Misplaced Pages

Tim, perhaps you may want to add your thoughts here. In addition to proposing reference to and description of more meta-analysis published in RS journals, Arion's assertion that Brunton was quote-mining and only providing a partial quote by Linde is revealing. I hope that you can help us move towards consensus. DanaUllman 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Revealing about Arion and those who repeat it, perhaps. We were discussing Linde 1997. The passages that Arion objected to my having omitted were about the editorial accompanying the 2005 Shang paper. Not only is this not the paper we were discussing, the editorial in question is not even referred to in the article. It is not "quote-mining" to omit passages that are irrelevant. Brunton (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it IS quote-mining when you provide a quote from an author that is the exact opposite of the primary meaning and intention of the author. Let me ask you, then, what was the primary message of the Linde letter to the editor? DanaUllman 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The "primary intention" of the paper was to make some fairly specific criticisms of the Shang paper and some rather broader criticisms of the accompanying editorial; however, we were discussing neither on the homeopathy talk page. The sentence I quoted does not, as you and Arion seem to be claiming, say anything particularly negative about homoeopathy; it just makes a specific statement about a paper we were considering, which is precisely relevant to the weight that should be given to that paper. In any case, I'm not quite sure how a sentence which, perhaps, implies that homoeopathy is not proven is "the exact opposite of the primary meaning and intention" of a letter that states, in its lead paragraph, that the authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". But that's beside the point. I was making a point about Linde 1997, not about homoeopathy in general, and the passages that Arion objected to my omitting were not relevant to that paper, or to any other paper we were discussing. I would suggest that Tim's talk page is not an appropriate venue for further discussion of this. Brunton (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my invitation to Tim to comment is perfectly appropriate, especially in the light of the fact that Tim has made more edits to the homeopathy article than anyone else. Because of Tim's participation in the homeopathy article, I want to alert him to the Lancet's editorial in response to the 3rd trial Dr David Reilly's team had conducted on the treatment of people with various allergy disoorders and found significant results each time, December 10, 1994, p. 1585. The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either answer suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us to conclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) It seems a bit odd that the Reilly research is not mentioned at all in the homeopathy article. Tim, as you may know, many editors seem a bit "allergic" to proposals from me. Perhaps a proposal from you would achieve faster consensus? DanaUllman 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Individual clinical trials are less important to this article than meta-analyses that combine such trials to achieve greater statistical power and make sure local bias from individual research groups is controlled for. Relying on the meta-analyses also avoids the danger that editors might pick out positive trials, and ignore negative ones (or vice versa), since meta-analyses give a rigorous and expert assessment of all the evidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but the reference to the above Reilly studies is that this was their 3rd of four studies on allergic disorders...and this Lancet article IS a meta-analysis of his first 3 studies, totaling 202 patients. And when you consider what the Lancet editorial said about this work, it IS notable. It may be controversial as to whether the BROAD field of homeopathic research is positive, negative, or mixed, but it is not controversial that there is a body of evidence showing efficacy in the treatment of respiratory allergies. THAT is my point here...and it should be noted that the Shang review of research mysteriously makes no reference to the body of work by Reilly (I file this one under "how convenient"). In addition to these points, there are several RS meta-analyses which are presently discussed on the Talk page which are not a part of the article. I cannot help but sense that many editors here only want the "negative" meta-analyses referenced and discussed in the article. I hope that you will help be one of the editors who wants reference to other RS meta-analsyes. DanaUllman 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A clinical trial with a grand total of 24 patients and then scraping together data from a set of similarly tiny trials? I'm not surprised others working in the field ignored it, I certainly would. Try looking at trials on the same topic using reasonable numbers of participants eg PMID 11872551. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, in due respect, the Lancet published this study of 24 subjects because the researchers also conducted a meta-analysis of the 2 other studies (one of which was published in the Lancet with 144 subjects), and in total over 200 subjects. Did you know that, and if so, I'm unclear why you ignored it? Do you still think that it is not worthy, especially in the light of the accompanied editorial in the Lancet? This body of research is even more significant when you consider that this group of researchers published a FOURTH (!) study (in the BMJ!) on allergic rhinitis. Because I cannot bring anything to the Talk page or to the Article, I will be curious if you are really interested in maintaining NPOV and notable RS research or if you instead want to keep research that might have found a positive result out of wikipedia. I look forward to watching what you choose to do or how you respond. By the way, the father of American homeopathy, Constantine Hering, MD, was initially a skeptic of homeopathy and was asked by a publisher to write a book critical of homeopathy. In his research and then from his experiences, he became a homeopath and a leader in the field. I'm wondering which skeptics today may follow a similar path. DanaUllman 04:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just realized that I am not clear of what is meant by a "topic ban." I assume that it means that I cannot comment on Article pages or on Talk pages of articles that relate with homeopathy. Do Talk pages of users count in the topic ban? DanaUllman 04:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for the clarification at my Talk page. Contrary to some editors' opinion, I do not pester. Hopefully, I raise good questions, like the above. I'm not expecting an answer to it tonight and will look forward to your thoughts some time in the near future. Sweet dreams... DanaUllman 04:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, please read this --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The good news here is that Enric now knows about this important body of research and this notable Lancet editorial. Will he or you bring it to the homeopathy article? By the way, I have no problem if you also referenced the Lewith study of 202 patients, though you will also need to acknowledge that this was not a real replication. Amongst its many differences, it only allowed 3 (!) doses of a medicine during a 4-month period. THAT was not the protocol used by Reilly, and his letter to the editor is notable in this drama. If you need the specific references, just ask. It will be curious to watch this. I sincerely hope that you take the high road. No wonder you guys want me blocked. DanaUllman 02:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"However, suggesting specific edits would not be acceptable under the current restrictions, since this would be editing by proxy". 6 hours and 10 minutes to break the ban restrictions after they were made clear on an arbitration case page. Impressive.

The fact that Dana adds a bad faith assumption at the end makes it even worse (we don't want you blocked, Dana, we want you to start respecting wikipedia policies and stop disrupting the pages by pushing studies) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)