what you think is missing? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the lead is causing me problems... But the lead is non-compliant: (a) It is too long; (b) It does not provide a concise summary of the article; (c) it is giving undue weight to the critical viewpoints. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on length. The lead used to be shorter (and better than the present one, in my view). But I don't see how it's giving undue weight to criticism, given that the majority view (per WP:WEIGHT) is critical of homeopathy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fix the length first, and then we can address the weight issue. This is an article about Homeopathy, not about the critical view of homeopathy. As an extreme analogy, take an article on God. The scientific view is that existence of God cannot be proved, yet, the article about God and its lead does not use 1/2 of its space to deny its existence. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The analogy doesn't strike me as particularly apt. Many (most?) of the proponents of homeopathy insist that the practice is scientifically valid. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Then we say so in the article's text. NPOV writing is not that hard. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE mis-interpretation, maybe?: The "majority" vs. "minority" needs to be assessed in context. A significant majority of the scientific studies on Homeopathy, assert that it is just a placebo effect and quackery. We should say that in the article. The significant majority of Homeopathic organizations claim the contrary. We should also say that in the article. We need a balanced view of the subject so that our readers get the full picture of the dispute: as per NPOV None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Some say the earth is flat, others say it is round," eh? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no... A good summary of the excellent section "Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis" would do the trick. I look forward to see a reduced version of the lead that summarizes the article's content in a neutral manner. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is where I think many editors get it wrong. Policy says briefly mention notable controversies. The problem is we run the risk of turning off a potential reader if the lead is too heavily weighed towards criticism. Science is not the only view presented in WP. There are historical and cultural POV, that are at least as important as the scientific view. The majority of the scientific view is that there is insufficient evidence to support it and that no plausible mode of action has been found. In spite of that, homeopathy is still being studied by science as there exist 1) limited data on an effect and 2) researched methods are being perfected to determine whether any sufficient evidence will be uncovered. Anthon01 (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-stated. Friarslantern (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he's misstated the majority scientific view. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, that's not the majority scientific view, which is that not only is there no evidence, but it is nearly certain that there will never be evidence and that the atomic theory of matter makes it impossible for homeopatic remedies to do anything, ever. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you read scientific articles on the subject instead of just the abstracts you might see it a little differently. Nearly certain doesn't equal never. Do you think we already know everything? Assuming I mistated the SPOV, it still doesn't deserve to take the largest part of the lead. Homeopathy isn't only about 'science' phenomenon. Anthon01 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the policy document WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." To follow Jossi's suggestion would fail at explaining how scientists have received homeopathy. Adam Cuerden 19:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy isn't only about science. Look at the body of the article. Lots of sections need to be represented in the lead. There is more to life and Homeopathy then just Psuedoscience. Jossi's talking about the lead. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the lead has to summarise all major views - to remove the mainstream scientific view would make it unbalanced. Haven't we had this argument several dozen times?° Adam Cuerden 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think were in agreement. I never suggested we remove the sci view from the lead. Only that it doesn't take more space than it is due. There is too much in the lead as it stands now or at least as it was before Jossi put up this section. Anthon01 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Science is a fairly major view point, per the weighting guidelines, it should get a hefty amount of space. Jefffire (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember there is no proof. How many times and ways do you need to say that.;-) Seriously though, look at WP:LEAD. Anthon01 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the issue. The scientific view is extremely important, and so it has a prominent weighting. Jefffire (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, we are saying the same thing. My less and your more may end up being about the same. Lets look at the new version and then we'll talk Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is scientific when it's advantageous for its practitioners to pose it as science, but it's a "social phenomenon" when it's advantageous not to be science. Hmmm, I wonder if Mitt Romney is a homeopath? Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we've got our wires crossed. What are you talking about? Anthon01 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And where do you consider homeopathy to be according to WP description? Anthon01 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

homeopathy is a science. just becfause some people deny its efficacy doesnt mean that it isnt true. after all they are still some people who deny evolution and that doesnt make ita 'social phenomenon' Smith Jones (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been trimmed from ~434 to ~291 words in these edits. I think all the major points are there and proper weight is given. Some collapsing of sources could help improve readability (i.e., moving them to the rest of the article), and word choice is always up for review, but it's in fair shape now... — Scientizzle 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It is possible, after all. :) well done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Organon

The words 'in wide use today' have been removed. Anyone who has visited homeopathic training colleges and studied the curriculum of such places, as I have, will know that the Organon is a core aspect of study. What that means in practical terms is that the Organon is regarded today as an invaluable resource for learning the core philosophy and methods of homeopathy and how it should be practised. It is still in wide use today as a respected text period. Removal of those few words therefore seems unjustified in the light of this hands-on knowledge. thanks Peter morrell 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You can probably find a citations that supports that. Anthon01 (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

he doesnt realy need citations this is comon knowledge among people who study homeopathic medicine. Smith Jones (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not good enough for this project. Please review WP:V. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

and you can review this source. Organon is a wellrespected homeopathic canon and there is no reason why is should not be mentioned in the article Homeopathy since it is essentialyl the book that created homeopathy as a medical discipline. Smith Jones (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

VERY good. Organon is easily in the toop 5 most important medical works ever written, spawning a discpline that has pushed the frontiers of medical science even further than any other text except for Hippocrates has ever done.

You're being sarcastic, right? Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience in lead

Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a pseudoscience often referred to as a complementary and alternative medicine created in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann and laid out in his textbook, The Organon of the Healing Art.

Pseudoscience does not belong in the lead as per Pseudoscience and WP:UNDUE.

The policy states, "Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

It could be mentioned in the body as "some consider it ... " Please do not replace it before discussion and consensus has been reached. Anthon01 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well quackery is substantially different. Why did you remove the three peer-reviewed medical journal citations...

• Wahlberg, A. (2007) "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom," Social Science & Medicine 65(11) pp. 2307-2316: PMID 18080586
• Atwood, K.C. (2003) "Neurocranial Restructuring' and Homeopathy, Neither Complementary nor Alternative," Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 129(12) pp. 1356-1357: PMID 14676179
• Ndububa, V.I. (2007) "Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?" Nigerian Journal of Medicine 16(4) pp. 312-317: PMID 18080586

...that show homeopathy is quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is a very contentious page. We are trying to rewrite the lead via consensus. Your non-consensus edits, if left uncheck, will undoubtedly lead to an edit war, probable reblocking of the page, and other admin actions. I implore you to use the talk page to discuss and reach consensus on whether your proposed edits should be implemented. Anthon01 (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, are there any peer-reviewed academic journal publications which state that homeopathy is not quackery? MilesAgain (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All your references are opinion pieces in RS. Good for inclusion in the body but not in the lead as per WP:UNDUE. If you look at peer-review research articles you will be hard pressed to find homeopathy defined as quackery. Anthon01 (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Miles above and the current wording given by Poupontoast. With regards to pseudo-science, that is the view of mainstream science, as is verified by the citations and deserves to be in the lead. I'm not sure about the word quackery appearing there though, but if that's what the articles say then that's ok, but maybe just pseudo-science would work just as well. Quackery should be mentioned in the body though. Don't be hasty in deciding your opinion is correct if you're making new changes I'd like to apologise for the revert I made a moment ago, I misunderstood the situation. I think we can keep PScience, but remove quackery from the lead --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Words like "pseudoscience" and (especially) "quackery" are a bit strong and may tend to turn people off if they're used up front despite their being suitable descriptions. They are more appropriate toward the end of the lead, once readers are drawn into the article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Pscience bit could go to the end of the third para (after quackery quote) --RDOlivaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Or more appropriate in the body after they have been drawn in. Anthon01 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No I think the end of the 3rd para is better. It is a notable criticism, and follows the quote well --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The goal is to get the reader to enter the body of the article. Piling it on in the lead could drive readers away. Anthon01 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the goal of the lead is to accurately summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). Homeopathy's status as pseudoscience is a fundamental point and as such must be mentioned in the lead. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree here with Raymond with one caveat. We need to attribute the opinions properly. Rather than asserting that as fact, we need to attribute the opinion to those that hold it. For example, there is a statement that reads as a fact "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge", could be rewritten for NPOV as: "Modern pharmaceutical knowledge diametrical opposes that of Homeopathy, and its premises have been found to be implausible in scientific tests", or something along these lines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your example. This phrase has already been debated and the current form is NPOV, it expresses the facts, and is verifiable. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good wording, though I don't care for the passive voice in the second half. On the other hand we don't say that "according to NASA" astronauts landed on the moon. This despite the fact that a nontrivial percentage of the public is unconvinced; note this is a greater percentage than those who practice homeopathy. (Just a passing remark on the general principle.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi. SPOV and NPOV on the issue of plausibility should read something like this. "No plausible mode of operation has been identified." The current writing says it will never be. My suggestion leaves it open to future discoveries. Anthon01 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think that's not quite true. My understanding is that to the extent homeopathy works, the "mode of operation" is an enhanced placebo effect through the bond between the practitioner and patient. Of course physically and chemically there is no more possibility of support for homeopathy than that we'll find the core of the earth is made of bubblegum, but the psychological aspects can't be overlooked. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As if we know everything already. You think there are no revolutions left in physics? Also homeopathy even among physicians is growing astronomically. I'll try to find a better link. Anthon01 (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience is that any source that uses "4" to mean "for" is best considered unreliable until proven otherwise. (That goes double in the case of "4u.") Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"New York Times reported that visits of Homeopathic physicians are increasing in UK at a rate of 39% per year. Nearly half of the British physicians refer to Homeopathic doctors." Anthon01 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi: In Lead it says, Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, because the lead should make the reader want to read the whole article. Anthon01 (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Given the editing behavior of some editors here, which prefer edit warring and reverts rather than finding common ground, I propose that all involved editors agree voluntarily to 1RR, that is one revert per day per editor. Please sign your name below if you agree. If there is no such agreement and editwarring continues, the article may go back to protected state, or editors that exhibit disruptive behavior may lose temporarily their editing privileges. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

I agree to abide by 1RR in this article

• --Infophile 16:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• PouponOnToast (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Have been.
• Art Carlson (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Friarslantern (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Tim Vickers (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC) With the understanding that it takes two to tango.
• User:area69 With the understanding that it takes two to tango- correct.! If there are unjustified reverts I will not comply though. --Area69 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• With many reservations (e.g. the response by User:area69), but I will try it. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of just reverting something, I assume that we can delete a specific addition we disagree with, editing the same time a different paragraph.That does not count. Correct?--Area69 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand what you're proposing (combining a revert with an edit), it would qualify as gaming the system. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the correct term - I m not proposing it though. Do you want me to give you examples ( from editors who signed the 1RR? --Area69 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are correct, Jossi is the one to go to. Anthon01 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look and you will decide. --Area69 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MAybe I m wrong though. So if gaming the system will not be allowed. I agree.

LOL. So two of you agree, as long as you don't find a dancing partner! Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to join the 1RR group

I cordially invite Orangemarlin, Aburesz, and Anthon01 to join other editors in their 1RR pledge. It will make for an excellent show of good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

User:Jefffire's edits ("...beyond placebo")

Jefffire made this edit] which was reverted by User:Orangemarlin on the grounds that there wasn't always even a placebo effect, which is no doubt true. However, I don't think Jefffire's wording suggested that there was always a placebo effect; rather, I think it just said that there was sometimes a benefit, and that when there was a benefit, it could be ascribed to placebo. As I understand it, this is entirely true, and I think Jefffire's edits should be restored. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Saying that there is no effect "beyond placebo" only admits the possibility of a placebo effect. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And it is the existence of effects beyond placebo that is controversial. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, two individuals whom I trust disagreed with my edit. I'll flog myself at dawn. OrangeMarlin 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths contend....

Homeopaths contend that many studies and metalyses have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo even though the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not the best research tool to test homeopathy A spokeswoman from the Society of Homoeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo.

"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm

Cherry picking from one article is not a preferred sourcing technique. Please find additional sources that are more reliable than a few sentences from a BBC article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec X 2) I don't think it's in doubt that homeopaths contend this. The question is where in the article it should be incorporated (if anywhere) and how - I don't see the need for new sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which homeopaths contend...? I believe that some homeopaths would be perfectly willing to accept a "reblinded" study. (The homeopath chooses a treatment, and a randomizer decided whether to use that treatment or the same substance rediluted without an "active" ingredient.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair question: in this case, it's a spokesperson for the Society of Homeopaths. But if there's doubt that this is a widespread contention among homeopaths, then by all means let's dig up some more sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats easy. I will take a look and let you know.--Area69 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers are good sources. No?--Area69 (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The wiki rules dont say it depends. By the way I would like an administrator to review my talkpage and comment on the users. This is a personal attack. --Area69 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Please advice,--Area69 (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you seriously doubt that this is a contention widely made by homeopaths? I think there's plenty of evidence to that effect. Where it should go in the article and how it should be presented (based on WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, etc.) seems to me to be the real issue; not whether or not this is what homeopaths contend. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone writes an article about an X minority (homeopathy) must include its important views and then add scientific critisism. In the lead these views should be summurized. --Area69 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Materials science approach

May be interesting to see if anything further comes from this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678814?dopt=Abstract -- Jayen466 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethics

This text from the lead of the article appears to be original research.

Ethical concerns regarding homeopathic treatment,

The references don't support the statement. It should removed. I did and OM reverted. Anthon01 (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. I'm very curious as to your logic. OrangeMarlin 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Find me the references that says "ethics." Anthon01 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Biased language about "ethics" concerns over the use of homeopathy has no place in the lead section. There is question as to whether such blatant editorializing belongs anywhere in this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well ethics in homeopathy and alt med has been a very big story recently, with the SoH in the UK being involved, AIDs "cures", poor anti malarial advice, bad anthrax remedies during the fallout from the WTC attacks, and the homeopathic regulators being either. What are your specific arguments against each of these refs? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR. Anthon01 (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been selective choosing of refs by an editor to attempt to advance a position. In other words, WP:OR. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)`

Could you expand on your claims? Why is just WP:OR an answer? Pease give a detailed account of your problem. --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the links for the 6 refs cited above & my commentary on their relationship to a claim of "ethical concerns":

• This is a commentary on the association of anti-vaccinationism with CAM practitioners and their clients: "In conclusion, some providers of CAM have an overtly negative attitude towards immunisation which constitutes a risk factor to health. Vaccinologists should know about this opposition and aim effective information at both these therapists and their clients." The article talks about homeopathy specifically, too, including specific examples of "homeopathic immunization" that ended badly. I think the ethical concern is obvious, but is never clearly stated in a way that I would be comfortable attributing anything beyond a "homeopaths (and other CAM proponents) often sport negative view of vaccination and advise their clients accordingly" kind of statement.
• This is basically an earlier version of the publication above.
• An earlier letter by the above author, but I read with interest this quote: "editorials in the British Homoeopathic Journal call the abandonment of mass immunization 'criminally irresponsible' and 'most unfortunate, in that it will be seen by most people as irresponsible and poorly based'." It may be worth locating these editorials--'criminally irresponsible' is quite a statement:

  3. English P. The issue of immunisation . Br Homoeopathic J 1992; 81:161-163.
  4. Fisher P. Enough nonsense on immunisation . Br Homoeopathic J 1990; 79:198-200.

• More on the malraia issue: "Scientists said the homeopaths' advice was reprehensible and likely to endanger lives."
• A letter in BMJ about malaria...
• BBC Nes on the homeopathic treatments from malaria...even quote was the director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital who stated, ""I'm very angry about it because people are going to get malaria - there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice." Again, the ethical concern is implict.

The actual problem here was this edit of mine in which I condensed

This lack of convincing evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its contradiction of modern scientific ideas, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst", in the words of a recent medical review. Homeopaths are also accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments. Many homeopaths advise against standard medical procedures such as vaccination, and some homeopaths even advise against the use of anti-malarial drugs.

into

Ethical concerns regarding homeopathic treatment, a lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy, and its contradiction of modern scientific ideas, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst".

in an effort to reduce the cumbersome lead. Upon further investigation of the references I moved around, I think the refs presented weren't appropriate for a general statement regarding ethical concerns. I also think that the anti-vaccination story is appropriate only for the body of the article and not relevant enough for the lead. All this is a looong way of saying that I've no real problem with the removal of this clause--further limited research by me on PubMed didn't turn up much useful stuff to re-establish it, either--but there is an inkling of something there that might be worth a proper treatment. — Scientizzle 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arsenicum album

Hi. Over on the Arsenicum album page there is almost an entire essay on how effective this remedy is, and how it's backed up by scientific evidence. There is also a call on the talk page for more editors to get involved. Maybe the information there might be useful here, and maybe we can make some good edits there. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More Neutral

I think that the following is (more) neutral.

Mainstream scientists regard homeopathy as scientifically implausible and "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. They say that claims for efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies.

Comments? --Area69 (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been urging for the last 6 weeks this correction to the wording so that the attribution of this view ("scientifically implausible") is clearly noted, and it does not come across as a pronouncement of Misplaced Pages. When I made the change yesterday, it was immediately reverted. Arion 3x3 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody should reconsider. It is fair and it does not change the meaning of the sentence -and most important NPOV. --Area69 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above something to the effect that "No plausible mode of operation has been identified" is IMO, NPOV. No plausible mode of operation has been identified for homeopathy and it's underlying principles are "diametrically opposed" to modern pharmaceutical knowledge. Claims for efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies. Anthon01 (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both the first comments: "Scientifically implausible" implies (by) "mainstream scientists" unless other scientist are specifically identified. "No plausible mode of operation has been identified" may be OR (unless sourced), but it's not NPOV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between being neutral, and just removing factual criticism. YOu are both suggesting removing factual information that is critical of homeopathy. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? Who suggested that we remove critisism?--Area69 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

'They say' that claims for efficacy of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical studies.

Why this is not Neutral and critical. ?--Area69 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing my comment in regard Anthon01's edit above. Although the original "scientifically implausible" statement is clearly NPOV, "No plausible mode of operation has been identified" seems to cover the ground fairly well. I would propose "Homeopathy is considered scientifically implausible, as no plausible mode of operation has been identified." There are scientific concepts which are accepted as possible, even though no specific mode of operation has been identified. And they say' is clearly WP:WEASEL. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe less is better as WP:LEAD says concise. I think I get what you are trying to say but the sentence you proposing doesn't say that. Please give me an example of "scientific concepts which are accepted as possible, even though no specific mode of operation has been identified". Anthon01 (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They say suggests it is merely opinion, while it clearly is fact. Unless somebody can provide evidence to the contrary there is no explanation available that meets the requirements of the scientific method. Nomen Nescio 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest: "Homeopathy is considered scientifically implausible by mainstream scientists, since no mode of operation has yet been identified." There have been possibilites proposed, even though no specific mode of operation has been identified. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Homeopathy is considered scientifically implausible, since no mode of operation has yet been identified" is incorrect. Implausible means "Unbelievable; difficult to believe or imagine." Some scientific concepts are believable even though no mode of operation has yet been identified, like aspirin before 1983. No one knew how it worked before that. 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article

The "Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Voice-of-All 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the definition of pseudoscience perfectly fits, I'd like to hear or read any logic that disputes that. OrangeMarlin 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not a pseudoscience. It is a theory and practice that has not (yet) gained unanimous scientific acceptance. That is far from being a "pseudoscience" - especially considering the large numbers of research trials that have indicated biological effects (even on mice) that can not be merely ascribed to "placebo" effects.

We have been over this issue endlessly. Since homeopathy is controversial, there are differing viewpoints. However, one viewpoint (POV) should not be stamped on the article over another viewpoint. This article should be presented without perjorative labels and without bias. It should not be pro-homeopathy - nor anti-homeopathy. We should be working together to reach a consensus on how to improve this article to NPOV standards.

Neutral point of view (NPOV) involves describing the different viewpoints in a controversial article, in order to create a balanced article THAT DOES NOT TAKE SIDES. It is not about deciding which view is "neutral" or "correct". That type of subjective bias has no place in an encyclopedia article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, "Homeopathy...has not (yet) gained unanimous scientific acceptance" is excessive in its understatement. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As a comment on the "mice" studies - Immunology and homeopathy. 3. Experimental studies on animal models. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Jun;3(2):171-86. Epub 2006 May 2. "Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials." Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example why homeopathy should not be termed a "pseudoscience": a study showing biological effects from homeopathic arsenic on test animals (ruling out placebo effects):

A study of the effect of decimal and centesimal dilutions of arsenic on the retention and mobilisation of arsenic in the rat

Authors: Cazin, M., Gaborit, J., Chaoui, A., Boiron, J., Belon, P., Cherruault, Y., Papapanayotou, C.

Journal: Human Toxicology. 1987; 6: 315-320

Abstract: Having developed a pharmacokinetic method for studying the fate of orally administered arsenious anhydride by a radioactive tracer method, the influence of Hahnemannian dilutions of arsenicum album on the elimination and retention of this toxin in the rat was then investigated. The effects of centesimal (cH) and decimal (dH) dilutions were studied.All the dilutions studied were found to be active. The strongest effects were observed after the administration of dilutions corresponding to a concentration of 10-14 (14dH and 7cH). Overall, the decimal dilutions augmented the elimination of arsenic more than the centesimals.The observed results were submitted to mathematical analysis. A mathematical model, which confirms that Hahnemannian dilutions have biological effects which are a direct function of the degree of dilution, was developed.

Conclusion: The results lend further support to our earlier views that microdoses of potentized Arsenicum Album are capable of combating arsenic intoxication in mice, and thus are strong candidates for possible use in human subjects in arsenic contaminated areas under medical supervision.

You can read the details here.

As you can see, there has been encouraging scientific research confirming biological effects from homeopathic remedies, where placebo is not a possible explanation. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem Arion. Not a single article has been published in peer-reviewed journals confirming their study, and even in the less than reliable CAM journals, it's never been used in humans. You can't pick up a 20 year old study, and not search all the articles that refer to that article. Nice try however. OrangeMarlin 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This defines Pseudoscience:

1. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
2. Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
3. Lack of openness to testing by other experts
4. Lack of progress
5. Personalization of issues
6. Use of misleading language

OrangeMarlin 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you describe the results as "encouraging," it would stand to reason that there are numerous followups to this two-decades old study. How many other articles on this topic have been published in the refereed literature? According to the relevant citation index, has it become one of the landmark papers in its discipline? To what extent is this specific procedure used in practice? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Raymond Arritt, here is a more recent trial of homeopathic arsenic:

• Belon P, et al. "Homeopathic remedy for arsenic toxicity?: Evidence-based findings from a randomized placebo-controlled double blind human trial." Sci Total Environ 2007 Oct 1;384(1-3):141-50. Epub 2007 Jul 12

In addition, in standard homeopathic practice world-wide, homeopathic arsenic is one of the more commonly used remedies, especially for neurological burning sensations (Homeopathic Materia Medica by William Boericke). Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A subjective study of 39 people published in a CAM journal. Give me a break. OrangeMarlin 20:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This was not a "subjective study" - - -

In a double blind placebo-controlled study, a potentized remedy of homeopathic Arsenicum Album-30 and its placebo (Succussed Alcohol-30) were given randomly to volunteers. Arsenic contents in urine and blood and several widely accepted toxicity biomarkers and pathological parameters in blood were analyzed before and after 2 months of administration of either verum or placebo. Elevated levels of ESR, creatinine and eosinophils and increased activities of AST, ALT, LPO and GGT were recorded in arsenic exposed subjects. Decreased levels of hemoglobin, PCV, neutrophil percentages, and GSH content and low G-6-PD activity were also observed in the arsenic exposed people. The administration of "verum" appeared to make positive modulations of these parameters, suggestive of its ameliorative potentials.

Objective markers were analyzed. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The threshold for use of such a label on Misplaced Pages is outlined here: WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Proponents of keeping this label need to show that homeopathy is an obvious pseudoscience or is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Right now, I don't think we've met the threshold for obvious. There seems to be far more (though still not much) supporting scientific research for homeopathy than that of a clear and obvious pseudoscience such as Time Cube. Remember, this goes beyond our own personal opinions. This is not about it being obvious to me or you, this is about it being obvious to all. Therefore, the onus is to show that Homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Thus, we need to find a reliable source which verifies that the scientific community on the whole generally considers this topic to be pseudoscience. Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we need several different types of labels for science, such as conventional science, pseudoscience, controversial science, uncomfirmed science, established science, disputed science, mainstream science, nonmainstream science, unreproducible science, or whatever. Maybe 3 or 4 levels of science, or grades of science. Homeopathy might not be quite as "pseudo" as the Time Cube, but it is pretty damn close.--Filll (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue, in my opinion. A dichotomy like science←→pseudoscience is about as useful a descriptor as straight←→gay or conservative←→liberal. There's clearly a sliding scale on which any sort of "scientific" idea can fall. Time cube exists at the most extremesuperwhackonutjob end, and there are certainly CAMs that are more or less pseudoscientific than homeopathy, but I think homeopathy falls far enough away from "accepted modern science" to justify this tag...the lead and the body of the article pretty well establish that this subject fits a reasonable defintion of pseudoscience. And folks, don't misunderstand that pseudoscience=no real scientific inquiry. There are many, many labs out there that investigate ideas that fall outside the realm of accepted scientific theory; that one can point to research on magnet bracelets, bigfoot, UFOs, etc. doesn't mean they fall outside of "psedoscience" as an imprecise general category. — Scientizzle 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not merely a pseudoscience, it's the archetypal example of a pseudoscience. If has it's own idiosyncratic jargon, a theoretical basis at utter odds with the material world, and it literally packages itself as science in drug store aisles. If homeopathy does not deserve this template, than no article does. If you really feel that way, please nominate it for deletion. Cool Hand Luke 20:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

have you read the Organon ? have you studied the homeoapthic provings conducted over the 200 year history of homeopathic sicence? Have you studied these works in as much detail and read all of the studies and conclusions that Arion 3x3 and I are have been referencing here for the past several months? if you have, you must understand homeopathy and if you understand the science then you must understand why it can hardly be cosnidered 'psuedoscience'? Homeopathy as devised by Dr. Hanhnemann and studied by DR. Benveniste has enjoyed wide popoular success throughout the entire world. event his article describes the large proportion of people who support homoeopathy. in the face of all that, how can you still want homoeopathy to be labelled a psuedoscience!?!?? Smith Jones (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Neither "homoeopathy" nor "homeoapthic provings" were "cosnidered" integral parts of my chemistry curriculum!?!?? I did, however, learn some nifty things about math and Avogadro's number.

Homeopathy flies in the face of science, although it likes to pretend its jargon. It's simply the best example of a pseudoscience extant. Cool Hand Luke 20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How many professors of homeopathy are there are Harvard and Johns Hopkins? How many practioners of Homeopathy working for the Mayo Clinic? How much work does the NIH do on Homeopathy vs. Allopathy? Homeopathy satisfies almost every criteria imaginable for pseudoscience.--Filll (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "Pseudoscience" label, according to Misplaced Pages:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." The "Pseudoscience" box should not be placed on this article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy has a much smaller following that pscyhoanalysis, and there is less research that demonstrates its efficacy.--Filll (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This is simple. So rather than waxing on about your own personal opinions on homeopathy, might I suggest finding a definitive source which verifies that homeopathy is generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community. We don't need to see research which supports it as a science or correlates it to be pseudoscience. What we need is an authoritative source which verifies that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. If it is the archetypal example of a pseudoscience, then I don't imagine that a source such as this would be too difficult to find. -- Levine2112 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Found an interesting article here on attitudes of med students. Two salient results: (1) "Five percent of respondents said that homeopathy is 'very scientific.'" (2) "Thirteen percent (16/124) of respondents said that astrology is 'very scientific.'" In other words, homeopathy is regarded as less of a science than astrology. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

A scary fact about our future doctors. However, this is not an authoritative source which verifies that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. -- Levine2112 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is obvious pseudoscience. The end. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately for you, unilteral declarations of fact are not considered prof according to WP:NOTABILITY, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:COATRACK. and since you dont have any sources that proof that homeopathy is an 'obvious psuedoscience' i am forced to wait for you to iether submit some of those provings. i really still recomend that you examine th e rich body of work that encompasses homeopathic and other medical theories. you will find that the scientific veracitty of them rival or even exceed that of main stream allopathic cures. therefore, homeopathy is not psuedoscience. Smith Jones (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Black is white! Up is down! The sun rises in the west! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

please calm down and continue to assume good faith. Smith Jones (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, we as editors are expected to follow the rules. Regarding the "Pseudoscience" label, according to Misplaced Pages:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy isn't a controversial theory. It's an obvious pseudoscience. Read the other bits of demarcation. Or better yet, see the list! Note that homeopathy is categorized as pseudoscience and nobody is complaining about that. Giving it a little information box to explain the major features of this pseudoscience is perfectly fine. As I said before, "The end." Thanks for playing folks! ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

are you really going to use somethign that you yourself wrote on tyour own user page as proof of anything? please reread WP:VERIFIABILITY. Smith Jones (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. As an expert in pseudoscience (and particular, as an expert in pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages) I am qualified to write about what is and is not pseudoscience. You'll note that I'm not placing any citations to this in the article per WP:SELF so WP:V does not apply. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

as per goo d faith i believe that you are an expert in psuedoscience, but i strongly disagree with your position regaridng homeopathic science. however, the homeopathic vs. allopathic medicine debate is ultimately irelevent on wikipedia. we are focused on what is verifiable, not what it is true. one thing i want to remidn you is tha tany controversial changes to this article in either content or structure -- and judging by the fierce debate here the psuedoscience box is clearly controversial -- must be subject ot to the rule of consensus. and it is also clear that consensus indicates that the majority of people do not agree with your assumption that homoepathy is psuedoscience. Smith Jones (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be the vocal minority you're talking about. I wonder how many folks read their horroscopes? Does that mean astrology isn't a pseudoscience? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

its not our place to judge astrology. if you want to judgastroloy, it has its own article here ==> (ASTROLOGY). we are talking about homeopath

Consensus does not trump NPOV. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

but it does trump the opinions of one editor, no matter hwo often he or she repeats himself. Smith Jones (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite what you may believe, ScienceApologist, you are an authoritative source who can verify (for our purposes at Misplaced Pages) that the scientific community generally considers Homeopathy to be a pseudoscience. Please simply provide us with a source and we can then refer to homeopathy as such. I too am looking for one and am surprised at the difficulty I am having in finding such a source. Like you, I personally consider homeopathy pseudoscientific, but the truth is I am getting less sure of it being a true pseudoscience. Like the real scientific skeptic that I am, I require satisfactory scientific evidence of any claim. If I didn't and I went on my own gut or relied on my own opinion as fact, I would be guilty of being a pseudoskeptic. Right now, I have been unable to find satisfactory scientific evidence that homeopathy should be categorized as a pseudoscience. I am still looking though and I trust that you are doing the same. -- Levine2112 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Edits such as this are unhelpful. Clearly this issue is not resolved. -- Levine2112 22:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education Science & Education Volume 3, Number 4 / October, 1994 - p359 "Pseudoscientific beliefs are also widespread. Consider the wide acceptance by the general public of astrology - a paradigm case of a pseudoscience s - as well as of pseudoscientific medical theories and techniques such as iridology, chiropractic, homeopathy 9 and also of Erich von Dgniken's ancient astronaut theory. 1°"

• The homeopathy problem in contemporary medicine Ann Ital Med Int. 1999 Jul-Sep;14(3):172-84. "Homeopathy is a doctrine that can be rationally criticized from three standpoints. First, its content contrasts radically with current scientific knowledge of chemistry, pharmacology, and pathology. Second, despite the fact that homeopathic specialists claim many therapeutic successes, the small number of rigorous studies conducted have not as yet provided convincing evidence that homeopathic treatment is effective against particular disease processes. Third, from a methodological standpoint, homeopathy has a number of serious flaws: above all, it violates both the principle of falsifiability enunciated by Karl Popper as a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science, and the principle of operative definition. Homeopathy cannot therefore be considered a scientific discipline."

• Complementary and Alternative Cancer Medicine J Clin Oncol. 1999 Nov;17(11 Suppl):44-52. "Vigorous opposition to parts of CAM as ‘‘pseudo science’’ based on ‘‘absurd beliefs’’ has been voiced. The deviation from basic scientific principles, which is implicit in homeopathy and therapeutic touch, for example, is decried."

There are probably more, but this is enough to show that the term has been applied in the academic literature. Are ther any reliable sources that argue that homeopathy is not a pseudoscience? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Those show the individual researchers' opinion. We have that saying just the opposite. What we need is an authoritative source which represents the opinion of the scientific community. Think Academy of Science, for instance. -- Levine2112 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The National Academy of Sciences does not concern itself with things such as Time Cube, crystal healing, psychic surgery or homeopathy. Do you have any reliable sources that state that homeopathy is not pseudoscience? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

TIM VICKERS, would you trust a creationsit to give an informed opinion about evolution? would you trust a crystal healer to give an informaed opinion about medical science? if not, then why would you turst an allopathic 'doctor' to give an informed opinion about homoeo pathic science? Smith Jones (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So you put homeopathy in a similar category as creationism and crystal healing? I think that argues for a pseudo-scientific classification quite strongly. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

NO TI DON'T. i consider allopathy to be on the same level of creationism and crystal healing, a delusional moneygrubbing fraud. Smith Jones (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is not a science, but claims to be. That is why it is a pseudoscience. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

and MY point is that only allopaths claims that homeopathic science is a psuedoscience. it makes as uch sense to trust them to give a fair and impratial viewpoint as it is to trust a creationist about evolution or basic biogloy or a scientologist about psychiatry. When you ahe a group that has dedicated so much of itself to seething, petulant hatred of another medical sdiscipline there is a tendency to trefuse to give them the bneefit of the doubt. Now, there are many honest allopaths out there who honestly believe that they are practicing is good for their patients, and if they're sources are verifiable then i have no problem ith using them on this article. my problem is when they are used for authoritariantive proof about something that they couldnt possibly have approached neutrally in thef first place. Smith Jones (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, you would be well advised to steer clear of this article if you cannot edit without flinging insults at other editors. Baegis (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, it's only the scientists who consider homeopathy a pseudoscience. Interesting. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) please assume good faith Baegis. Who did I insult and where? Smith Jones (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with saying that allopathy, and with that all practitioners of it, are part of a "delusional moneygrubbing fraud". Then lets go with the "seething petulant hatred" part as a follow up. There is at least one M.D that edits this article, and probably more that I don't know for sure. I am quite sure they do not appreciate such insults. After those attacks, AGF gets tossed out the window. I am moving my warning to your talk page, if you wish to discuss them further. Baegis (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones may have a problem with typos, but he did not insult any other editors here. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Only their intelligence. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that some of the participants here are doctors, his investing them with "seething, petulant hatred" and similar sweet words definitely qualifies as an insult. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that some of the participants are homeopaths, calling them "quacks" or "kooks" or such definitely qualifies as an insult as well then. -- Levine2112 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere on this talk page were any homeopaths attacked like Smith Jones attacked allopaths. All discussion about quackery was related to sources. And no actual homeopaths were called quacks by any other editors. Baegis (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, homeopaths were very directly attacked, with accusations that they were engaging in "fraud" as pertains to their patients. (read the Archives for December 2007) Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

i apologize of my words were misinterpreted by User:Baegis but i argue that refering to creationism and crystal therapy as a 'fraud' is not the same as refering to all doctors in the world as frauds and that my refernece to seething heatred was illadvised and that i was only reacting to the constant barrage of hate speech directed towards homeopaths here on this talk page. Smith Jones (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Ernst E (2001). "Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination". Vaccine. 20 Suppl 1: S90–3, discussion S89. PMID 11587822.
2. ^ Cite error: The named reference pmid9243229 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. ^ Cite error: The named reference pmid8554846 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. ^ Cite error: The named reference malaria1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Cite error: The named reference pmid11082104 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. ^ Cite error: The named reference malaria2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. ^ Ernst E, Pittler MH (1998). "Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials". Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960). 133 (11): 1187–90. PMID 9820349.
8. Ernst E (2001). "Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination". Vaccine. 20 Suppl 1: S90–3, discussion S89. PMID 11587822.
9. Ernst E (2001). "Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination". Vaccine. 20 Suppl 1: S90–3, discussion S89. PMID 11587822.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class Alternative medicine articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages