Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 27 July 2009

Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy. Please also see the article-specific /editing notes page.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.) A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Misplaced Pages include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Misplaced Pages policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics. Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.) A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline. Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.) A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence. Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.) A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction. This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Since the collective weight of peer-reviewed studies does not support the efficacy of homeopathy, it departs significantly enough from the mainstream view of science to be considered a fringe theory. References Jonas, WB; Ives, JA (February 2008). "Should we explore the clinical utility of hormesis". Human & Experimental Toxicology. 27 (2): 123–127. PMID 18480136. Q5: Should studies that show that homeopathy does not work go into the article? (Yes.) A5: Yes. Studies that show that homeopathy does not work are part of a full treatment of the topic and should go into the article. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. Non-experts have suggested that all the studies that show homeopathy does not work are faulty studies and are biased, but this has not been borne out by the mainstream scientific community. Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" be created? (No.) A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged. Q7: Should alleged proof that homeopathy works be included in the article? (No.) A7: No. Alleged proof that homeopathy works should not be included in the article. That is because no such proof has come from reliable sources. If you have found a reliable source, such as an academic study, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. Note that we do not have room for all material, both positive and negative. We try to sample some of each and report them according to their prominence. Note also that it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to convince those people who do not believe homeopathy works, nor to dissuade those who believe that it does work, but to accurately describe how many believe and how many do not believe and why. Q8: Should all references to material critical of homeopathy be put in a single section in the article? (No.) A8: No. Sources critical of homeopathy should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Misplaced Pages. Q9: Should the article mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism? (No.) A9: No. The article should not mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism. Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research or speculation. Q10: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.) A10: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. The article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Misplaced Pages. Q11: Should the article characterize homeopathy as a blatant fraud and quackery? (No.) A11: No. Inflammatory language does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia; it should only be done if essential to explain a specific point of view and must be supported from a reliable source. Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral and reflect information found in reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a consumer guide, so while scientific sources commonly characterise homeopathy as nonsense, fraud, pseudoscience and quackery - and the article should (and does) report this consensus - ultimately the reader should be allowed to draw his/her own conclusions.

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: 30 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.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 February 9, 2008 Peer review Reviewed March 2, 2009 Peer review Reviewed April 4, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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. Pharmacology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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. Alternative views High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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. Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting

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: 30 days

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 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Representativity of research

As NHS reports, "some homeopaths argue that much of the research conducted into the effectiveness of homeopathy is not representative of routine homeopathic practice and that homeopathic treatment cannot be properly tested through standard clinical means. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.194.67 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen homoeopaths use this excuse for the lack of good evidence, but I'm not convinced that it's valid - trials of individualised homoeopathy don't appear to give positive results either. do you have a source for the NHS reporting this, or a reason that it is notable? Brunton (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It may not be valid in the way that homeopaths would like it to be valid, but it's quite plausible to me that "homeopathic" placebos are significantly more effective than "regular" placebos, especially for those patients who choose homeopathic treatment. Normal medical studies are not designed to measure the impact of factors such as the physician being conceived of as part of the medical establishment or not, treatment being free or not, medication coming with a detailed instruction leaflet or not, the physician asking surprising questions or not. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

properly designed trials are designed to eliminate those factors, as far as is possible, so that the effectiveness of the treatment itself can be assessed. homoeopaths do not, as far as I'm aware, complain that RCTs are not a good way of assessing homoeopathy because they eliminate the placebo effect, because homoeopaths claim that the remedies have an effect over that of a placebo. Brunton (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That was exactly my point, see my first 16 words above. I know of only one study designed to measure the placebo effect of homeopathy compared to the placebo effect of regular medicine; it must be somewhere in the references to this article or to placebo. IIRC it was in the 1950s! There seems to have been no further research on this, presumably because neither side has an interest in replicating the positive result of that old study, and also because there are of course immense methodical problems such as self-selection of participating physicians etc. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the references to hand, but I'm sure there is some research into placebos that indicates that more elaborate placebos (such as the homoeopathic consultation process), or more apparently invasive placebos, have a greater effect than, for example, a simple placebo pill. There is even research that suggests that different coloured placebo pills produce different effects. But I think we're getting a bit OT here and into discussion of the placebo effect rather than homoeopathy. As I said, homoeopaths claim that the effects of homoeopathy are not placebo effects. I can even provide an example of a proponent of homoeopathy claiming that homoeopathy has less of a placebo effect than "orthodox medical pills because they are advertised so widely in billion-dollar campaigns". Brunton (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic? Perhaps for this section, but not for this article. Granted, this topic should not get much weight in the article because it's not widely discussed. Perhaps it should not be mentioned at all. But these thoughts are very relevant for understanding why, for example, the WHO position w.r.t. homeopathy is quite positive.

Both proponents and opponents of homeopathy want to reduce the comparison between homeopathy and regular medicine to to effects above placebo. That's not ethical. Most patients aren't interested in whether it's the placebo effect that helps them or something else. (I forgot the name of the violently anti-alternative-medicine bloke who wrote a book while dying of cancer. Such people are exceptions.) They want to get better. As a hypothetical question: If for some fatal disease X for which there is no remedy 10% of patients in conventional treatment get better spontaneously, and 30% in homeopathical treatment get better, what will you recommend your significant other who, let's say, believes in homeopathy and catches the disease? Should our article, in this case, cite some hard-core debunker who says that it's totally irresponsible to treat X with homeopathy? --Hans Adler (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That text is from a "patient information leaflet" from the NHS, called "Effectiveness of homeopathy" . I have to say that the text loses a lot of weight when you read it in its original context.....

In the article there is already a sentence saying "Clinical studies of the medical efficacy of homeopathy have been criticised by some homeopaths as being irrelevant because they do not test 'classical homeopathy'". I would suggest adding that source near that point. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We already have two sources cited for that statement. Do we really need a third? By the way, I don't think we should include the NHS in the article with reference to this - it is an NHS leaflet describing the opinions of homoeopaths, not the opinion of the NHS itself, so only useful as evidence of the opinion of homoeopaths. Naming the NHS might give the opinion an air of authority that it doesn't deserve. Brunton (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is true then my edit was OK and claims of homeopathy should be included.

"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.194.67 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not the view of the NHS: it is merely the NHS reporting its opinion of the views of homoeopaths. This viewpoint of homoeopaths is already reported in the article, as noted above. Brunton (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That last edit should not have been noted as a minor edit - I clicked on it by mistake. Brunton (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If some homeopaths say that “homeopathic treatment cannot be properly tested through standard clinical means” but can’t think of any specific reason why they wouldn’t, then this would be a minority view and not directly relevant to the research itself. — NRen2k5, 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

An objection they raise to some clinical trials - that they are not individualised and therefore don't reflect classical homoeopathy - might have some validity, but it would also exclude most of the trials that they claim support homoeopathy (I haven't seen homoeopaths rushing to denounce the non-individualised OTC homoeopathic nostrums that are sold in pharmacies either). This objection does not, of course, apply to the trials of individualised homoeopathy that have been carried out, which have also failed to show consistent effects (see for example this comment on a 1998 review (my emphasis): "In this analysis only trials of individualized homeopathy were included, which should theoretically be the ones with the stronger effects. This analysis also showed a significant, albeit smaller effect of RR = 1.62 (CI 1.17-2.23). This significant effect vanished if only the methodologically sound trials were taken into account"). Brunton (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We must make sure not to fall into the outgroup homogeneity bias trap. There is no contradiction if some homeopaths reject non-individualised studies with a negative outcome and others accept non-individualised studies with a positive outcome. It could just mean that they don't agree with each other about how effective homeopathy should be when not done according to the book. And even if a single homeopath advances both arguments I don't see a big contradiction. Basically they are saying these studies are not done properly, and even so some of them give positive results. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue of individualisation isn't a valid reason for rejecting the use of RCTs to assess homoeopathy, because RCTs of individualised homoeopthy can be, and in fact have been, carried out (although proponents of homoeopathy do sometimes deny this). See above, and for a more recent example, White et al. 2003. As far as the issue of "contradiction" goes (it isn't really relevant to the issue of whether RCTs are appropriate), what about the same homoeopaths rejecting negative non-individualised trials (on the grounds that they are non-individualised) but accepting positive non-individualised trials? Brunton (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed that I responded only to a specific aspect of what you said. Also, my last two sentences already dealt with the case of a single homeopath.

After rereading your comments I think I probably misunderstood your intent. It looked a bit like homeopath-bashing, which would be unsuitable for this talk page, but I guess what you really did was try to argue the homeopaths' side to some extent, because they are underrepresented. Of course that's really something we need to do as long as we have this problem. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was more trying to present the argument I've seen proponents of homoeopathy put forward with regard to RCTs (see the Guardian article I linked to, which says "In orthodox trials, all patients in the "real" group are given the same drug for the same length of time. Homeopaths do not work like that. For one condition, they may select one of a dozen or more remedies, chosen after long and detailed interviews") than to ague their case, but I hope I haven't misrepresented them. Brunton (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, it is not at all difficult to construct a DBRCT in theory. Enlist two hundred practioners. Take two hundred copies of a standard repertory. In one hundred, replace all the liquids with pure water. Add code number lables to each bottle, registering whether it was standard (S) or water (W) in a codebook. Randomly populate the two hundred repertories so each contains about half S, half W bottles, registering the code numbers in each repertory. Distribute to practitioners and have them track success rates on a subjective 1-5 scale against prescriptions for each for a year. Break the code and analyse the statistics. Publish. Of course practitioners may not wish to voluntarily participate in their own downfall, so the "enlist" part will be problematic. LeadSongDog come howl 15:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any practitioner would be willing to use placebos for a year, even if you believe that the effect of homeopathic medicine is placebo, any more than an orthodox physician would be willing to do so versus using standard medications. It really is difficult to construct a DBRCT against an informational remedy, and it is difficult to construct a DBRCT against any personalized therapy, be it surgery or massage or psychology. —Whig (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's really quite simple to design a DBRCT of individualised homoeopathy, as outlined by LeadSongDog above (it needn't be for a year). Trials of this type have actually been carried out. Brunton (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide references? It would also be important to note whether these trials followed normal homeopathic practice in other respects, and what criteria were used to evaluate effects. —Whig (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already linked to one above, and also to a comment on a systematic review of published in 1998 which found 32 trials. Here's the review itself. Brunton (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It's also worth reading this summary of that article. LeadSongDog come howl 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this meta analysis,

In the 19 placebo-controlled trials providing sufficient data for meta-analysis, individualized homeopathy was significantly more effective than placebo (pooled rate ratio 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 2.23), but when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen. CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo.

I guess the question is what qualifies as "methodologically best" and whether normal homeopathic practice is regarded as such. —Whig (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that "methodologically best" is, as per the usual usage in a systematic review, describing the design of the studies and denoting those least likely to give biased results, rather than being a comment on the relative competence of the homoeopaths involved. But as to whether the studies were of "normal homoeopathic practice", this is explicitly a review of studies of "individualised" homoeopathy, carried out by researchers who are highly experienced in assessing studies of homoeopathy, and are frequently cited approvingly by homoeopaths, to the extent that one of them is on the record as saying that their work "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". Brunton (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to assume that "methodologically best" refers to criteria that would not exclude the very studies which most resemble normal homeopathic practice, we need to know what their specific criteria were for making that selection, even so their results "suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo." —Whig (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies." Brunton (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I asked the criteria for "methodologically best". —Whig (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Studies were only considered as being of individualised homoeopathy if either a) the prescribers were completely free in their choice of remedy; b) prescribers chose from a set of remedies frequently used for treating the condition in question; or c) the trial only included patients whose symptom picture matched the remedy used. Quality was assessed on the basis of the answer to four questions: was allocation randomized? Was the study double-blind? Was it published in a MEDLINE-listed journal? Are there no other obvious relevant flaws? Of the six studies for which the answer to all four questions above was "yes" (the set defined as "likely to have good methodological quality"), three involved a completely free choice of remedy, one allowed a choice of 11 remedies and only included patients if one of these was their similimum (this was the one of the six which was most favourable to homoeopathy), and the other two used the best-matched remedy from a set of remedies. From the stated criteria and inclusion of three trials with a completely free choice it doesn't appear that the quality criteria necessarily excluded trials most closely reflecting the normal practice of individualised homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Individualization is only one aspect of normal homeopathic practice, and I have previously stated my doubts that double blinding is appropriate in these studies, which you rebutted by pointing out that double blind studies have been done and successfully, but then you claim that those studies that are "best" are those which are double blind and these demonstrate a less convincing effect. So which is it? Does double blinding affect the results of studying homeopathic effectiveness? As far as patients given their simillimum having the most favorable results, that would seem at least to suggest that a well chosen remedy has benefits over placebo, do you disagree? —Whig (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The "best" studies, in the context of evaluating whether a therapy actually works, are those least likely to produce biased results. Double-blinding eliminates a source of possible bias in the results; perhaps particularly relevant in the light of the authors' comment (p. 384) that "the motivation for doing trials seems less to be innovation or self-critical evaluation of performance (which is generally agreed to be the motivation for good research) but rather justification in front of a hostile scientific establishment." While they note that "double-blind conditions and placebo controls interfere with everyday conditions in routine homeopathic practice", there is no convincing reason that this should interfere with the efficacy of the treatment. To explain the poorer results of more rigorously carried out trials as some sort of artifact of the double-blinding interfering with the efficacy of the remedy you would have to invoke something like Milgrom's "entanglement", and there are (to say the least) far less improbable explanations. As for your last point about the most positive result of the six, that is what is known as "cherry-picking". Why ignore the other five trials of equal quality (other than on the basis of their results)? At least three of them seem to have more closely resembled normal practice in that the homoeopaths had an unrestricted choice of remedy. Brunton (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Entanglement is absolutely relevant to cavitation QED photon binding, because coherence is lost when the cavity collapses, and information cannot be recovered unless a cavity domain is restored in microtubules or some other structure. This is not Milgrom's explanation, and entanglement is not a fringe theory. Whether you accept that cQED applies in all cavity domains (and if it doesn't, that would be extraordinary indeed!), granting the possibility that you may be wrong, you should recognize that double blinding could well interfere with proper reception. —Whig (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that looks like smoke and mirrors to me. How can quantum entanglement and photon binding be proved to have an effect on homoeopathy when homoeopathy isn’t even proved to be real? — NRen2k5, 00:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The physics don't concern themselves with your question. CQED photon binding is real, and structures to detect photons are how we sense anything. You can disbelieve all you like. —Whig (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don’t disbelieve it at all, I just disbelieve that it’s relevant to homoeopathy. You might as well be attributing the failures to the tides or to solar flares. — NRen2k5, 00:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have observed it to be highly effective, and I doubt that tides or solar flares are a plausible mechanism. —Whig (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All of this is, of course, irrelevant as far as objections to double-blind trials is concerned. For these alleged quantum effects involved in the manufacture of the remedy to be relevant here, you need to establish some way that blinding would destroy the alleged effect, but the normal prescribing practices of homoeopaths wouldn't (after having, of course, established that quantum effects are somehow involved in the therapeutic results). It seems to me that "quantum" is once again being used as a synonym for "magic". Brunton (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm unaware of double blind trials being used in other informational and personalized therapies, and do not believe there is a reason to expect it to be appropriate for testing homeopathy. It is not normal homeopathic practice at any rate. There is nothing magic about quantum physics, but entanglement and coherence are not describable in classical terms. —Whig (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Make all the excuses you want. The failure to scientifically prove homoeopathy has any effect beyond placebo is not science’s, it’s homoeopathy’s. — NRen2k5, 09:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You “observed it to be highly effective”? I’d like some detail about that. It would be helpful for you to learn where you went wrong. — NRen2k5, 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 1) Choose remedy. 2) Take remedy. 3) Observe effects. Repeat steps 1, 2 and 3 with the same and different doses. Same method I would have observed the pain relieving properties of psychedelics. —Whig (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I said detail - as in, what ailments have you seen treated, and what effects have you seen in what amount of time? How do you rule out the placebo effect? How do you distinguish between the remedy’s effects and the natural course of the ailment? — NRen2k5, 09:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am speaking of direct personal observation of effects, details of which are not appropriate to list here. I rule out the placebo effect by repetition and careful attention to state. As I said, this is also the only way I could have observed the pain relieving properties of psychedelics. Further discussion on this should be taken to user talk or off-Wiki. —Whig (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, observation is only one small part of the scientific process. From what you’ve said so far, we’ll have to take your observations with a grain of salt. And I mean that in a non-homoeopathic way. — NRen2k5, 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

←Outdent. Funny you should mention magic, as Harald Walach basically argues that homeopathy is magic in this article:. Fences&Windows 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Magic is what some people call science they don't understand. —Whig (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Science is what some people call make-believe when they want to sell it. — NRen2k5, 09:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you selling, NRen2k5? —Whig (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. Note that I followed your form: “some people”. Obviously not all magic is science and not all “science” is marketing. Now I’m going to be even more blunt: Are you a practitioner of alternative medicine, or more specifically, of homoeopathy? — NRen2k5, 22:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Practitioner in what sense? I use homeopathy and recommend it to my friends, who use it as well. I have never charged anyone for doing so. —Whig (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Magic is what you appeal to when reality won't play ball. Walach is a homeopath; if you read that article, he says choice things like "My analysis brings homeopathy in close proximity to other paranormal or anomalous disciplines, like distant healing, extrasensory perception or psychokinesis" and "I propose to abstain from a causal interpretation of homeopathy. Instead I contend that homeopathy is an acausal event, similar to synchronistic events. The homeopathic medicine is a sign which mediates the meaning between a mental-psychological state, the illness in the patient, and the physical realm of bodily functions, elements of nature, and the like. It acts via the original interconnectedness of all beings, which is activated, as in magical rituals, by the homeopathic ritual of case taking, remedy preparation, repertorization and remedy prescription." He's conceding that he can't prove that homeopathy works causally, and instead he is falling back on pseudoscience and appealing to mystical forces and quantum theory. Fences&Windows 21:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quantum theory isn't mystical, but mystical uses may be made of quantum effects. So what? Unless this article is being used as a reference of some kind, it isn't relevant to anything, least of all to editing this Misplaced Pages article. —Whig (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

“So what?” Did you forget where this discussion started? It started with a claim from homoeopaths that the experiments that show homoeopathy to be completely effective were somehow flawed. And you started this line about “information” and “quantum effects” in defense of that claim. — NRen2k5, 23:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point is really unclear. Some people who don't understand quantum physics call it magic, that does not mean that quantum physics is magic. There is no validity to your implicit argument that because some people speak of quantum physics without understanding how it applies to homeopathy, therefore quantum physics does not apply to homeopathy.

Anyhow we're going in circles here, but wouldn't it be fascinating if we could find luminal particles within cellular microtubules? —Whig (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is perfectly clear: your claim about quantum effects isn’t an explanation for the difficulty of proving homoeopathy’s effectiveness, it’s a petty excuse. “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” And no, let’s not drift off topic. — NRen2k5, 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no difficulty proving effectiveness, unless you insist on doing it wrong. We don't double blind informational therapies. —Whig (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean specifically there by “informational therapies”? How is homoeopathy an “informational therapy”? How does being an “informational therapy” make homoeopathy untestable by DBRCT? — NRen2k5, 05:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring back to the earlier discussion, and DBRCT are not used to evaluate treatments such as psychology, massage or surgery. It is not clear that information is recoverable when double blinding is used, in fact it is the point that information is concealed when double blinding is used. When the remedy is information, then double blinding can conceal the remedy.

To undertake a full analysis of the consequences of DBRCT on entangled information is beyond the scope of a comment here, but it would be wrong to presume classical behavior. DBRCT is not how homeopathy is done, and when you are studying homeopathy with DBRCT you are not studying homeopathy as it is practiced. There is no similar objection to observational studies, and these may provide clear evidence of benefit over and above placebo if not discarded as being of low quality because they aren't DBRCT. —Whig (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whig, someone already pointed out how a double blind test could be done, so saying "double blind" is doing it wrong isn't enough, you have to explain why it is wrong. You say double blinding would destroy the information, but how? Do you think an bottle of water next to a "real" homeopathic remedy will destroy it? Or the doubt of the patient or the practitioner? --Six words (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with there being a bottle of water nearby or any doubt on the part of the patient or practitioner. It has to do with decoherence, and the ability of entangled information to be recovered. It is the burden of those performing DBRCT to ensure that entangled information will not be lost. —Whig (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What "entangled information"? It hasn't been established that any exists (who would you say the burden of proof lies with there?). Brunton (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't just throw around words like decoherence. It does exist, but that doesn't mean it applies here. If this entangled information is really there, how can it be stable when a patient handles it, but not when someone carefully setting up a test does? --Six words (talk) 08:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not throwing around words, I am using them precisely. Decoherence is what happens when cavitation bubbles collapse, as any excited state atoms will then be free to exchange state with any other atom in the medium, within which the information is thereby entangled. In order for the information to be recovered a coherent state must be restored, which may occur in microtubules, within which luminal particles have been found. —Whig (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As a published academic author of well cited papers on quantum mechanics covering measurment and decoherence, I can assure you that this conversation is off topic per WP:TALK and should now move to user talk pages (perhaps Whig's or NRen2k5's, or even mine), where I'd be happy to join in. Discussions of quantum mechanics/mysticism should cease here, unless directly related to improving the article. Verbal chat 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can also confirm that these claims have flowered into ripe bullshit. The term "luminal" particles, in the context of microtubules, precisely refers to cellular particles in the interior, or lumen of microtubules. They are many orders of magnitude too large to show quantum effects. They are not luminal in the sense of photons or particles of light. There is nothing quantum about this paper, save for the tool of cryo-electron microscopy that the authors use to investigate the luminal particles. Whig, you've been sanctioned for this sort of behavior in the past. Skinwalker (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit that I am not very familiar with these structures and may have misinterpreted this paper, which I just discovered last night. If I have done something sanctionable I apologize and this conversation is finished here, at any rate. Please feel free to follow up with me on my talk. I don't need to restate what I have said but I have struck the part that may be in error. —Whig (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To wit "If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Don't you hate it when others understand the bullshit better than you ??? :-) Shot info (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about heading title

Question: The heading uses the nonword/misspelling "Representatity". Shouldn't it be "Representativity"? If another word was intended, then it needs fixing. Whatever the case, please change the heading. It's driving me nuts! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Brunton fixed this a long time ago and I didn't notice it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he did it right after you mentioned it. — NRen2k5, 08:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope I didn't commit some sort of faux pas. Brunton (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah. — NRen2k5, 08:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Zicam

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQ2bZ11tGtoiKx6BO5K70Lx1ETmgD98SK27G0

Some interesting stuff here in the wake of the Zicam issues...esecially on safety: And don't even suggest that Zicam isn't homeopathic, they certainly put it on the box: http://www.zicam.com/products/coldremedy_rapidmelts_ce

But an Associated Press analysis of the Food and Drug Administration's side effect reports found that more than 800 homeopathic ingredients were potentially implicated in health problems last year. Complaints ranged from vomiting to attempted suicide.

In the case of Zicam, the FDA says it tied the drug to reports from 130 consumers who said they lost their sense of smell.

The agency on Tuesday told Zicam maker Matrixx Initiatives to stop marketing three products that carry zinc gluconate: Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Nasal Swabs and discontinued Swabs in Kids' Size. The agency said the drug must be tested for safety and benefit, like a conventional drug, before it is again marketed. And the FDA warned people not to use the three Zicam products.

"It never occurred to me they could be dangerous and there was no kind of oversight — like the FDA — that ensured there was safety," says former Zicam user David Richardson of Greensboro, N.C. He has complained to the FDA about losing his sense of smell and filed his case with a lawyer for a future lawsuit, joining hundreds of others who have claimed in recent years that they lost their sense of smell from Zicam cold products.

In its review of homeopathy, the AP also found that:

_ Active homeopathic ingredients are typically diluted down to 1 part per million or less, but some are present in much higher concentrations. The active ingredient in Zicam is 2 parts per 100.

_ The FDA has set strict limits for alcohol in medicine, especially for small children, but they don't apply to homeopathic remedies. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said no medicine should carry more than 5 percent alcohol. The FDA has acknowledged that some homeopathic syrups far surpass 10 percent alcohol.

_ The National Institutes of Health's alternative medicine center spent $3.8 million on homeopathic research from 2002 to 2007 but is now abandoning studies on homeopathic drugs. "The evidence is not there at this point," says the center's director, Dr. Josephine Briggs.

_ At least 20 ingredients used in conventional prescription drugs, like digitalis for heart trouble and morphine for pain, are also used in homeopathic remedies. Other homeopathic medicines are derived from cancerous or other diseased tissues. Many are formulated from powerful poisons like strychnine, arsenic or snake venom.

Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems this might be abuse of US process, calling things "homeopathic" which aren't by a reasonable definition, in order to avoid regulation. Or is it homeopathic something + actual amounts of Zinc, yet the homeopathic bit is enough to get around the law? Maybe his will lead to that law being changed, and hopefully some analysis of this will follow in science and popular press that can be added. Interesting! Blows the no side effects argument away if it is homeopathic. This should be added to that section at least. Verbal chat 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathic does not mean there are no material doses, only above 12C is this the case. —Whig (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it usual to go to higher potencies? Isn't that the point? But anyway, what about the "no side effects" claim for homeopathy? Verbal chat 15:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't unusual to use low potencies when they are appropriate. There are no side effects, from the standpoint that there are only effects. However, potencies below about 3X are not often recommended and particularly in the case of a toxic starting material may not be safe. However, there are times when even a non-diluted tincture may be used homeopathically, so long as it is treating symptoms by like effects. For instance, when I am overtired, a cup of tea is homeopathic for me to aid in sleep. —Whig (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

“There are no side effects, from the standpoint that there are only effects.” I shouldn’t have to remind you that this is an encyclopedia. We’re interested in facts, not fantastic standpoints. — NRen2k5, 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest reading the FDA's own information for a more coherent account than that provided by the AP
FDA information on Zicam
"don't even suggest that Zicam isn't homeopathic" <-- just placing the word "homeopathic" on a box does not make the contents homeopathic. The FDA has a regulatory process for homeopathic drugs. The FDA indicates that Zicam is getting special attention and that they are not treating it in the same way that they treat other drugs that are marketed as being homeopathic. It seems certain that this special attention involves the fact that Zicam uses a 2X concentration of zinc. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

] Y ou will note from the letter ] that they make no mention of improper use of the term 'Homeopathic' . Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

When I researched the regulatory situation in the US for Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy, I found out that in the US everything that is in the official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia is automatically legal. I also found a letter from the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention to the FDA, notifying the FDA that a company tried to push something non-homeopathic into the pharmacopoeia. Now it looks as if the US has reason to make its regulation more similar to that in the EU, where a minimal dilution is part of the conditions for registration as a homeopathic remedy. (Of course registration via the normal process, i.e. proved efficacy etc., is always open in theory.) Hans Adler 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• This recent edit in not very helpful. First, it is wrong to say that "the FDA advised consumers to discontune using Zicam Nasal Spray" and even the cited source (money.cnn.com) does not get things that wrong. I suggest citing the FDA itself (and not some "news" source) and providing a link to this FDA webpage where it correctly says which products are of concern to the FDA. --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • ]

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today advised consumers to stop using three products marketed over-the-counter as cold remedies because they are associated with the loss of sense of smell (anosmia). Anosmia may be long-lasting or permanent"

I would say that its is entirely correct to sat the they advised consumers to stop using the products.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The FDA never said to stop using "Zicam Nasal Spray". --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Then let's state what the FDA states: "...FDA is alerting consumers that Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Swabs, and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, Kids Size,..." -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article still has a link for "Zicam Nasal Spray" that leads to the Zinc gluconate article where I see no mention of "Zicam Nasal Spray" or "nasal spray" of any kind. Does "Zicam Nasal Spray" even exist? Did it once exist but has been discontinued? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Cold Remedy Nasal Gel is a spray, therefore it is not completely wrong to call it "Nasal Spray". But they also produce other nasal sprays: "Seasonal Allergy Relieve", "Intense Sinus Relieve" and "Extreme Congestion Relieve", so the sentence might be misleading. I'll change it to "Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel".--Six words (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The FDA document about nasal sprays does not mention gels and says that for sprays: "Energy is required for dispersion of the formulation as a spray. This is typically accomplished by forcing the formulation through the nasal actuator and its orifice." The instructions for Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel say, "Hold with thumb at bottom of bottle and nozzle between your fingers. Prior to initial use, prime pump by holding it upright and depressing several times (into a tissue) until the gel is dispensed. Place tip of nozzle just past nasal opening (approximately 1/8 inch). While inside nasal opening, slightly angle nozzle outward. Pump once into each nostril. To help avoid possible irritation, do not sniff up gel. This product helps put gel in the lower part of the nose. After application, press lightly on outside of each nostril for about 5 seconds." It sounds like the bottle for Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel is a gel applicator and I see no mention of "spray". --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-distinction -- it's like asking, "is water a liquid, or is it a spray?" Spraying is a method of application, and the material that is sprayed can be liquid, gel, powder, or whatever. So gel can be sprayed, e.g.. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that "a gel can be sprayed" does not tell us that Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel is sprayed. If you are claiming that this product is a "nasal spray" then please provide evidence to support that claim. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read my post. I made no such claim; I merely pointed out that something may be both gel and a spray. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Only took a moment to confirm, but it doesn't require a source. Try their website, google, multiple newspaper articles... Verbal chat 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Only took a moment to confirm" <-- to confirm what? "it doesn't require a source" <-- eh? Where am I? --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an astonishigly tedious argument to continue having. The minor issue was fixed 12 hours ago and the the word "spray" does not currently appear in the article, though ). It's also clear that unsing the actual name of the product in question reduces ambiguity. Moving on... — Scientizzle 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just reverted the deletion of "heavily diluted" from the lead until discussed. The rationale given for that deletion was that it wasn't cited to the FDA and Zicam was given as a counterexample. Both arguments are wrong. This is a worldwide endeavour, not just US, so the FDA position is informative, but not normative. Zicam clearly was a product that slipped through the regulatory cracks in that it was sold without a New Drug Approval . The FDA does discuss dilution in its CPG 7132.15 although "heavily" diluted is not quantified there.

Strictly speaking, homeopathy does not require dilution at all in some cases, as the example of having a cup of tea to help with sleep when overtired is homeopathic. It is of course important for more toxic remedies to be more heavily diluted for safety (and succussed for effectiveness).—Whig (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"identifies them as homeopathic drug products with an active ingredient measured in homeopathic strength—Zincum Gluconicum 2X". How about we put that it's diluted to 2X? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should be made explicit, we might parenthetically point out that 2X = 10 = 1 part in 100. Not very dilute. —Whig (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's already in the article. Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel, which contains 2X (1:100) zinc gluconate, reportedly caused a small percentage of users to lose their sense of smell. --Six words (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'd like to see some sources that say that homeopathic = very dilute. I see nothing about that in either the FDA site or the in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the Society of Homeopaths ("Homeopathy is a system of medicine which is based on treating the individual with highly diluted substances") or the British Homeopathic Association ("In homeopathy the active ingredient is highly diluted.")? I don't think the fact that homoeopathy almost always uses high dilutions can be considered to be in any way controversial. Brunton (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. On the contrary, it is very controversial to assert that homeopathic remedies aren't heavily diluted. I'd like to see some V & RS to back up such an exceptional situation. The norm is extreme dilutions. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not useful to stick "heavily diluted" into the first sentence of the introduction. The last sentence of the first paragraph could be changed to say, "Homeopathic remedies are often heavily diluted until none of the original substance remains." A major problem in Misplaced Pages's coverage of homeopathy is that the Misplaced Pages article where the issue of dilutions should be covered is a poor article that provides very little information about homeopathic dilutions. --JWSchmidt (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That article appears to be an original synthesis to advance a position. I'm not sure anything useful can be done with it unless it is renamed/moved to Homeopathic potentization or something, and includes discussion of the succussion step. Otherwise it is making an argument which is best kept in the context of this main article, by trying to prove what is undisputed, that no atoms or molecules of original substance are present in highly diluted (>12C) remedies. —Whig (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for the article to exist. If someone wants to nominate it for deletion I'd vote accordingly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the instructions in the deletion template, I have removed it and started a thread on the talk page. Please continue there. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tea (split from Zicam)

Citizendium porting

Recently {{WikiProject Citizendium Porting}} was added to a boatload of articles. A couple of alt-medicine articles were in the list, and I reviewed the corresponding Citizendium articles and found them rife with POV. It appears that the Citizendium philosophy is to describe chiropractic and homeopathy almost entirely from the point of view of chiropractors and homeopaths, and to relegate mainstream opinion into a relatively small criticism section. I therefore have marked those two Citizendium articles as being unreliable from a Misplaced Pages point of view, due to their POV, by adding a comment here and to the Chiropractic talk page.

By the way, the talk-page banner here is huge. Any objection to trimming it down a bit, e.g., by starting off banners in their compressed version? Eubulides (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"unreliable from a Misplaced Pages point of view" <-- Can you explain what this means? Doesn't reliability, within Misplaced Pages, imply that article contents can be traced back to reliable sources? The important question is, does the Citizendium article include information about homeopathy that should also be here in Misplaced Pages. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"written by Dana Ullman" who is "homeopathy's foremost spokesman" and currently banned here is partly why. For other reasons see WP:NPOV (particularly UNDUE), WP:FRINGE, and WP:TRUTH and attempt to apply them what is written there. Verbal chat 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Citizendium article has its shortcomings (the Misplaced Pages article has shortcomings too). But there's some stuff in there that could be worth importing here. These include things like what happens during a typical homeopathic consultation. A potential problem is that there are almost no references in that section so it could be a challenge to bring that material in line with Misplaced Pages's standards on referencing.

In general I'd like to see more cross-pollination between Misplaced Pages and Citizendium. Participants in each project often view the other in an adversarial way, which is unfortunate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is a major contributor to Citizendium’s homoeopathy article? Wow. Just wow. That isn’t just damning for the article, it reflects poorly on the entire project. — NRen2k5, 00:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence (again)

With the clause about Hahnemann's original propounding of homoeopathy moved from the end of the sentence (I agree that moving the clause like this makes the sentence read better, BTW), I think historical info is getting confused with the basic definition of homoeopathy that the sentence is intended to provide. Surely it should just say that the remedies are thought (i.e. by homoeopaths generally) to cause the symptoms they are used to treat, rather than that they were thought by Hahnemann to cause the symptoms? I've changed it back - I hope nobody objects. Brunton (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is the relevant series of edits (5 total, none particularly large). I think the changes are fine and make it slightly clearer. It's certainly true that homeopathic remedies are "thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented" by more people than just ole Sammy H, so it doesn't make sense to limit this opinion to the founder. — Scientizzle 15:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty with "are thought to" is twofold. Firstly, that no reference can tell us what "homoeopaths generally" think: They are individuals that think different things. The lead should summarize the text in the body of the article, and the relevant, referenced paragraph on the "law of similars" speaks to what Hahneman thought. The lead should reflect that. In the alternative, the "law of similars" para could have additional references as to the official positions of various national or trans-national Colleges of Homeopathy on the subject. Secondly, that without saying who thinks the thought we create the mistaken impression that it is a broadly accepted position rather than being clear that it is at best regarded as fringe science and more often seen as pseudo-scientific claptrap unsupported in evidence-based medicine. LeadSongDog come howl 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Every single dictionary definition I can find uses the smaller/larger doses bit. Thus we don't need to attribute it to any individual or group. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Not the point. The lead should reflect the text.LeadSongDog come howl 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument makes no sense. If the body text doesn't mention a blatantly obvious fact explicitly, then when someone starts wikilawyering to remove it from the lead we change the body, not the lead. If you are worried that "are thought" can be expanded – incorrectly – as "by science", then you should say so, so that we can find a formulation that works for you. 20:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(The anon IP above was promptly removed by Hans Adler) Who is wikilawyering? I believed that I was quite clear about that in my 16:33 but SBHB's 16:38 caused me to question that belief so I simplified it in my 17:28 post. I'll try the other tack and be more verbose then. This edit by Brunton reversed my previous edit to align the lead with the body text. I'm quite content to leave the attribution of the thought in the body text to Hahneman, who at least showed some originality. If someone wants to change the body text to a more current attribution and brings suitable references, that could also work. But in either case the lead should reflect the body text. Right now it doesn't. LeadSongDog come howl 21:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(I meant to replace my IP with my name, not remove it, as my edit summary should have told you. The anonymous edit happened after I had to switch to the secure server since the normal one became inaccessible.) Insistence that we need a source saying that all homeopaths think X in order to get an acceptable formulation looks like wikilawyering to me unless you have any indication that there is even a single homeopath who doesn't believe X, when no doubt most homeopathic sources simply state X as a fact and the few if any that don't state X as discovered or at least believed by Hahnemann with an implicit implication that it's true. Hans Adler 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(Right, I guessed that, but didn't know it. The servers are up again, I understand.:-) We're not writing for "most homeopaths" but a general reader. There's no reason to feed them Hahneman's doctrine as if it were universally accepted truth, which it certainly is not. Nor is there any reason to make statements in the lead that aren't supported in the body. This isn't an obscure or subtle point. My simple two word edit to the lead corrected the problem, but Brunton reverted it, leaving the problem unsolved.LeadSongDog come howl 02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Repertory and Materia Medica

Currently there’s a homeopathic Materia Medica article and a homeopathic repertory article, both stubs.

I realize it isn’t quite on-topic for this page, but this is the best place I could think of to bring this up, seeing as neither page seems to have gotten much attention in months.

Should we be doing something about them, like a merge or deletions? — NRen2k5, 04:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support the merging of those two articles. I wasn't aware of the repertory one. Verbal chat 22:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Merge them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Baby Gloria references, Homeopathy and JWSchmidt/DrJ talk thread

A conversation has been started on the BLP Noticeboard which is relevant to this article and the use of WP:RS in support of the statement in the article that following homeopathy to exclusion of conventional medicine has lead to deaths (I'm too tired to check the exact wording, apologies). This follows from JWSchmitd's mentoring of banned user DrJ, Avathaar‎ (talk · contribs) and a long thread on Avathaar‎'s talk in which JWSchmidt claims the sources shouldn't be used for WP:BLP reasons. Verbal chat 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

vomit and feces

The article says:

Some homeopaths suggest that vaccines be replaced with homeopathically diluted "nosodes", created from dilutions of biological agents – including material such as vomit, feces or infected human tissues. While Hahnemann was opposed to such preparations, modern homeopaths often use them although there is no evidence to indicate they have any beneficial effects.

Can someone provide quotes from these sources that include their discussion of vomit and feces and which modern homeopaths often use them? --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to those specific sources.

Nosodes are generally defined as remedies made from diseased biological material. See for example page 263 of Owen, Leckridge, & Fisher Principles and Practice of Homeopathy, which mentions "bowel nosodes" isolated from stool cultures. See also page 178 of Kayne & Caldwell's Homeopathic pharmacy which also talks about "bowel nosodes", describing them as "an important subgroup of the nosodes" (pp. 177-178 also describe nosodes made from, among other things, tubercular abscesses, "syphilitic material", and pus). Here is a description of a malaria nosode made from "decayed vegetable matter" from a marsh. Here's a remedy made from dog faeces on sale from a major homoeopathic pharmacy. I haven't yet found anything that specifically mentions vomit (although I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that some homoeopath somewhere had made such a remedy, given the provings I've seen of, for example, antimatter, swan feathers and condoms), so perhaps this should be removed.

Unless it can be established that the sources already used mention vomit and faeces, I would suggest saying that they are made from diseased biological material and use Owen, Leckridge, & Fisher p. 263 as a source for this. Brunton (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the condom a fertility treatment? I think those well establish the feces bit. I'll see if I can access the others later. Verbal chat 09:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

From the overview: "One group of symptoms are grouped around the idea of containment and restriction, of being enclosed. Another group, probably the largest, are about barriers, disconnection and separation. The last group are concerned with the need for artificial barriers because the natural ones are weak or absent." As for whether we've established that faeces are used to prepare nosodes: note that the sources I cited say the "bowel nosodes" are prepared from stool cultures rather than the faeces themselves. The "excrementum can." is just a regular homoeopathic remedy rather than a nosode. Brunton (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article stating that "nosodes may be prepared from pus, diseased tissue such as a cancerous growth, the stool (these are termed bowel nosodes), or the pathogenic organism itself, such as bacilli from sputum." Still no vomit. Brunton (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a RS. Why not just replace the current disputed wording with that long list and source it with that reference? Problem solved. If anyone later finds an easily accessible source that lists vomit, then they can add it. It looks like you've got the solution in your hand. Go for it. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done - I've also tidied up a little, removed a couple of repetitions of dilution as this is covered adequately in the rest of the article, and removed a wikilink to "nosode" which just redirected back to the homeopathy article. Brunton (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

From vomit? I can understand getting bacteria from feces (stool culture), but from vomit? I'll be damned if someone finds a source listing a remedy made from vomit :P --Enric Naval (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you're assuming there has to be some logic to this. What about remedies made from moonlight? What logic is there in that? As far as vomit goes, we do (or did) have a source or two, but because someone who didn't have access to them objected, and we couldn't easily verify if the source really did back up the wording, a new source was found that did back up the feces part and listed several other things used to make nosodes. I think this thread is pretty much finished. Can we mark it as resolved and move on? Brangifer (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"do (or did) have a source or two" <-- I doubt it. Those two sources were for the following sentence and there is no good reason to assume that they said anything about vomit. The sentence under discussion, the sentence mentioning "vomit", had no cited sources. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I found a google books Materia Medica on nosodes that mentions two types of vomit derived things here, I think. Meletinum and Emphyeminum. Verbal chat 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's in an extract from an 1861 book, included in the source "for historical interest". If we were going to include vomit here (and frankly I don't think we should - see Short Brigade Harvester Boris's comment below) surely we'd need something a little more current. Brunton (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not a big deal. Verbal chat 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's that big a deal. The overall point that bodily fluids are sometimes used in homeopathy can be adequately made by reference to pus, sputum and the like which are far more commonly mentioned in the literature. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found only anecdotes of the use of "vomitus" as a homeopathic remedy:. Lots of reliable sources list it in a string of things used in nosodes, but none describes its use. Fences&Windows 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead: pre and post dilution effects

Currently the LEAD's first sentence containst this phrase:

"... that treats patients with heavily diluted preparations which are thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented."

That isn't accurate. The object of treatment is to cure or ameliorate symptoms, not exacerbate them by causing "effects similar to the symptoms presented".

We have previously had a more accurate version that went something like this:

"... that treats patients with heavily diluted preparations made from substances that, in their undiluted (or much less diluted) form, cause effects similar to the symptoms presented."

There is nothing "thought to cause" about it in this case, since the original substances used in provings are actually intended to cause the symptoms. Currently we are blending things. The original, undiluted, substances and the final remedies are not the same thing, and they have very different effects. The original substances actually cause symptoms, and the final products/remedies produced after dilution and succussion/potentization are thought to cause some type of cure. (Of course no reliable research has shown any such thing. ;-)

I suggest we reinstate the previous wording. We have a whole section on provings, and leaving out mention of provings in the lead is a serious lack. I know that the current provings section uses ONE source to back up an idea about the use of heavily diluted substances in provings, but I question this. If the proving and the remedy are the same, then how can one induce "effects similar to the symptoms presented"? We need more sources that deal with this so we can show that while there might be some homeopaths who use ultradilute substances in provings, others do not, and thus follow Hahnemann's original method. I don't recall the details of this discussion that got us into this situation, but how could one source totally reverse the previous content? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the second version above is better, but should perhaps include the "thought", as often different "provings" prove that the same tincture "causes" opposites, such as constipation in one proving, but diarrhoea according to a different proving. Do we discuss this in the body? Rose Shapiro has a good section on this in her book "Suckers: How alternative medicine makes fools of us all". Verbal chat 18:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We have a good source in the article supporting the statement that modern provings are carried out using the potentised remedies, not the undiluted substances. Brunton (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing problem: critics' "concerns" could use more sourcing

We have previously had this content:

"Critics of homeopathy have cited other concerns over homeopathic medicine, most seriously cases of patients of homeopathy failing to receive proper treatment for diseases that could have been easily diagnosed and managed with conventional medicine and the..."

Recently it was changed here. While I think the addition was excellent, the deletion of the reference to Dr. Phil Plait's Discovery magazine column means that we are now missing proper documentation for our content ("Critics of homeopathy have cited other concerns over homeopathic medicine,..."), and unsourced content should be deleted. Since the obvious solution is to source it, we need to restore it and find even more sources so this doesn't happen again. We shouldn't allow the ongoing disputes on User talk:Avathaar to cause us to cave in to the specious arguments used there.

To fix this problem, we could do something which I will propose here. (We can still retain the added source.)

There are numerous skeptical sources that state in various ways that reliance on homeopathy can kill or cause injury when it is used in place of proper treatment, and we could list several of them. In the case of the current wording, we are connecting such a criticism with an actual example. To strengthen this section while avoiding OR and SYNTH, we need more sources from critics which make this argument in connection with more cited cases. Right now we have Phil Plait, a very notable skeptic, making this criticism in connection with the Baby Gloria case. There are no doubt other skeptical sources that make the same connection. We can also use them, although his criticism is enough. Other cases than the Baby Gloria case could also be used as examples, and we could find skeptical sources that use this criticism in connection with those cases. Right now we are using one case (documented with a couple news reports) and citing one critical source as documentation for the skeptical position. That's good enough for me, but to satisfy the demands of editors who are believers in homeopathy, we could strengthen the section. What think ye? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy and HIV

Here's another situation where critics express their concerns, this time about HIV:

• British scientists ask WHO to condemn homeopathy for diseases such as HIV. Clinics throughout Asia and sub-Saharan Africa offering ineffective remedies for serious illnesses, putting lives at risk, researchers say.

-- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy and malaria

And yet another about malaria:

• Malaria & homeopathy

• Alternative malaria treatment may not work. July 14th, 2006 British health authorities are urging tourists not to rely on alternative treatment such as homeopathy to fight malaria.

-- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian and Physorg/UPI sources are good. I see your point about the Plait material but have mixed feelings. We should use unassailable sources, and if the scientific perspective uses blogs (or blog-like) material then one can hardly object if the homeopaths want to use blogs too. Slippery slope and all that. There's also the BBC Newsnight story on malaria, which we already have cited.
You might also look at the Citizendium article for sources (both the disturbing "approved" version and the somewhat better Draft version). Don't dismiss the CZ article out of hand as there is some useful information there. Just be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff. There might even be some credible pro-homeopathy material in there -- remember, we're supposed to be writing a neutral article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternatives to the PhysOrg source are the BBC pieces that it was based on and , related coverage. We shouldn't rely on PhysOrg, which does not provide reliable fact checking.LeadSongDog come howl 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The other sources are better. Here they are in another format:

Regarding malaria:

• Malaria advice 'risks lives', BBC Two, 13 July 2006

• Homeopathic practices 'risk lives', BBC News, 13 July 2006

• Alarm over alternative malaria remedies The Independent, 14 July 2006

• Homeopaths 'endangering lives' by offering malaria remedies, The Guardian, 14 July 2006

-- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) SBHB, don't dismiss blogs out of hand. RS expressly allows blogs in some situations, especially when they are the official internet version of a magazine or newspaper column. That's the case for Plait's column. RS policy doesn't completely forbid blogs, and we're going to have to use more and more blogs as RS as they are being used more and more as official websites for organizations, companies, and even politicians. Of course the replies to blogs aren't RS. Here's what WP:RS says:

• "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully."

and found here:

• "In the case of articles which chronicle a developing current event it is not a violation of Misplaced Pages policy to temporarily include links to blogs which contain contemporary opinion and observations about the event. A diverse mix is recommended, but the extent and selection of specific blogs is a matter of content to be determined by the editors of the article."

and of course:

• Misplaced Pages:Blogs as sources

As far as CZ goes, I don't dismiss it, but I am cautious considering the small editorial staff and articles basically written by one author from a proponent's POV (non-NPOV). It's still a good place to look for ideas and sourcing we might be missing.

We're supposed to write NPOV articles, which means they are filled with reliably sourced non-neutral content. The only one being neutral in this situation is Misplaced Pages itself. It doesn't take a position on the issue, and the article shouldn't make it appear that it does. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Suppression

Interesting statement in the comments on this recently added possible ref : "Thomas did not apply creams normally applied to children suffering from eczema because it is generally known that the disease is driven inward." I've seen this idea of orthodox treatments "driving disease inwards" or "suppressing" disease, and thus making the patient's condition worse, used as an argument against using orthodox medicine. If a good RS can be found for "suppression" being cited by mainstream homoeopaths or by homoeopathic organisations perhaps this should be included in the "ethical and safety issues" section. Brunton (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that could be used. It is an idea I have heard before, and not just from homeopaths. Many naturopaths and those who think like them (mixer chiropractors) believe this idea. It's a very, very old vitalistic-type idea. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've found several possible references. Here's a selection:

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qa21jitZy7AC&pg=PA4&dq=homeopathy+suppression&lr

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E1fVzLCmk5gC&pg=PA16&dq=suppression+homeopathy&lr

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J7oestO-BnAC&pg=PA98&dq=suppression+homeopathy&lr

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UZ72uQy385wC&pg=PA147&dq=allopathic+suppression

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BNR1KGJXX9cC&pg=PA198&dq=homeopathy+suppression&lr

Note in particular that the first one states that the normal mode of action of "many conventional drugs" is "inhibiting or actually suppressing the disease, which ultimately pushes the disease deeper into the person, creating more serious and often chronic diseases that manifest themselves later". The second one states "homeopaths have observed that minor skin ailments suppressed with drugs give rise to asthma", which can, if "treated suppressively" then lead to "colitis, arthritis, heart disease etc." Brunton (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.minimum.com/reviews/science-homeopathy.htm is a good source: "Vithoulkas believes-rightly-that it is important for the practitioner of homoeopathy to have a sound grasp of pathology. This being so, it is a pity that his book should contain some rather startling medical statements.... Much more serious, especially in a book that may be read by many laymen, is the author's belief that when primary syphilis is treated by high doses of penicillin over a period of two weeks (p. 135-my italics) the patient will go on to develop secondary and tertiary syphilis with involve- ment of the central nervous system. This thoroughly irresponsible statement is no mere proof-reading error; it appears in the course of an argument designed to show that "allopathic drugging" is harmful and must be avoided. The unfortunate layman might well be misled by Vithoulkas' rhetoric into refusing orthodox treatment for his syphilis; can this really be what Vithoulkas intends?"

http://www.minimum.com/reviews/answer-science.htm - Vithoulkas replied, defending his claims of "suppression". George Vithoulkas is one of the leading homeopaths, that he advocates this nonsense is strong evidence that this quackery is widespread in the homeopathic community. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The concept of suppression is important and even integral to homeopathy and homeopathic thinking. The homeopaths' critique of much of what is called "proven scientific treatment" is that the specific treatment has been proven to suppress the disease process into the body, i.e. painkillers, fever suppressing drugs, steroidal drugs, just to name a few, providing short-term relief but creating more serious chronic disease syndromes. DanaUllman 03:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The concept of suppression should be covered in the article. As far as your statement that "...the specific treatment has been proven to suppress the disease process into the body...", "proven" is not evident. That's a homeopathic POV and claim, but if it's been "proven", then let's follow the guidelines at WP:MEDRS and see that evidence. You're welcome to your homeopathic POV, but let's be careful about making such claims here. Brangifer (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have some sort of consensus here, so I'm adding it to the "ethical and safety issues" section. Brunton (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

profile of a homeopathic remedy

In the section Homeopathy#Provings it says, "A homeopathic proving is the method by which the profile of a homeopathic remedy is determined."
Is there something better than Profile (engineering) to link the word "profile" to? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a relevant article that defines this term, so in its absence I've removed the link as it is clearly not helpful. There's talk of merging and improving the Repertory and Materia Medica articles - perhaps a definition of this term would be appropriate there. Brunton (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

index of symptoms

The article says, "a remedy is selected based on the index of symptoms", but a Google Scholar search for > "index of symptoms" and homeopathy < returns little. In contrast, there are many sources found when searching for > "totality of symptoms" and homeopathy < including The role of evidence in alternative medicine: contrasting biomedical and anthropological approaches which says: "The professional homeopaths prescribed on the totality of symptoms". I think the term "index" is used in its correct technical sense later in the article, but not in its first use in the article. Should the article be changed to say "a remedy is selected based on the totality of symptoms"? --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, totality of symptoms is the correct term. —Whig (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Redundant facts

11. Homeopathy is not a fringe belief at all. It is not fair to call it a fringe belief.

Homeopathy is a fringe practice by almost any quantitative measure:

• Homeopathy's share of the world drug market is 0.3%
• Money spent per person on medical items in the U.S. in 2004 was $5267 . About 1% of that amount – $54 per person – was spent on all herbals, including homeopathy.
• There were 315 professional homeopaths in the U.S. in 1993. Counting lay homeopaths (unlicensed), there were perhaps over 1000 compared with 884,000 regular physicians in the U.S. in 2006 (There were only 50-100 homeopaths in the US in the early 1970s. )

Even in India, where about 15-20% of medical professionals are homeopaths, homeopathy is 3rd or 4th behind regular medicine and ayurvedic medicine. In numerous European countries in the last few years, like the UK and Switzerland, government support for homeopathic treatments has been decreased as study after study have failed to show its efficacy.

The final point certainly makes sense... But the other two do not. In a world run by businesses, where drug companies and pharmaceuticals are on the same corporate level as energy and tobacco giants, of course the market that runs by the ideal of "sell! sell! sell!", and that is backed by the industry's giants is going to have more sales. They sell products which alleviate symptoms for a few hours so that you go buy more, and they turn a bigger profit. This is a fundamental principal of business, so to say that they are not only out to turn a profit is turning a blind eye to the reality of our world (And I'm not saying that perhaps Homeopathy doesn't also do this on a small scale). To claim something as pseudoscience based on how well its products sell on the market is rediculous, and I strongly contest this point. All this shows is the direction that the market faces, which is obviously towards the business that already has the foothold. Many factors could attribute to these facts, including that western medicine and surgery can cost thousands of dollars, while homeopathic medicine is generally inexpensive; or that homeopathy is ignored by western medicine, and as such doesn't get recommended by western physicians. This is not business, it's science! -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The point being made there was not that how poorly its products sell proves that homeopathy is pseudoscience. The point being made there was that how poorly its products sell proves that homeopathy is a fringe belief. --FOo (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No it only proves that people spend more money on western medicine... Which really in itself is just a broad range of sciences combined together in the last 250 years, and to compare such a large range of things to one specific science doesn't make sense - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 09:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

These Western drug and pharmaceutical companies also make or own the companies that make the homeopathic stuff. "compare such a large range of things to one specific science" what specific science? Also, homeopathy is a medical system that excludes and is at odds with mainstream medicine, so it is right to contrast them. I'm not quite sure what the point of this thread is; it is quite clear that homeopathy is a fringe belief and a fringe practice. Verbal chat

First of all, The specific science would be homeopathy... you know... the subject at hand? Western medicine is the application of several sciences (Anatomy, chemistry, physiology, neuropathy/neurophysiology, cardiology, etc.) into a single practice.

Secondly, you are wrong (Or just making assumptions). Boiron, one of the leaders in homeopathic research and production, is not owned by a higher company, and is focused on Homeopathic medicine only. They supply a majority of Europe and North America. It's very funny, because for every piece of "research" pharmaceutical companies put out to downplay the efficacy of homeopathy, there are just as many put out by individual researchers that claim the exact opposite.

It seems to me that this page is held on lockdown by a select number of individuals that refuse to acknowledge any research that shows any positive effects (An assumption which I can backup by the banning of a homepathic doctor from Misplaced Pages who was making edits to this page. If a homeopathic doctor isn't a reliable source for information on homeopathy, then logically we cannot rely upon physicians of western medicine to say anything reliable about western medicine.). The research seems to be based only on numbers (Number of studies), and obviously the amount of research put out by ~800,000 physicians (In America) is going to overshadow the amount of research put out by 350 homeopaths (In America). This page might as well be renamed Homeopathy in America... Because in Europe, homeopathy is far from a fringe belief... In fact, the British Royal Family has had a homeopathic physician for the last four generations, and several countries (France primarily) have started teaching homeopathy to all future physicians.

"According to recent surveys in France, an astounding 40% of the French public have used homeopathic medicines, and 39% of French physicians have prescribed them. At least six French medical schools offer courses leading to a degree in homeopathy, and homeopathy is taught in all pharmacy schools and in four veterinary schools." - "The Present Status of Homeopathy Internationally," by Dana Ullman, MPH Homeopathic Educational Services (1995)

This answer to a question on Google (Which I haven't thoroughly examined, but am only throwing here for examples) is a roundup of a number of quotations regarding the practice of alternative medicine in Europe/France (But obviously since they aren't made by physicians in America, they don't qualify as reliable sources). Even in America, alternative medicine (Which would be the multiple sciences equivalent to western medicine) is being used substantially more often than before ("Between 1991 and 1997 the use of herbal medicines in the United States grew by 380 per cent.")

Finally, homeopathy is not against western medicine - Western medicine is against homeopathy. Homeopathy, and all alternative medicine to be blunt, supports western medicine. Homeopaths just have enough common sense to know that a medicine that masks the side effects but does nothing to cure the problem will do nothing but make the patient sicker, since they will be busy instead of resting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject...Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This is discussing the article, and the claims put around it by "members of the general scientific community", so I will continue. Comments like that only go to show that when backed into a corner, people jump off the subject and try to muzzle the commenter. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 03:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting use of "scare quotes" around the word "research". Do you have any RS to support your implication that research with negative outcomes is "put out by pharmaceutical companies to downplay the efficacy of homeopathy" while "individual researchers" produce positive outcomes?

Homoeopathy is a fringe belief because the principles on which it is alleged to work are unsupported by and generally contrary to scientific knowledge, as explained in the article. Brunton (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(←)Then that means it is a practice whose actions are unsupported by and generally contrary to scientific knowledge, but not that it is a fringe belief. It is perhaps a fringe belief in terms of sales volume and revenue, but certainly not in terms of how many people use it (Which is close to 50% in many nations, far from a fringe).

From the british medical journal:

"Many doctors do not believe that homoeopathy is an efficacious treatment as it is highly implausible that infinitesimally diluted substances retain their biological effects. It is also often said that homoeopathy has not been evaluated with modern methods -- that is, controlled trials. The first argument may be true, the second is not. Kleijnen et searched the literature and found 96 reports containing 107 controlled trials of homoeopathy. Most trials turned out to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results show the same trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homoeopathy used. Overall. of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 showed positive results of homoeopathic treatment. A complicating factor in such reviews, especially of controversial subjects such as homoeopathy, is publication bias. If the results of Kleijnen et do not reflect the true state of affairs, publication bias must be considered a great problem in evaluations of homoeopathy. In any event, there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of trials with sound methodology."

(Anonymous; "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991. Cr. M. Truzzi.)

While this is not specifically handing responsibility to some person or group, it is saying that most results are skewed (Despite showing mostly positive results). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ _¢ 09:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ernst 2002 rejects that the predominance of negative results is caused by publication bias. It also says that the meta-analisys by Linde 1997 also advanced this theory, and that the authors re-analyzed the data in Linde 1999 and said that " re-analysis 'weakened the findings of their original meta-analysis'" (under the "Results" section). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rephrase please

"Scientific tests run by both the BBC's Horizon and ABC's 20/20 programs were unable to differentiate homeopathic dilutions from water, even when using tests suggested by homeopaths themselves." Was there a consensus on the part of the homeopathic community that these tests were appropriate, well designed and properly carried out? If only one or two homeopaths thought that these were proper tests then they should be identified and it should not be implied that most or even any other homeopath might have approved. Also, what made these tests "scientific"? —Whig (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why restrict this "consensus" to "the homeopathic community"? Why would they, and not the general scientific community, be appropriate to decide whether scientific tests are well designed and appropriately carried out? The tests were merely to detect a difference between homoeopathic dilutions and water, and didn't involve the application of any specifically homeopathic principles or practices, other than those involved in preparing the diluted remedies themselves. Brunton (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The current wording refers to "tests suggested by homeopaths themselves" therefore the consensus of homeopaths is relevant, unless rephrased. If you think that the general scientific community also approved of these tests and have references to include that, then you can do so. Calling these tests "scientific" remains problematic as well without some basis. —Whig (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As Short Brigade Harvester Boris has already pointed out, the article doesn't say that the tests were suggested by a consensus of the homoeopathic community, just that they were suggested by homoeopaths. It doesn't need a reference to support something it doesn't say. The input of homoeopaths to the tests, as currently stated in the article, is only to the fact that particular tests were suggested by homoeopaths (and even then it is just the particular homoeopaths who suggested them that are relevant, not a consensus of all homoeopaths. According to the ABC News article referenced, the homoeopath in question seems to have been Dana Ullman). Assessment of the design of these scientific tests, once they had been suggested, would not just be a matter for homoeopaths. Brunton (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus here that we should identify the homeopaths who approved of these tests if we can do so. If one or two scientists suggested a dumb experiment would it be appropriate to report that the experiment was "suggested by scientists"? —Whig (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, it's a stretch to think that the reader would assume "homeopaths" means "every homeopath who was alive at the time." On the other, if we can identify the individuals as "homeopaths John Doe, Mary Smith, and Joe Bloggs" it would be reasonable to do so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No such implication was made. That’s an inference on your part, and a faulty one at that. But I do agree that the homoeopaths who suggested the tests should be identified. — NRen2k5, 22:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The BBC's and ABC's "television science" was simply "junk science." Both tv shows sought to replicate the work of Professor M. Ennis, but she was not shown the precise protocol used until over a year after the BBC study was aired and just before the ABC study was conducted. She asserts that this "study" was NOT hers. The BBC has acknowledged this, and ABC carefully avoided saying that their study was a replication of the Ennis study, even though they used her as a consultant for the study (they did this as a requirement for my participation on air, though the 20/20 producer, Mark Golden, said that he only promised to consult with Ennis, not to do what she said or to even correctly replicate her work. To see Ennis' email on this subject, go to: http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,55 -- I realize that website is my own and is therefore not an appropriate RS for wikipedia...but for those of us who are wanting the truth about things, this article and others at http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/by_category.jsp?id=37 will provide insight. DanaUllman 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. You know that the tests were declared fair before they were run, and objections only arose afterwards. That you e-mailed her, quoted after-the-fact objections from Milgrom, and managed to get her to be upset does not amount to a reliable source, nor proof that they are junk science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - I see no issue here (as an uninvolved editor, I saw this raised on AN/I). --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Shoemaker, in due respect, you are not correct here. I objected to the experiment about 7 weeks (!) BEFORE the results were announced by ABC News. Ennis' email to me was on December 9, 2003. The show aired on January 30, 2004. These are facts. From which facts are you making your determination? And by whom (!) are you suggesting that the tests were declared "fair"? When I asked Mark Golden (the 20/20 producer) who his experts were, he told me it was "Robert Park" (who is a well-known skeptic of homeopathy who has never conducted any experiments on basophils!). He is neither an ideal or appropriate "expert" on this subject. Please note that I have never questioned that the study was not conducted in a well-controlled and double-blind fashion. My concerns were that of Ennis who noted that a chemical was used that killed the basophils before the homeopathic doses (or placebo) were applied, and the many other serious problems in this sophomoric effort to conduct real science. DanaUllman 17:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the ABC News reference: "We then consulted leading university scientists who reviewed the test protocols and said they were "technically sound" and "meticulously conducted."" Brunton (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems this user has a pretty strong personal WP:COI regarding this discussion, and should probably bow out of the discussion (feel free to provide RS or contribute in other areas). The Ennis email is not a WP:RS. Please don't bring your personal disputes to wikipedia. I agree with Scott, there is no issue with the text in the article. Verbal chat 17:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Verbal, though I appreciate that Dana has a strong interest in clearing the record as he sees it, this is not the proper forum for that. Only reliable sources can be used for Misplaced Pages. —Whig (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Whig...and as you all may note, I asserted that the reference to Ennis' email was at my own website and is therefore not RS. Please also note that I do not deny that the study was "well controlled" but I do question what was done in the experiment. For those people who want insight from someone with a first-person experience, read about my experiences. I may engage in dialogue on this subject, but I will not edit on it due to COI. DanaUllman 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Except article talk pages is not a place for you to be "dialoging" your POV on this topic. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse is correct, Dana. Don't reference your website here, please. Even if it isn't for the article, this is not a Talk page for general discussion so it isn't appropriate. —Whig (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Updating Info on Replication of studies

The reference to non-replication of homeopathic studies is from 1995 and is therefore a tad dated. There have been four large studies showing efficacy in the treatment of influenza by Oscillococcinum

It seems time to change what is written here about the non-replication of studies because that is no longer true. DanaUllman 17:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick googling finds Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies, pp. 234-237 which seems to say that studies are not conclusive at all and that the better studies show worse results for homeopathy.

Also, that 2006 Vickers paper says in its conclusion:

Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large. Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.

Notice that Talk:Oscillococcinum is packed full with discussions about this matter, and includes sources like Ernst 2002 " It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice." and Guo 2007 "Current evidence from randomized controlled trials is sparse and limited by small sample sizes, low methodological quality, or clinically irrelevant effect sizes. (...) These results strengthen conventional approaches for seasonal influenza.". (Anyways, Guo is "only" another study although Erns is a co-author, the latest review of all homeopathy I think that it was Ernst 2002, while Vickers 2007 was "only" for Oscillococcinum in influenza)

The sources would probably allow to say that "several attempts of replication have not been able to establish (with enough confidence?) its efficacy beyond placebo, and more research is needed before recommending its clinical use." --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully support Enric's summary. Oscillococcinum (which is based on a thing which doesn't exist) is not effective; that's the conclusion from the evidence. It seems Dana was also already aware of all the points Enric raises, as he has been active on boards discussing these off-wiki. Verbal chat 21:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been four (!) large (over 300 patients each) studies showing greater efficacy of Oscillococcinum than placebo in the treatment in influenza. This constitutes “evidence,” and it constitutes replication. Enric’s logic is akin to saying that a person can fly but because he doesn’t fly as fast as a jet, there is no evidence that he can fly. The bottomline here is that the Cochrane Report acknowledges that there is repeated evidence that Oscillococcinum provides greater relief than a placebo in the treatment of the flu. They describe these results as “promising,” and even though they do not recommend Oscillococcinum as a “first line” of treatment for the flu, wikipedia does not simply include references to “first line” treatments.

I also want to call your attention to a report on Oscillococcinum research published in the Lancet on April 22, 1989 (page 914), under the title “Quadruple-blind.” This report notes that, “A 7% difference in efficacy as defined would be a respectable proportion in most drug trials.” Can we assume that the Lancet is notable and a reliable source? This reference is important, and if Enric or Verbal still think that the "little" effect from Oscillococcinum is inadequate, that reference and discussion should be along side the reference from the Lancet that suggests that it is more than adequate.

How or why Enric would quote Gao (or anyone else) who suggests that the Oscillococcinum studies are small or not high quality is a bit unclear. I ask Enric to state for the record what is the minimum number in which all wiki articles should reference research? While you’re considering this question, please remember that even Shang included an Oscillococcinum study in his review.

If wikipedia were only to reference research that is fully proven, we would have to delete great amounts of material here. The bottomline is that the Cochrane Report and Pedriatrics Infectious Disease Journal are high-impact sources.

As for Enric’s reference to “Clinical Research in Complementary Therapies,” he has provided an additional reference for us adding some more references to research that has been replicated, including M. Wiesenauer, R. Ludtke, "A Meta-analysis of the Homeopathic Treatment of Pollinosis with Galphimia glauca," Forsch Komplementarmed., 3(1996):230-234.

Finally, Enric has suggested that the above reference concludes, “studies are not conclusive at all and that the better studies show worse results for homeopathy.” This statement is not a review or a critique of the above studies. DanaUllman 22:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I find this kind of advocacy disturbing, especially so soon after a block. It flies against the evidence and shows a troubling attitude. What lessons has Dana learned? Few it seems. I hope the evidence page is undeleted so it can properly be reviewed. If what Dana said was true this would be big news, very big. Yet it isn't. Taken in totality, there is no good evidence that Oscillococcinum or any homeopathic treatment is more effective than placebo. Verbal chat 22:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Verbal: This is not advocacy. He is explaining why he thinks the article is not accurate and not neutral. Almost all the studies about Oscillococcinum state that it is better than placebo. Keep in mind that the title summary of the The Cochrane review is "Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum does not prevent influenza but might shorten the length of the illness". They chose to summarize their review with these words. It could be added that "Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes" because larger studies are needed.--JeanandJane (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It clearly is advocacy, and I'm now worried about canvassing. "Might" does not translate into "Though promising". This was excluded, correctly, at the Oscillococcinum page - in a discussion you were involved with. Oscillococcinum is not recommended for any medical condition. Verbal chat 09:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the new definition of "advocacy" those people who reference randomized double-blind placebo controlled trials published in high-impact journals? Yeah...I too am glad that there is a record of what I wrote AND of what type of strong POV responses it engenders. DanaUllman 23:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reviews (secondary sources) are better than trials (primary sources), and you know what the reviews say. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Enric...you are confusing reviews of the entire field of homeopathy with reviews on homeopathic treatments of specific diseases. Please response to THESE specific reviews.DanaUllman 00:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Which specific reviews? You started off by talking about "four large studies" of oscillococcinum for flu, but haven't cited anything supporting that apart from the Cochrane review, which while it described some results as "promising" says that the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation. That's hardly a resoundingly positive result. Incidentally, it appears that the Cochrane review in question has been withdrawn from publication because "the authors are currently unable to update it". Looking at its history in that document it appears that no new studies were included since the review's original publication in 2000. There doesn't seem to be any new information here as far as oscillococcinum is concerned.

You say that there have been four (you even give it an exclamation mark the second time) "large studies showing efficacy in the treatment of influenza by Oscillococcinum". However, the citations you give for this are to the Cochrane review (which concluded on the basis of trials reported between 11 and 25 years ago that "confirmatory trials of Oscillococcinum as a treatment are warranted" - hardly an indication that sufficient replication has been achieved), and for some bizarre reason one of the Jacobs et al diarrhea papers. Have the "confirmatory trials" that the Cochrane review suggested been carried out in the three years since the review was last updated? Do you have references for these "four (!)" large studies? Brunton (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Brunton : The best available review states that a therapeutic effect has been recorded. The summary title of the writers speaks for itself. "Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum does not prevent influenza but might shorten the length of the illness" . It is misleading not to report this information with the note "confirmatory trials of Oscillococcinum as a treatment are warranted" - anything else is inaccurate and shows a very strong point of view. --JeanandJane (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice the word "might" in that title? The results are inconclusive. Brunton (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If the results were inconclusive they would have reported it. We can use the same words they used without any changes. This is the most fair solution. --JeanandJane (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You can access the latest Cochrane Report here: http://www.cochrane.org/news/articles/CD001957_standard.pdf

Once again, studies confirming as treatment as "first line" are not the only studies mentioned on wikipedia. If THIS is what you are asserting should be new wiki policy, please say so. While there is no evidence that Oscillo is effective in the prevention of influenza, there is evidence that it reduces the length of the disease itself. Further, my reference to the Lancet news and notes about one Oscillo study provides additional reliable source material. Please comment on this before denying inclusion for reference to these investigations. Are you, Brunton, suggesting that wiki now delete studies that are over 11 years old? Please clarify.

Please also clarify your concerns about the Jacobs papers (it seems that your comment on them was unfinished).

To clarify, I misspoke above when I said that all four trials have 300 patients. Actually, in total, the four treatment trials included 1,194 patients. DanaUllman 14:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the latest version of that Cochrane review, from The Cochrane Library 2009 Issue 3 (rather than the 2009 issue 2 version you linked to) can be found here: http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html It says: "The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication", as I commented above.

I have not suggested that we should delete studies that are over 11 years old, as should be obvious from what I actually wrote. I'm pointing out that the Cochrane review you mentioned (itself originally published 9 years ago) was based on studies this old and older, and concluded that confirmatory studies were warranted. If confirmatory studies are warranted then there has evidently not been sufficient replication of results. Have any such studies been carried out in the 9 years since the review was originally published? I was also pointing out the age of the studies in the review you referenced as it seems relevant to your complaint that an only slightly older reference used in the article is "a tad dated".

I take it that The "four (!)" positive studies are the ones on which the Cochrane review based its not very conclusive conclusions, so nothing new here.

Finally, the point I was making about Jacobs was simply that you appeared to be using it to support your claim about the "four large studies" of Oscillococcinum for flu, and that it therefore doesn't appear relevant to the statement you were using it to support. Brunton (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Oscillo and Jacobs studies are different, and I had no intention of using one to support the other. My point is that there ARE studies in homeopathy that verify its efficacy: Oscillococcinum, the Jacobs studies, and the Ludtke allergy studies. It is inconsequential whether any of these treatments are "first line" or not. It would seem that our article at present is simply inaccurate, and we should make it accurate. Let's now discuss what is a way to make it more accurate. DanaUllman 16:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The studies you cite do not verify homeopathy's efficacy. They show results that their authors believe warrant further study. It would be a big help to the article if we removed the homeopathic apologist fluff, ill logic and outright delusion. — NRen2k5, 18:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to this year's edition of wasting time with DanaUllman (talk · contribs). This article is going to cover its topic, not advocate for its adherents. Full stop. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the studies cited above show a statistically significant difference between the treatment and placebo (with a p-value of <0.05) and have all had replications studies that has done likewise. I cannot but notice that noone here has yet to response to the Lancet news and notes about earlier Oscillo research. Let's avoid stonewalling, and I hope that NRen2k5 will be more specific in his criticisms of the studies...and remember that a treatment does NOT have to be "first line" treatment for inclusion in this article. This is not "advocacy" (other than advocating for accuracy). Referencing meta-analyses is not advocacy, especially when these meta-analyses have been published in high-impact journals. At present, the article's information about the non-replication of homeopathic research has been shown above to be inaccurate. Let's move to solution rather than stonewalling. I'm unclear if 2Over0 is suggesting that we stop referencing meta-analyses and replication studies (I hope not) DanaUllman 05:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any further information about the Lancet paper you have cited? The Item at page 914 published on 22nd April 1989 (Vol. 333) is titled "Notes and News". I don't have access to the text of this. Do you have an author's name for the article titled "Quadruple Blind" to help track it down? Brunton (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found a reference to it elsewhere - it seems to have been discussing Ferley 1989, one of the trials considered in the Cochrane review, so it doesn't appear to add anything to that. Brunton (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Dana, would you mind clarifying exactly what you are contending? You write of "four (!) large ... studies showing greater efficacy of Oscillococcinum than placebo in the treatment in influenza", and later "the studies cited above show a statistically significant difference between the treatment and placebo (with a p-value of <0.05) and have all had replications studies that has done likewise". Which four studies are you referring to? Which study do you consider to be a replication of which other study? I am assuming the statistical significance refers to the primary outcome measure, that the replication studies follow essentially the same protocol as the first study but are done by an independent research group, that no other studies using the same protocol but obtaining a contradictory result have been published, and that all studies are of high quality (randomized, placebo controlled, double blind, etc.). If you are talking about something, else, please let me know. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanx Art for your questions. The 4 studies to which I refer are a part of the Cochrane Report above, including a total of 1,194 patients. As the Lancet article, it IS important because some people have asserted that the benefit that the Ferley trial showed was too small to be clinically relevant, but the Lancet article asserts otherwise. The Lancet news and notes provides additional evidence for this study being a high quality trial and noteworthy (or they would not have mentioned it). The "News and Notes" section of the Lancet does not list authors. DanaUllman 14:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Back to the proposed wording

I proposed a wording some comments above: "several attempts of replication have not been able to establish (with enough confidence?) its efficacy beyond placebo, and more research is needed before recommending its clinical use." and I don't think that Dana has proposed any source that invalidates it, so I'll implement it in a couple of days. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A better wording: "several attempts at replication have not been able to establish any efficacy beyond placebo, and it is not recommended for clinical use." (note attempts at replication)--86.146.119.24 (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That wording is much harsher than what the sources actually say (Ernst, Vickers and Guo, linked at the start of the section above). Maybe "several attempts at replication had several flaws that don't allow them to establish convincingly efficacy beyond placebo, and current research does not warrant recommending its clinical use." --Enric Naval (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How about: According to The Cochrane review "Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum does not prevent influenza but might shorten the length of the illness". The writers also noted that "Though promising, the data were not strong enough to make a general recommendation to use Oscillococcinum for first-line treatment of influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Further research is warranted but the required sample sizes are large."--JeanandJane (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean Vickers 2006? No, that's way too much weight to one positive review of the effects in one illness, specially in the lead, and specially one that is not conclusive, and that doesn't even recommend to use the remedy. See also all the other negative reviews in Homeopathy#Research_on_medical_effectiveness. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No I mean The Cochrane review as I wrote. This is the best available review. This is what they reported - do you think that the conclusions of writers of the Cochrane review show any point of view ?--JeanandJane (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish to assume good faith, but I am confused why Enric has written what he has written above. Enric's proposal is not based on the above cited evidence. Before I make my proposed changes, I will be curious what other people propose. DanaUllman 14:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Please keep this section at the bottom. TO ADD A NEW SECTION, just click the EDIT link at the right and add the new section ABOVE this one. Then copy the heading into the edit summary box.

1. Pray WS (1992), "A challenge to the credibility of homeopathy", Am J Pain Management (2): 63–71
2. English J (1992), "The issue of immunization", Br Homeopath J, 81 (4): 161–3, doi:10.1016/S0007-0785(05)80171-1
3. Case of Baby Gloria, who died in 2002:
   • Homeopath Thomas Sam guilty of daughter Gloria's death, The Daily Telegraph, June 5, 2009
   • Homeopathy kills, Phil Plait, Discover Magazine, June 5, 2009
4. "Parents guilty of manslaughter over daughter's eczema death", The Canberra Times, June 5, 2009
5. Eisenberg, David M., et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 280, November 11, 1998, pp. 1569-75
6. Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub3.
7. J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34.

• 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 pharmacology articles
• Unknown-importance pharmacology articles
• WikiProject Pharmacology articles
• GA-Class Alternative medicine articles
• GA-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• GA-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages