Talk:Homeopathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Homeopathy is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 20 September 2006
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Introduction too long?

I agree that this whole article is too long but the problem is not the introduction. I have reverted the introduction back to the previous version. I do not understand how the introduction can be viewed as too long since it fits the guidelines perfectly ( Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section). The guideline recommends four paragraphs for a long article. Certainly the minute version that i just reverted does not encompass the content of the article whatsoever. The introduction is supposed to be an abstract of the whole article not just a definition of the topic. David D. (Talk) 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The article should be a general overview of homeopathy that includes its history, fundamentals, practical applications, controversies and links to further resources. Specific areas of a more intensively scientific or theorehtical nature should be their own articles that this article would direct readers to. As a reader who is already familiar with homeopathic principles, I look at this article and I'm lost. —Morganfitzp 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


no opinion - I'm going to copyedit for redundancy and grammar only, and try to at least get the flow a bit less awkward and the word count down a tiny bit. If even someone who knows the subject is lost, it may be time to split it up, whether or not it looks like a POV-motivated split.

Resonanteye 15:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] KB

One down, 50 to go! ;) Just kidding. I did a bit of minor grammar and condensing, let me know on my talk page if I made any errors or changed meaning or conten unintentionally. I am new and would appreciate your feedback. I knew nothing about this, really, when I started, but I found it very interesting to read. Resonanteye

[edit] Quackery category

We need to beware of false balance--which is an NPOV violation, albeit subtle--here on the Wikipedia; tiptoing around calling something universally recognized by scientists "quackery" is a good example thereof.

None of the methods, products, or services listed in the Quackery category (e.g. Dianetics, part of the Scientologist pseudoreligion) would be called such by their backers. Yet they are there because an objective, reasonable, scientific person would call them such. Homeopathy belongs in that number.

In short it is completely unreasonable to keep something out of the "Quackery" category because its advocates don't consider it quackery. Requiring universal acknowledgement that bunk is bunk misses the point of having such a category!

Please show some factual basis for the claim that homeopathy is "universally recognized by scientists as "quackery"" . --Lee Hunter 23:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Please show some factual basis for homeopathy! It's been proven to not work and its practicioners' clams violate the laws of chemistry and physics. Bkalafut 08:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Bkalafut, you are placing the burden of proof on the wrong side. Quackery is a derogatory term, and it is imcumbent on those who want to use the label to justify it. Proponents of homeopathy may very well want to slap a category called "The healthy alternative to allopathy" on this article, and then they would have to prove this. --Leifern 22:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It's already been proven by (1) being based on principles contradictory to chemistry and physics--in other words, having no possible mechanism for working, save the placebo effect or adulteration with real medicine (which has happened) and (2) having been shown to not work in just about every credible scientific test. Furthermore it fits the definition given on the quackery page. Shall we also remove Dianetics due to the belief by scientologists that it works? Shall the hollow-earth theory be removed from pseudoscience? Burden of proof my foot! If the proof before you doesn't suffice, nothing will. Bkalafut 02:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It would be enormously helpful if you had some knowledge of the way efficacy and safety of conventional medicine works. It is extremely difficult and expensive to sort out all those effects in anything but the most rigorously designed and executed clinical trials, and these typically cost millions of dollars. And even then, the biostatistical evidence is never as overwhelming as people might think. Homeopathic remedies have in fact gone through clinical trials, and the outcome of these are certainly indicative that they're efficacious. There is absolutely no evidence that they don't work, which is why a predominance of scientists (many of which use homeopathic remedies) and medical doctors will shrug at homeopathy and profess they're not sure. Meanwhile, there is overwhelming clinical evidence that homeopathy works, but since homeopathic practitioners by definition are considered unreliable compared to practitioners of conventional wisdom, this evidence is discarded. --Leifern 11:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Homeopathic remedies have in fact gone through clinical trials, and the outcome of these are certainly indicative that they're efficacious." That's a false statement. -- Fyslee 12:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"There is absolutely no evidence that they don't work," That's a false statement. -- Fyslee 12:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"which is why a predominance of scientists (many of which use homeopathic remedies) and medical doctors will shrug at homeopathy and profess they're not sure." That's a false statement. -- Fyslee 12:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


That might be a little unfair as there aren't always polls being conducted of scientists. I can't point to any poll showing that there's a universal acknowledgement that Atantis or Bigfoot is nonsense. However, Homeopathy can be considered quackery because: 1. Has been around for over a century but has not managed to be accepted by the scientific community 2. Violates very very well established laws of physcis and chemistry 3. Plausible mechanisms have not been proposed or proven 4. After a century, only unreliableanecdotal evidence exists as to whether it works. No good scientific evidence exists. 5. Well designed studies show that it doesn't work.--Havermayer 00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All the points you make are either vague, meaningless, incorrect, highly POV or all of the above. For example, the phrase "accepted by the scientific community" is pretty much meaningless. Some scientists have an open mind about homeopathy, some have rejected it, most probably couldn't care less. There are actually many medical doctors that practise homeopathy or refer patients to homeopaths. The fact that a phenomena can't be explained by current science knowledge doesn't make it quackery. Mechanisms have been proposed but plausibility is a matter of opinion. Whether or not there is currently a "plausible" theory doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it works. There are a number of peer-reviewed studies that appear to show benefits but some people seem to think that a study that shows positive results should be automatically disqualified. And yes there is anecdotal evidence. A staggering amount of anecdotal evidence. It's not proof, but it's not typical of quackery to have millions of very satisfied customers. --Lee Hunter 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
To address #1- Acupuncture was around for 4000 years and has only recently been accepted by science. We could name hundreds of cases where the scientific community would not accept the truth. #2. What famous person demonstrated that the law of conservation of mass was invalid???? Our friend Albert Einstein of course with his famous equation E=mc(squared). In fact, many macroscopic laws break down at their limits (or at very small quantities). Did you ever consider that homeopathy has not found its Einstein yet? #3. True, but I will give you mine. A fundamental principle of homeopathy is the law of similars meaning that the remedy given must affect the body the same way the disease does. I believe that by tricking the body into believing it has a stronger disease than it really has, the body reacts stronger to the disease. While I am not an Organon scholar, Hahnemann did suggest something similar. #4. Obviously, you have not been reading your research papers. This article references the Lance article of 2005, but not the 1998 one that is pro-homeopathy. There are a number of papers written by Wayne Jonas and others . None of these articles (which I will have to look up references for) are referenced in this section. I think that we need a new editor in this area. The writing here is very biased which is not the tradition at Wikipedia. I think a simple reporting of the information without name calling "quackery" would be great. In the present form, the page should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drpolich (talk • contribs).
One major difference is that Einstein was providing a theory to explain the known limitations of Newton's laws. Homeopathy is still waiting for evidence that it is no more than a placebo effect. One does not need dilutions to explain such a phenomenon. That is the sellable product that exploits the effect rather than the cause. David D. (Talk) 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Give me some reference to doctors referring patients to homeopaths.

Actually there are quite a few medical doctors who either practise homeopathy or work with homeopaths [1][2][3]It's quite common in Europe and many other parts of the world. Less so in North America, but not underheard of. --Lee Hunter 02:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes- look up American Institute of HOmeopathy- all M.D. and D.O.s. Clearly you are shooting from the hip if you ask such a silly question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drpolich (talk • contribs).

Ah, I should have been clearer. I was thinking more along the line of what percent of doctors refer to homeopaths. If it is just supported by a handful of doctors here and there, it isn't surprising. If you look hard enough, you can find doctors who support pseudo-scientific medical claims (like AIDS reappraisal). They are of course, in the extreme minority. Which is why scientific consensus is a reliable

In answer to your question "The greatest number of health professionals who specialize in homeopathy in the Western world are medical doctors. In Europe where homeopathy is one of the leading alternative medicines, it has been estimated that over 30% of French physicians and 20% of German physicians prescribe homeopathic medicines (Fisher and Ward, 1994), that over 40% of British physicians refer patients to homeopathic doctors (Wharton and Lewith, 1986), and that 45% of Dutch physicians consider homeopathic medicines to be effective (Kleijnen, Knipschild and ter Riet, 1991). These significant numbers suggest that it may no longer be appropriate to consider homeopathy to be "alternative medicine" in Europe." [4] Those figures would seem to indicate that a very substantial segment of the European medical community finds value in homeopathy. You claim that the medical community universally rejects homeopathy. This is clearly not the case. --Lee Hunter 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And, if there was any kind of disagreement among scientists in regards to Homeopathy, that disagreement would reflect itself in the scientific journals.

Also note that an appeal to be open minded is meaningless.

There is no good evidence that there even is a phenomenon at all that needs to be explained. If there were good evidence, then perhaps your point would have merit.

For homeopathy to work, you basically have to chuck out all of physics and chemistry. Not everything is possible, and the possibility of certain explanations are not as high as others.

A plausible mechanism is not just a matter of opinion. By citing another unknown force (such as undetected energy fields) you haven't explained anything at all. Its just ad hoc. You have actually increased what needs to be proven. If some new mechanism were discovered, then that would make homeopathy much more plausible. Second, this brings me to my first point, in that some things become so well established that the likelihood of them being proven wrong is unlikely.

Customer satisfaction is entirely explainable while still maintaining that Homeopathy is bunk.

A million anecdotal stories are not worth even one well designed study. And, more than one study is needed to prove something. Which is why meta-analysis are the best way of determining if it works. Also, design flaws were the result of any positive (the effects were pretty minor actually). In fact, the better designed the studies were, the less of an effect homeopathy was. Also, if it really did work then why would there be so many negative studies anyways?--User:Havermayer 02:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You write that: " For homeopathy to work, you basically have to chuck out all of physics and chemistry. " This is not true, physicists don't typically have a problem since they know that Einstein blew away the macroscopic Conservation of Mass law. For chemistry, only Avagado's number.
With regard to customer satisfaction, I suggest that you look at the photo on my webpage www.dupagehomeopathic.com. Explain how water cured this terrible eczema. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drpolich (talk • contribs).
Neither of these points make sense. Einstein refined the Law he did not blow it away. And what does Avogadro's number have to do with your argument, it has nothing to do with dilutions.
People grow out of eczema. David D. (Talk) 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Since all of this is WP:OR it isn't relevant to Wikipedia. But I will add one comment regarding your claims that the only thing homeopathy requres rejection of is Avogadro's number - a) what does that number have to do with anything b) other than that how did you enjoy the play Mrs. Lincoln? JoshuaZ 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Can LeeHunter offer us a criterion, satisfactory to him, for inclusion of a practice in the Quackery category? I'm not saying we have to satisfy it, but I'm beginning to doubt that one exists. Meanwhile, Homeopathy is still quackery by any reasonable definition of the term and I've re-added it to said category. Bkalafut 08:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to quackery which says that it is a derogatory term and that its use is problematic since it implies deliberate deception. --Lee Hunter 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to quackery which defines it as being based in *either* fraud or ignorance of science.

Bkalafut may not be aware of this, but he/she is regurgitating an ancient and stale argument related to this article, namely that homeopathy is quackery because he/she hasn't found convincing evidence that it works and is plausible according to known scientific principles. A couple of points related to this:

  1. Whether or not Bkalafut is convinced has nothing to do with NPOV. There are lots of clinical trials that at least suggest that homeopathy is efficacious, not to mention clinical experience involving millions of patients and physicians.
  2. In fact, most modern medicine is based on clinical experience rather than rigorous outcomes research. If you're going to apply this standard to every medical and surgical intervention, you'd have to be pretty liberal with the quackery label.
  3. And even those drugs that are widely accepted for certain indications are based on much weaker evidence than people realize. Exhaustive, gold standard clinical trials are insanely expensive, and it's simply unreasonable to hold everything up to that standard if our world is going to make any progress at all.
  4. The fact that elements of homeopathy conflict with known scientific principles is not a valid argument. There are lots of phenomena around us that defy our understanding of nature, in fact an overwhelming amount, which is why there are scientists.

In short, there is no question that homeopathy is controversial, and that some people think it's quackery. But we should limit ourselves to making that point, not presume to be the judge and jury. --Leifern 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Leifern is accusing me of argument from incredulity. Not so. It is the lack of convincing scietific evidence--and the contradiction of what is known from chemistry and physics--that makes Homeopathy quackery. And to place it into the category of things science doesn't understand is downright dishonest. Would you put ghosts there, too? And the Biblical parting of the Red Sea? The number of phenomena that are currently not fully understood ("defy our understanding", as you would say), by the way, is not overwhelming. Perhaps to the lay man, but not to the scientific community. (I ought to know why there are scientists. I am one.) Theories have been becoming fewer and simpler and aside perhaps from reconciliation of quantum mechanics and gravitation, the unknowns have been becoming more and more subtle. The placebo effect is well known and better understood all the time. Homeopathy is only controversial because it has current adherents. It is not subject to scientific controversy and its inclusion in the Quackery category follows from said category's definition. We as editors ultimately must "presume to be judge and jury" all the time. To not do so here would be false balance; excluding Homeopathy from the quackery category would mean that it is not a medical practice based on either fraud (they're selling water!) or ignorance of science. Avoiding the facts--Homeopathy's lack of basis in science is fact--because some people's belief systems get in the way is POV. Exclusion from the Quackery category is taking the side of the homeopathic hucksters and true believers, the only ones claiming that there is actual basis in science. Bkalafut 08:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no justification for applying derogatory, loaded, emotional and polemical terms except in the body of the article where it can be noted as the opinion of critics. For those who feel that homeopathy is unscientific, there is already a pseudoscience category. --192.150.5.2 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bkalafut wrote: The number of phenomena that are currently not fully understood ("defy our understanding", as you would say), by the way, is not overwhelming. Perhaps to the lay man, but not to the scientific community. (I ought to know why there are scientists. I am one.) It is indeed overwhelming, and if you haven't realized that, well, all I can say is you have a lot to learn. --Leifern 14:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming? That would imply that a vast majority of everyday phenomona were poorly understood. Give some examples. Bkalafut 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Gravity. Light. Mammalian metabolism. Genomes. Human behavior. Should I go on? Ask "why" more than three times, and you can stump any expert in the field. As a former grad student myself, I am familiar with the common disorder called hubris around education. I commute daily with the executive editor of one of the most prestigous scientific journals in the world, and when I asked her about the state of science, she just shook her head and said "the amount we don't know compared to what we do is simply astonishing." I have had in-depth conversations with some of the leading scientists within several fields of medicine, and what characterizes the best of them is humility of their discipline, even if they are unbelievably arrogant with respect to their peers. --Leifern 21:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Light is very well understood. Gravity, likewise, in its domain of applicability. Human behavior, better and better by the year. Genomes are well-understood; the questions left are subtle. To use the perhaps inherent incompleteness of scientific understanding as an argument that the homeopaths may after all be right in disbelieving long-settled principles of chemistry and physics--such as the molecular theory and what happens whan you push a serial dilution to its extreme--is fallacious bullshittery. Humility comes with knowing and accepting the boundaries of understanding, not faking that we don't understand things we actually do. And that executive editor is failing to put things in perspective and thus feeding your worldview that has us not understanding an "overwhelming" amount of Nature. So overwhelming that we must not be able to make microchips, send space probes to distant planets, cure diseases that plagued Mankind for generations, engage in genetic engineering, catalogue the proteome and even make new and better proteins. "Overwhelming" would mean that science has little to no explanation for what transpires at everyday length, energy, and time scales.Bkalafut 02:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Loxlie: Well obviously I think Homeopathy is quackery. However, "Quackery" is clearly a NPOV term, and would not be acceptable (unqualified) in the body of any article, let alone as a category, where by definition it cannot be qualified or in any way balanced. That just leads to long rambling discussions on the talk page, such as this one, and already few of the above arguments are about the use of the category, but about the validity of Homeopathy itself. It only serves to more fully entrench those on the defensive, as is entirely demonstrated here, rather than more productive discussions, such as about the Placebo effect. (I'll just say that again: Placebo effect.) Seriously, whether one believes it's complete tosh or the secret to life itself, Category:Pseudoscience will do... Loxlie 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of the quackery category is to list topics that are often regarded as being quackery. Adding the category to an article doesn't violate POV by itself. Without this article, the quackery category serves no purpose. -- Ec5618 17:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the quackery category serves no purpose. --Lee Hunter 18:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
It can serve the purpose of listing topics that are often regarded as being quackery. Even if you do not agree that homeopathy is quackery, you'll have to acknowledge that it has often been accused of it. Consider that the article on quackery currently doesn't contain a list of supposed quackery, which means that anyone reading the article in hopes of finding examples will be disappointed.
Again, listing an article in the quackery category does not prove that the article is about quackery. It merely serves as a guide to navigate Wikipedia. -- Ec5618 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Categories are not typically used to label "things that some people think might belong together". For example, several surveys have shown that an overwhelming majority of the world's population thinks that George Bush is the most dangerous world leader. Despite that "fact" a "Dangerous world leaders" category would not get much traction. Or if it did, would lead to endless reverts and rather pointless arguments. --Lee Hunter 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Since quackery is defined with respect to the scientific consensus the classification has a little more weight than whether or not Joe Schmoe considers someone to be a dangerous world leader. Bkalafut 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Scientists are not accorded some special privilege of making derogatory comments. --Lee Hunter 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm just gonna chime in here to record my own opinion that, if there is to exist a quackery category, then homeopathy is to be the paragon of something that belongs in just such a category. If homeopathy is not quackery, then nothing is. Matt Gies 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is precisely because your (or my) opinion is not a credible source that we have an NPOV policy here at Wikipedia rather than a mob rule. --Leifern 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Which necessitates its inclusion as it meets the definition.
The prevalent view of scientists about homeopathy is that it is quackery. It is difficult to produce a reference on this, just as it would be difficult to produce a reference about what the scientific community think of the flat earth theory. You really don't have to poll them on these things. Does it make a difference that practitioners of homeopathy believe in homeopathy themselves? Not really. The beliefs of flat earthists don't have any effect on the actual shape of the earth, either. Pseudoscience which make no claims about power to heal belongs in the pseudoscience category. Pseudoscience that claims power to heal and is widely marketed as medicine belongs in the pseudoscience and the quackery category. --EthicsGradient 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
From the quackery article "Since there is no exact standard for what constitutes quackery, and how to differentiate it from experimental medicine, protoscience, religious and spiritual beliefs, etc., accusations of quackery are often part of polemics against one party or other, and sometimes in polemic exchanges" --Lee Hunter 01:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Also from the Quackery section:
Since it is difficult to distinguish between those who knowingly promote unproven medical therapies and those who are mistaken as to their effectiveness, U.S. courts have ruled in defamation cases that accusing someone of quackery or calling him a quack does not automatically mean that he or she is committing medical fraud — in order to be both a quack and a fraud, the quack has to know that he/she is misrepresenting the benefits and risks of the medical services offered (instead of, for example, promoting an ineffective product which the quack honestly believes is effective).
Bkalafut had a very good point above. What usable definition of Quackery would save homeopathy from this category while still being effective to put, say, 'magnet theraphy' or 'quantum healing' in it? --EthicsGradient 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Loxlie: I do not dispute for one second that the vast majority of scientists and doctors (even those that refer their patients to it) denote it as "quackery". All I'm saying is that it's an inherently derogatory (and archaic) term, and therefore not suitable OR HELPFUL to anyone as a category. You're quite right in the implication that I should take this direct to the discussion page of the category itself, where a "medical pseudoscience" category has already been suggested, which would be quite fine by me... Loxlie 01:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also have no problem with a "medical pseudoscience" category applied to homeopathy. As much as I'm a strong believer in homeopathy (due to a very convincing personal experience), it does defy rational or scientific explanation. What I object to is classifying the article using a word which is both derogatory and, (perhaps ironically) "pseudoscientific". --Lee Hunter 03:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC

[edit] Double standards in WP

Electroconvulsive therapy is highly controversial, with no agreed mechanism of action, but the majority of psychiatrists apparently believe that it is effective for certain conditions. But it is not included in the pseudoscience or quackery categories. Why not? Jedermann 11:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above notes that the "quackery" label refers to the attitude of the scientific establishment in the relevant field. If "the majority of psychiatrists" believe in ECT, as you assert, then it's not quackery. Of course, the majority can be wrong. If there's a notable POV against ECT, then our article should fairly present that POV, but the "quackery" label is inapplicable. JamesMLane t c 11:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's like saying "if the majority of homeopaths believe in homeopathy it's not quackery". --Lee Hunter 13:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as the "scientific establishment" - the term is used entirely as a strawman to promote a point of view. Electroconvulsive therapy, along with dozens of other therapies, has gone through waves of popularity, been rejected, modified, found new interest, etc., etc. Psychiatrists advocate it because their empirical, largely clinical experience suggests that it works in certain cases. Barrett's definition of quackery is bogus because it ignores the inconvenient fact that a huge proportion of modern medicine is not evidence-based at all but based on effects that practitioners have observed and reported. Hence all the arguments about generic vs. branded drugs. Clearly, this article should state what the controversy about homeopathy is all about, just like the articles on electroconvulsive therapy, flu shots, etc., but to categorize it as quackery is to surrender to one group's opinion, which is what we're not supposed to do here. --Leifern 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as the scientific establishment? Of course there is. The shape of the earth is well established, as is the validity of the atomic theory, the theory of evolution, the dose-response phenomenon and a vast number of other things. I thought we'd already been through that. --EthicsGradient 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You use the term "scientific establishment" to refer to a group of people among whom it would be possible to gain a consensus on a particular issue. None exists. There are some facts that enjoy the unanimous acceptance among scientists the world, but not as many as one might think. Some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs have come because some scientists were unwilling to accept conventional wisdom. --Leifern 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Quackery cat as a whole, then propose its deletion. If not, then this article should be listed in it. The quackery category exists, as I've said before, to list topics that are often regarded as being quackery. -- Ec5618 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Often regarded" is a weasel term and not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Leifern 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Often regarded" appears in this discussion, not in the article... If we were to de-weasle all the talk-pages of Wikipedia, we'd be in for a lot of work. --EthicsGradient 16:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You are using weasel words to justify a categorization. I think you understand this. --Leifern 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I in turn think that you understand that homeopathy is often regarded as quackery. I think we can agree that the quackery category is poorer without this article. So what is the problem? Are you saying that homeopathy doesn't pertain to quackery? The category lists items that have to do with quackery, whether rightly or wrongly. And whatever your stance, it is clear that homeopathy is often labeled as quackery. -- Ec5618 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what Wikipedia's "avoid weasel words" dictum is all about. "Weasel words" are turns of phrase that can be included in an article to make it NPOV without directly reflecting one opinion or the other. "Often regarded" may or may not be a weasel term, and if it is it's not appropriate for use *in the article itself*. To assert that we can't use it in this discussion is an attempt at diversion and bullshittery, a rude attempt to discredit your opponent because you can't debunk his position. 128.196.189.108 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not particularly inclined to respond to an unregistered editor who is trying to start an edit war on this issue, but I think you know better. If someone wants to slap a category on an article because the term is "often regarded," he/she is using sloppy logic camouflaged with weasel words to justify his/her POV pushing. I didn't edit out the term "weasel word," I merely said the justification was inadequate. --Leifern 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts are that these arguments are not just against this article's placement in Category:Quackery, but in any article's being placed there. I suggest that you take this argument to that category's talk page, and come up with some neutral principles for which to determine an article's suitability for it, and then this and other potential-quackery articles or subcategories can refer there. Tyciol 08:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Surely the categorisation as "alternative medicine" is sufficient. Those who regard alternative medicine as quackery believe the terms to be synonymous in any case while those who are advocates of alternative medicine embrace the term. Surely "quackery" is simply a perjorative term for "alternative medicine" in any case. Aop27 00:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aop27 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Absolutely not. Medicine can be alternative without having it be quackery. For example some herbal remedies may not be quakery although they are generally classified as alternative medicine. JoshuaZ 00:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mob categorization

I hold no particular light for homeopathy, but all I see to justify the categorization of Homeopathy as quackery is opinion. The burden of proof for categorizing a topic with a derogatory label should fall on those who want this categorization. It is shameful if this approach should prevail here, and it only serves to discredit Wikipedia. I would encourage everyone to be intellectually honest on this topic and set aside whatever personal prejudices or opinions they might have. --Leifern 16:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, since homeopathy is an often used example of quackery, whether rightly or wrongly, I feel it should thus be included in the category, just as the The National Council Against Health Fraud is listed. That organisation isn't quackery, but it does pertain to the issue. -- Ec5618 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a world of difference between noting a derogatory comment in the text of an article where we would always (and I mean always) explain who is making the comment and why versus using the same derogatory comment as a category. It's a derisive label applied by a few members of the medical community for something that is widely endorsed by members of that same community (note the figures I provided above) --Lee Hunter 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Since homeopathy is an often used example of quackery, whether rightly or wrongly, I feel it should thus be included in the category, just as the The National Council Against Health Fraud is listed. That organisation isn't quackery, but it does pertain to the issue. -- Ec5618 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I will say that I absolutely think that Homeopathy is completely fraudulent like most other forms of "alternate medicine" like psychic surgery. I think that its primary supporters are neither medical experts of any kind, or in most cases even honest. However, I do no support the inclusion of the "quakery" category in this article. As long as there exists a different pov (no matter how stupid and invalid it is) the encyclopedia is taking sides by including the cat. When a pov category is allowed to be included it gives the pov the appearence of being indisputable. I would go so far as to say that this category is indicative of a larger problem on wikipedia, the fact that categories have become an effective way for people to discreetly insert their bias into an article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of quackery

Lee Hunter just removed the quackery category, on the basis that, according to him, "By definition, quackery can't be a widely accepted practice". I can find no mention of such a stiputation in our article. European MDs use homeopathy when all else fails, which doesn't mean they see it as a valid alternative, but rather as a last resort. Some patients do believe in homeopathy, and doctors do believe in the placebo effect. So what's your point? Homeopathy is not quackery because not all doctors forbid their patients from considering it? -- Ec5618 18:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your assertion that "European MDs use homeopathy when all else fails". My understanding is that European MDs use homeopathy in their daily practice as an alternative to treatments that are toxic or invasive. You can't have it both ways - that homeopathy is quackery because the medical community says it is and then when I point out that a very large segment of the medical community thinks differently, say that it doesn't matter what the medical community thinks. --Lee Hunter 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ec5618, Lee Hunter is right. You are insisting that your opinion carry more weight than any other considerations here, going so far as to speculate about the motives for prevalent medical practices among mainstream MDs. The article clearly outlines the controversy surrounding homeopathy, so nobody is trying to hide things here. I think it's time to let this go. --Leifern 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking above I can't find any evidence provided for homeopathy being now considered scientific medicine, in Europe or elsewhere. And prevalence doesn't mean a thing. Santeria is big in Latin America, that doesn't make it science. 128.196.189.108 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge, santaria is not practiced by medical doctors. If you believe that quackery is something that has been universally rejected by the medical profession, you can't apply that label to a treatment which is widely embraced by the medical profession. (Never mind the fact that noone has so far provided any documentation to support the claim that the medical profession unversally or even widely regards homeopathy as quackery. All I've heard so far is "everybody knows this is true". Pseudoscience, indeed. ) --Lee Hunter 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Some medical doctors suggest prayer to terminal patients. That doesn't make it science.
And again, the point is not that 'everyone knows homeopathy is quackery'. The point is that it is an often used example of quackery. Whether that means it actually is quackery is irrelevant. -- Ec5618 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You write "Whether that means it actually is quackery is irrelevant." Wow! That's a rather astonishing admission isn't it? So it doesn't matter if it is or isn't quackery we're still going to categorize it as quackery. Why? Well some people think maybe it is. Who thinks so? Well, we can't say, but we're sure they're out there somewhere. That's really encyclopedic isn't it?--Lee Hunter 01:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
What you percieve to be an admission of something is not. I am suggesting that, even if homeopathy is not in any way comparable to quackery, it is still a prime example of quackery in that it is often used as such. Which means that it is relevant from the perspective of quackery. Adding an article to the quackery category labels it as dealing with issues of quackery. Homeopathy clearly does. That you choose to percieve POV issues is your own problem. Even if no argument could be made that homeopathy is quackery, it should still be added to the category. And obviously, such an argument is easily made.
Also, you seem to have missed the main point of this section. You stated that, by definition, quackery cannot be a widely accepted practice. Back it up, or take it back. -- Ec5618 01:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm reeling in confusion here. You write "I am suggesting that, even if homeopathy is not in any way comparable to quackery, it is still a prime example of quackery". I'm sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around that one at all. At all. Regarding my point that quackery can't be a widespread practice. Well, isn't that rather self-evident? If it's a part of mainstream medicine, you can't very well call it quackery can you. Or maybe you can. You're the one that insists it's ok to label it as quackery even if it isn't. I'm going to have to lie down, my head is spinning. --Lee Hunter 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
LeeHunter, I think your opponents are arguing that since it is not part of established medicine (individual use is NOT established) nor of medical study, theory, or doctrine. Placebo use, or individual dissociative use does not include it within standard medicine. As for quackery, anything claimed to work without proof can be considered quackery. Pro-Homeopathics claim their proof is adequate, Anti-Homeopathics do not. This article would explore that issue of quackery and reasoning for/against both sides. Tyciol 08:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Lee Hunter, I am suggesting that, even if homeopathy is not in any way comparable to quackery, it is still a prime example of quackery in that it is often used as such. Which means that it is relevant from the perspective of quackery. Adding an article to the quackery category labels it as dealing with issues of quackery. Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts in future, as I read yours. -- Ec5618 08:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I to understand you missed this reply, Lee Hunter? -- Ec5618 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
No I didn't miss it. I just didn't think it was necessary to reply. Let me give you an example of another controversial topic: Islamofascism. There has been at least one attempt to add a category of Islamofascism. Since Islamofascism is a poorly defined, polemical, pejorative term (not unlike quackery) the category was deleted even though it could reasonably be argued that certain articles do "deal with issues of" Islamofascism. --Lee Hunter 15:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If that is your opinion then you should nominate category quackery for deletion. However, as long as that category does exist then this article matches the criteria for inclusion and so should be catagorised as such. Jefffire 16:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The process of moving quackery to something more reasonable is already underway. Because quackery is, as I have said, poorly-defined, perjorative, POV and generally a piss-poor excuse for a category, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't reject it's application here or anywhere else. --Lee Hunter 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A question to all those who beLIEve and have faith in homeopathy. What evidence must we produce to satisfy to you that homeopathy deserves the categorisation of quackery? Skeptic Jim 13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I neither believe nor have faith in homeopathy, but I am familiar with the most important evidence and simply don't think that the arguments put forward justify putting a negative category of it, that's clearly based on opinion. I think that all the skepticism about homeopathy should be clearly and prominently described in the article, but to label it as "quackery" is to assume that we as editors have the right to make that final determination. And we don't. It's that simple. I am open to a broader discussion on whether the category should exist, but I know that CFD debates rarely go anywhere unless things have been primed first. To give you a comparison: I think there is overwhelming evidence that Josef Stalin was a mass-murdering, antisemitic tyrant, but I'm not pushing for these various categories to be applied on his biographical article. The facts should allow the reader to draw their own conclusion. What I do wonder about, is the near religious fervor to condemn homeopathy by people who for the most part know little about it. --Leifern 13:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Leifern. It doesn't have anything to do with believing or disbelieving in homeopathy. If you read this talk page you'll see that a number of people who are strongly opposed to homeopathy have problems with quackery as a category. They have pointed out that the word is vague, archaic, poorly defined, controversial and an underhanded way of pushing a POV. --Lee Hunter 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
About the last statement of Leifern. It is not necessary to know all the ins and outs of homeopathy to criticise it. It is enought to weight the evidence for and against, have knowledge of the regression fallacy, placebo effects and other phenomena, and combine them with a general knowledge of science. You don't have to know the taste and texture of 300 different types of cheese to dismiss the theory that the moon is made of a mixture of milk proteins and fat. --EthicsGradient 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Noone is suggesting that criticism of homeopathy should not be included in the article. The question is whether "quackery" is a sufficiently useful, NPOV and encyclopedic term for the purpose of categorization. --Lee Hunter 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote, it was a comment to Leiferns statement about critics' poor understanding of homeopathy. I'll grant you that we should do our best to keep the discussion focused. Now, to respond to some of the statements made above...
  • Stalin is long dead. He can have no (direct) influence on your life. Homeopathy is very real as a social phenomenon. Labelling it in an appropriate manner can provide useful information about the world, and how to - let's say - navigate your life.
  • There are many examples in conventional medicine of treatments that are not evidence-based, as such. But these treatments don't usually go directly against the grain of very well established facts of chemistry and physics. Additionally, there is much ongoing effort to remedy this by improving the scientific standars of medicine.
  • I know about ECT, but not the details. It sounds quite horrible, and perhaps it should be labelled as Quackery as well. However, it is a treatment of mental ailments, and while our knowledge of how the world works pertaining chemistry and dose-dependency, atomic theory and so on is very good, our knowledge of how the mind work is not. Which should be a strong argument for not zapping people like this. It seems to be a bit like slapping a TV around hoping it will show a clear picture.
  • Yes, there are many who are against putting Homeopathy into the Quackery section. No argument in itself. There is also, remember, a number of people who think that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... then it probably is a duck.
Lastly, for now, I would say that with the vast amount of information available nowadays - good and bad - the need for reliable categories is much needed. Even highly trained, independently thinking people like scientists often use categories to help them assess the validity of a claim. For example, they'd often put more weight on a statement about chemistry originating from the journal Science than Chemistry Weekly. This discussion is obviously also about the usefulness of the Q cat. I tend to think that it is, indeed, useful. --EthicsGradient 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
All interesting and valid points, but absolutely irrelevant for purposes of Wikipedia. It is not our job to provide medical advice, and any suggestion that we do would be highly problematic. --Leifern 16:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, almost all of the above is irrelevant. Note 8 is reliable source labeling homeopathy quakery. As such we put it in the cat. JoshuaZ 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually you're quite wrong. Despite the grand name, NCAHF is nothing more than a rather tacky little web site, apparently funded by pharmaceutical companies and it has no particular claim to authority. As such, it does not meet the standards of WP:RS which has specific guidelines about web-based sources. Furthermore, even if it were a reliable source, it would only be reliable in the sense that the statements of that source could be included in the article with proper attribution. A single source would have absolutely no bearing on how the article was categorized without other supporting reliable sources. --Lee Hunter 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, a Stephen Barrett shill a reliable source? You've got to be kidding. --Leifern 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you articulate what is wrong with the reference? JoshuaZ 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I can. According to this site [5] Stephen Barret is a de-licensed MD who runs QuackWatch out of his basement. Here are some tidbits (there's lots more on the site) ... In a California Court case, former Barrett peer, and fellow Board Member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), William Jarvis PhD, testified, under oath, that Barrett and Robert Baratz conspired to use the NCAHF, without Board permission, as a Plaintiff in over 40 cases in California, where Barrett and Baratz were to testify as "expert witnesses," and get expert witness fees. The NCAHF Board was never consulted. One of those cases caused the NCAHF to be saddled with over $100,000 in legal fees awarded their victim - and the NCAHF doesn't have the money to pay that debt. In fact, the NCAHF is SO DESPERATE for funds it is being run out of a cardboard box in the back room of Baratz's Braintree, Massachusetts hair removal and ear piercing salon." Unfortunately the site uses frames so I can't provide a direct link to this article, but it's worth looking up. Very entertaining and enlightening. --Lee Hunter 17:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You are quoting a site that is so unreliable that it is forbidden as a source here at wikipedia, and the article about it was even deleted. The statements are largely spin by Hulda Clark's spin doctor and are libelous. He is now being sued for them. -- Fyslee 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, because I found it's on a link from the NCAHF article which also contains this tidbit "In a letter to Lyn Behrens, PhD President of Loma Linda University, Julian M. Whitaker, M.D. explains how the NCAHF and some of its members have acted against numerous medical practitioners who were listed on their "Persons on the Quack List Data Base" containing 2,551 names. He writes: " Obviously, considering the number of physicians listed, the only criteria for being added to this defamatory list would be the 'opinions' of those within the NCAHF. Please note that the list includes 1,137 MDs, 167 PhDs, 236 DOs, 79 DDSS, 228 DCs, and 441 others (BS, RN, ND, HMD, CSW, MSN). There are 52 double doctorates on the list, with two or more of the following degrees, MD, PhD, DO, DDS, DVM, DMD. Many have university affiliation, have published in the peer-review literature, and are respected authors of books or even textbooks. Please note that this 'quack' list includes Linus Pauling, PhD." I can't see how Barrett in any way fits the criteria for reliable source. He appears to be as much a quack as anyone he attacks, and possibly more so. --Lee Hunter 18:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I am glad that NCAHF and Barrett do what they do - we need someone to play the skeptical role in something as important as people's health care decisions. On the other hand, I am also glad that there are sites and organizations skeptical to conventional medicine. One thing I am confident about, and that is that medical doctors in 100 years will look back at the medicine their predecessors practiced today and shudder at about half of it and wonder what fools we all were. They'll have the benefit of hindsight, but we shouldn't give presume that our understanding of human physiology, healing, etc., is all that advanced. Barrett does himself a disservice, though - I think Kevin Trudeau is a shyster myself, but when I read Barrett's very weakly constructed condemnation of him, I started wondering whether Trudeau has more merit than I thought. --Leifern 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, so his opponent makes claims which are unsourced and we take them for granted? I don't think so. Anyways, I'll have additional sourcing shortly. JoshuaZ 18:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, these two have been sueing each other for quite a while. What Lee quotes is pretty much undisputed. I don't think any of them look good. It really doesn't matter how many sources you bring to the table Joshua - you can't prove that the label is anything but an opinion. I mean, take a look at the edit history both for this article and discussion. You yourself are reduced to revert warring the tag. --Leifern 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about providing well-sourced opinion. Even the Quackery category is clearly identified as an opinion, not as a statement that what is labeled is in fact quackery. It is a label placed on subjects for which a substantial opinion exists that it fits the label. That opinion is of coursed well sourced. If you listed a group of practices that scientists would label as quackery, homeopathy would be right up there near the top. That's general scientific and medical opinion, and we document opinions here. You can find exceptions to that rule, but they are the "exception that proves the rule." You certainly don't have to agree with that opinion or like it, or even believe it, but you can't seriously deny that it is the majority scientific opinion, and expect to retain any credibility here. -- Fyslee 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, categories show up as unattributed facts. For the reader it first appears as a collection of links at the bottom of the page which a reader would reasonably presume are the categories into which the article has been definitely placed. You claim that the statement about scientific opinion is well-sourced but the one and only source provided so far is a former MD working out of his basement who has on the losing side in some dodgy litigation. And since when did quackery have anything to do with the "majority" of scientific opinion (leaving aside for the moment the fact that you still haven't provided the slightest evidence that there actually is a majority opinion about homeopathy"). Science is by definition the exploration and testing of new ideas which gradually achieve acceptance or they are simply dropped. Seems to me like you folks are constantly moving the goalposts. --Lee Hunter 18:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Homeopathy isn't new, and it has been dropped by serious scientists. Even Jacques Benveniste's so-called research was so defective that his reputation as a scientist was severely damaged. Science will accept homeopathy if it ever gets proven, but very few studies have shown any effect beyond placebo, and they have been the worst quality studies, often with serious defects.
You're right about quackery not being a matter of "majority" opinion. It is a matter of definition based on exaggerated claims in relation to the evidence backing it up. A good method for one thing can become quackery when it, in another situation, is promoted using exaggerated claims. The "majority" matter is just a matter of fact in the scientific world regarding opinions about homeopathy. You won't find many serious scientists who don't call it quackery, and you won't even find many that even bother investigating it, since it's considered a waste of time to do so, since it has been disproven so many times. The burden of proof is still on homeopaths to prove their extraordinary claims, and they keep failing. -- Fyslee 19:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You continue to make vague and utterly unsubstantiated claims about what most scientists think and the specific language that they use to describe their thoughts. Put up or shut up. Either provide the sources that confirm this or admit that your argument is based on the fact that you are the world's greatest mind reader. I've demonstrated to you that there are teeming herds of homeopathy-friendly medical doctors roaming the plains of Europe. The question here is not whether or not homeopathy works, it is whether "quackery" is a legitimate category in which homeopathy should be placed. Your only source is failed MD Stephen Barrett a guy who had the gall to describe Linus Pauling, the only person to be awarded two unshared Nobel prizes and one of the most distinguished scientists of the 20th century, as a 'quack' apparently on the strength of Pauling's work on vitamin C (and work for which Pauling has finally been vindicated). You claim that no serious research is being done and that there are no positive results - please read the Homeopathy for Critically Ill Patients section further down this page. --Lee Hunter 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Among other sources I'd add [6] which is the opinion of a Fellow of the Royal Society and esteemed biolgoist. He explicitly uses the word "quackery". More sources to follow.JoshuaZ 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
You found one! Congratulations! On second thought, it's only a blog and therefore not considered a reliable source. --Lee Hunter 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It isn't a random blog, it is the opinion of a pre-eminent scientist in the field. JoshuaZ 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Pre-eminent? I'm not suggesting he's a quack or anything and I'm sure he's a respected researcher but he's not exactly a household word [7] Less than 600 hits on Google and 455 of those hits seem to be regarding his rants about alternative medicine [8] --Lee Hunter 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
By all means, add the source as a citation for controversy; but it's still this person's opinion. Unless you can prove he has powers of infallibility, it remains an opinion. --Leifern 20:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Under that logic we can't have any categories or information about anything at all because they are all "opinions" JoshuaZ 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, On inclusion of the category: quakery is according to the cat "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings." Given the current scientific consensus that homeopathy is junk it easily gets to be in the cat based on the second part of that quote. JoshuaZ 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In my mind quackery has a lot do do with how the subject is marketed. When I see expensive sugar pills being sold without evidence for their effectiveness, it brings to mind quakery. If it was more like the topic of those that deny that HIV is associated with AIDS then i would say it is just a minority opinion. By the way, while Pauling had two Nobel prizes, none were in homepathic medicine. By that logic the HIV deniers have Kary Mullis in their camp, therefore, they must be right. David D. (Talk) 17:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sprot

I've semi-protected this; there is too much reverting going on and it will get full prot on The Wrong Version unless some compromise can be reached William M. Connolley 13:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy for critically ill patients

Can editors in the quack controversy review the following abstract of an RCT published in Chest (not included in the Lancet metaanalysis which ignored trials later than 2003), and the abstract of a commentary in Critical Care, before stating whether the authors (who are all clinicians or scientists) of the two papers are quacks or not? It's interesting that this study used a homeopathic dilution prepared from a toxin (potassium dichromate) well known for causing upper respiratory irritation and atrophy, lower respiratory effects, in addition to being a potent carcinogen.

Chest. 2005;127:936-941 Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients

Michael Frass, MD; Christoph Dielacher, RN; Manfred Linkesch, MD; Christian Endler, PhD; Ilse Muchitsch, PhD; Ernst Schuster, PhD and Alan Kaye, MD


From the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy (Drs. Frass, Endler, and Muchitsch), Vienna, Austria; II Department of Internal Medicine (Mr. Dielacher and Dr. Linkesch); Department of Medical Computer Sciences (Dr. Schuster), University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Department of Anesthesiology (Dr. Kaye), Texas Tech University Lubbock, TX.


Correspondence to: Michael Frass, MD, Professor of Medicine, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy, Duerergasse 4, A 8010 Graz, Austria; e-mail: michael.frass@kabsi.at

Background: Stringy, tenacious tracheal secretions may prevent extubation in patients weaned from the respirator. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with parallel assignment was performed to assess the influence of sublingually administered potassium dichromate C30 on the amount of tenacious, stringy tracheal secretions in critically ill patients with a history of tobacco use and COPD.

Methods: In this study, 50 patients breathing spontaneously with continuous positive airway pressure were receiving either potassium dichromate C30 globules (group 1) [Deutsche Homöopathie-Union, Pharmaceutical Company; Karlsruhe, Germany] or placebo (group 2). Five globules were administered twice daily at intervals of 12 h. The amount of tracheal secretions on day 2 after the start of the study as well as the time for successful extubation and length of stay in the ICU were recorded.

Results: The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 ± 1.61 days vs 7.68 ± 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean ± SD]).

Conclusion: These data suggest that potentized (diluted and vigorously shaken) potassium dichromate may help to decrease the amount of stringy tracheal secretions in COPD patients.


Key Words: COPD • double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study • extubation • homeopathy • tracheal secretions



Critical Care 2005, 9:238-240

Recently published papers: Out with the old and in with the new ... then something new for the old! Simone Carbert1 and Richard Venn2

1Senior House Officer, Department of Critical Care, Worthing General Hospital, Worthing, UK 2Consultant, Department of Critical Care, Worthing General Hospital, Worthing, UK

Critical Care 2005, 9:238-240 doi:10.1186/cc3723

Published 12 May 2005


Abstract


New therapies are challenging older, established practices. One recently published report shows us that we may be able to avoid endotracheal intubation in patients with a reduced level of consciousness. Recombinant activated factor VII is proving to be useful in many coagulation disorders, and intracerebral haemorrhage can be added to this list. Homeopathy, in the form of potassium dichromate, shows promise as a new treatment for excessive tracheal secretions. Rotation protocols for antibiotics have been evaluated with respect to their ability to prevent the development of new resistant micro-organisms in our hospitals and units. Finally, glucocorticoids may be of benefit to septic patients outside the intensive care unit (ICU) and may prevent their deterioration and admission to the ICU.

Jedermann 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia guidelines re categorization

According to Wikipedia:Categorization "8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Since applying the quackery category to homeopathy is highly controversial and not at all self-evident, I have removed it.--Lee Hunter 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This guideline must therefore bear on the pseudoscience category as well. According to the authoritative Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ed. Ted Honderich), pseudoscience is a term of 'epistemic abuse'. Jedermann 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Great so now everything any idiot wants to claim to be credible is real science. Don't think so Skeptic Jim 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think what it means is that something shouldn't be labelled as "science" unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that it qualifies as science. Homeopathy would not, in any way, make the grade. On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to label homeopathy as pseudoscience. In the same way that stuff that's not explicitly Christian doesn't have to be labelled "Spawn of Satan"--Lee Hunter 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? This is a ridiculous comparison. There are subjects which the scientific and medical communities consider pseudoscience and should be labeled as such. Comparing that to labeling something "Spawn of Satan" is both unhelpful and counterproductive. JoshuaZ 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Homeopathy's inclusion is self-evident--it contradicts what is known from chemistry and physics. There has to be a limit to how noncontroversial a categorization must be. With categories such as Quackery it goes without saying that True Believers will protest the inclusion of their favorite scheme or scam. Allowing such objections to rule the day, we might as well include Scientology and the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist in the category of science organizations. Bkalafut 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is self-evident to you but it's not self-evident to me. Nor is it self-evident to thousands of medical doctors or millions of their patients. Again you've got it backward. As I pointed out, you only put something in a category when it is absolutely uncontroversial that it belongs there. Putting Scientology in science or putting homeopathy in science would be controversial because a hell of a lot of knowledgable people would very strongly disagree. Putting homeopathy in quackery is definitely controversial because a huge number of intelligent, knowledgable people would disagree. The guideline is very clear and very sensible. If you don't think it's a good rule, you should change it. --Lee Hunter 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Not being self-evident to quacks and their patients doesn't count. See JoshuaZ's note below. 4.240.69.231 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is self-evident to among others to the editors of the Lancet. See [9] to the ones who matter- the major medical associations and the major science journals this is a clear issue. JoshuaZ 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
But even the editors of the Lancet did not use the term "quackery". So what's your point? --Lee Hunter 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So they didn't use the term. What's your point? Would having a euphemism for quackery make you feel better? 4.240.69.231 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is, to put it mildly, bizaare to not be able to use a cat unless that precise wording is in a source. I'm not aware of any policy in that regard and the Lancet article easily fits the defintion of the cat. JoshuaZ 06:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the clinicians and scientists who conducted the study in the intensive care unit (see above) are quacks? And the independent clinicians who reported that it was a 'promising' treatment? Are they quacks too? And are the 2 journals - Chest and Critical Care - known for aiding and abetting quacks? Jedermann 09:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and bad science is bad science regardless of who did it. As for the title of this section, this exact arguement was raised by proponents on Astrology. The consensus reached is that this guideline is not applicable in these cases. In short, guidelines are not policy, and abusing them to remove applicable categories is unacceptable. Jefffire 11:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just being illogical. If positive studies about homeopathy have recently appeared in well-respected peer-reviewed journals, you cannot possibly claim that the category of " Quackery" is uncontroversial. You seem to be suggesting that a positive result is inherent proof that the study itself is flawed. This is a strangely unscientific stance for someone who's making a big noise about what science is about. Furthermore, "quackery" is itself, NOT a scientific term. It has nothing to do with the careful and controlled observation of the universe. It's a polemical, perjorative term. The fact that scientists sometimes like to bandy it about doesn't make it scientific. Finally, someone brought up the case of astrology. If there were peer-reviewed articles showing a basis for astrology appearing in major, respected publications then calling astrology "pseudoscience" would be incorrect. As far as I know, there's not, so the cases are quite different.--Lee Hunter 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
... and the problem with polemical, perjorative terms is that those who use them rarely are willing to use them consistently. If we are going to categorize one topic with such a term, we have to use clear, unambiguous definition for it. So far, all I've seen are opinions and strange appeals to authority, such as the opinion of Stephen Barrett and someone else. It just amazes me that the same people who call for scientific precision on the one hand are willing to be completely subjective on the other. --Leifern 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that my opinions on this matter are illogical. The largest and most rigorous trials on the matter show fairly unambigiously that homeopathy is indistiguashable from placebo. Much smaller works are far more prone to methodological errors and should be weighted in accordance to their scientific weight, which for us means that the Lancet trial trumps the two smaller and less significant studies you cite. The opinions of individual clinicians are irrelevent, as we all should know, due to falability of unquantified obsevation, especially on an issue such as this. As it stands "Quackery" is an applicable and accurate categorisation of this article. Whether the category is useful is another matter (which is being discussed in it's AfD). I suggest that the best course of action would be to await the outcome of the AfD and act accordingly. Jefffire 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it has now come up, Protoscience is not an accurate categorisation, and implying legal action (by describing a category as "libelous") is frowned upon. Jefffire 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, if you're not going to actually read the sources that you cite, perhaps you could try reading a little about them. For example, as I pointed out earlier, you try and justify the use of the word "quackery" with an editorial that doesn't actually use the word. Now you refer to a Lancet "trial". Actually it was a "meta-analysis". You can learn something about it in the homeopathy article where it is noted that "The study does not prove that homeopathy is never effective or that all its findings are placebo effects, but does show that the totality of tests analysed show outcomes consistent with the interpretation that all of the reported effects are placebo effects. The Lancet accompanied the meta-analysis with invited editorials. The Lancet study was criticized by a number of homeopathic researchers and statisticians on methodological grounds, including lack of transparency concerning the review protocol and reporting, leading to the allegation of data dredging.[110] The Lancet rejected the majority of criticisms submitted for publication. Some of the correspondence rejected by the Lancet was subsequently published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine." So the Lancet doesn't call homeopathy quackery. They publish a meta-analysis which casts doubt on other studies but doesn't in any way, shape or form support the label of quackery (and the meta-analysis itself is strongly disputed). Finally, the word "quackery", as I've pointed out so many times it must be getting tiresome to you, is simply a perjorative, polemical word. The question of whether "Quackery" should be removed as a category is a related but separate issue, so I see no reason to wait for the outcome of that discussion. --Lee Hunter 16:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals on the planet. To say that somehow we can't use it as reliable source because the "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" isn't happy with what the Lancet has to say would be akin to saying we can't label Flood geology pseudoscience because the creationist ICR and AIG organizations have journals they claim are peer-reviewed and dispute the claim. JoshuaZ 17:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not in any way suggest that Lancet is not a reliable source. I pointed out that what has been published in the Lancet does not, in fact, support your position so I'm baffled as to why you keep bringing it up. They did not use the word "quackery". You have extrapolated (i.e. performed original research or a stupendous act of mind reading) that what they really meant to say was "quackery". Please respect the very clear and relevant guideline for categorization which says that Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. --Lee Hunter 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
To suggest that the precise wording of a category has to be used in order to use the cat is simply ridiculous and I've already explained to you that it is self-evidence and uncontroversial among the major medical journals and establishments such as the Lancet. No OR is going on here and to claim it is indicates a misunderstanding of that policy. All that is happening is that given the Lancet and other sources the cat description almost word for word matches what is being described in the source. Given that and that we have an fellow of the Royal society explicitly using the term quakery to describe it there really isn't an issue here at all. JoshuaZ 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You write "To suggest that the precise wording of a category has to be used in order to use the cat is simply ridiculous". Ridiculous? How about blindingly obvious. What you seem to be saying is that we should use a highly unscientific word to describe what you claim scientists universally think (even though we've shown you that a number of respected scientists don't hold that opinion). I mean really. All you've done so far is cite one scientist (a guy who's made a second career out of ranting about alternative medicine) who used the term on his blog. --Lee Hunter 17:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Um, the person in question has a large number of papers to his credit and is a fellow of the royal society. In any event, what matters is not that there exist a few doctors who disagree but that the major journals such as the Lancet describe this subject in a way that meets our criteria for inclusion of the cat. JoshuaZ 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't understand how the fact that Lancet does not use the word "quackery" in describing homeopathy somehow supports the position that WP must use quackery in describing homeopathy. I'm sorry, but it absolutely makes no sense whatsoever. --Lee Hunter 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The way you've phrased it doesn't make any sense- I'd agree there. The point is that the Lancet description matches are criteria for the category. Whether it uses the word itself isn't that relevant. JoshuaZ 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The whole point of this entire long discussion is whether one specific word can categorize this article. You're telling me that a bunch of other words amount to the same thing and I'm telling you they don't. Neither of us is "right" in any ultimate sense. We're both interpreting what Lancet wrote. The only thing we are 100% sure of is that Lancet did not use the word "quackery". You seem to feel that if Lancet used the word "negro" you can say that what they really meant was "nigger" (to use another example of an unwarranted epithet). I say that we should take their words at face value. Here's another example, numerous studies have shown that for normal labor, birth by Caesarean section is far riskier for mothers and babies than vaginal birth. The science is perfectly solid and yet doctors, especially in the United States, who are well aware of these facts increasingly perform c-sections for otherwise normal births and place mothers and babies at much higher risk. Surely this is a better poster child for quackery? But of course it's not, because the guideline says "8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."--Lee Hunter 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned before, guidelines are not policy, and the general consensus view across article is that this guideline is not applicable in cases such as this. Jefffire 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that is such completely obfuscatory untrue BS. Cases such as what, exactly? Such as when you think the guidelines should be dumped because they are inconvenient? Explain yourself. Show me where this "consensus" is recorded. --Lee Hunter 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see the dictionary for the definition of "guideline", sir. Jefffire 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like this "A statement or other indication of policy or procedure by which to determine a course of action" (American Heritage Dictionary)? Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the guideline exists to provide guidance, especially in the case of a dispute or uncertainty. I'm asking you to show me the Wikipedia policy, guideline, custom (ANYthing for heaven's sake) that supports your position that guidelines can be arbitrarily ditched. --Lee Hunter 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I would direct you to WP:Guidelines, which cleary states "Unlike policies, guidelines are usually more flexible and more likely to have exceptions". Jefffire 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel pretty confident that if I characterized a medical doctor as a "quack," he/she would have a case for suing me for libel. --Leifern 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, my points are being confused with what others have written, and with other points entirely. I cite the Lancet meta-analysis as very strong evidence that there is no homeopathic effect above placebo, or that if there is no-one has discovered it. This supports, but is not sufficient, for use of the category "Quackery". The rational behind the category has discussed sufficently by more seniour editors so I will not elaborate further on their comments. There has to date been no serious scientific criticisms of the meta-analysis. The opinions of homeopaths on such matter, and anything printed in the Journal of Alternative Medicine, is effectively scientifically worthless under the Wikipedia policy of Reliable Sources.

Whatever User:Leiferns feelings on the matter of libel are, implied or threatened legal action is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia, and may result in blocks. Jefffire 16:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jefffire - a) stop putting words in my mouth or attributing intentions to me that there is no basis for. It is inappropriate. b) Do not threaten me with blocking or other disciplinary actions that there is no basis for. --Leifern 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I atribute no intentions. I simply noted your actions, Wikipedia policy on such matters, and the penalties for doing so. Jefffire 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I completely and utterly reject the accusation and will take it as a personal attack unless you withdraw and apologize. --Leifern 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I make no personal attack, that you take one is your own issue. Jefffire 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You are accusing me of something I did not do. That is your issue. --Leifern 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I pointed out your edit summary was contrary to policy, nothing more. Jefffire 16:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You threatened to block me for threatening legal action. --Leifern 16:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I informed you that threatening legal action is a blockable offence. Jefffire 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quackery

We need to reach a real consensus otherwise this article will never be stable. David D. (Talk) 21:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as this article is held hostage by true believers, it will never be possible to conform it to Wikipedia policies as described here by Jimbo Wales:
Jimbo Wales on NPOV:
Well, it's against my role as 'the Jimbo' around here to call people crackpots, so I'll avoid that word here. But you'll all know what I mean anyway.  ;-)
It has been my long experience, too, that there are many, uh, creative minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the wilderness.
I think this presents challenges for our NPOV policy, but not "special" challenges. As with any controversial subject, and many uncontroversial ones, there are mainstream views, minority views, and singular views.
NPOV does not require us to present all these views as if they are equal! This is one of the things that's hardest to remember about NPOV. If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too.
The reason we can do all of that is that, usually, those statements are not controversial to any of the parties in the debate. We could have a problem if someone insists that their peculiar views are shared by all scientists, but that's usually not the case. Usually the creative alternative-physics types will readily agree that virtually no mainstream physicists would agree.
And we can use all of that as a reasonable grounds for dividing up articles. Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.
There's a popular view of bias in journalism, held more in practice out of laziness I think than held as an actual theory of bias, that the way to be unbiased is to present both sides of an argument without prejudicing the discussion for or against either one. "Some say that the earth is round, others say that it is flat."
Our approach is more sophisticated, I think.
--Jimbo
It looks like Wales intends for us to present the scientific POV as the majority POV, and the crackpot POV as the minority POV, and the weight of the article should show it that way. What he doesn't deal with is the fact that articles like this are being held hostage by a few true believers who fail to realize that we document POV here, and that POV suppression is forbidden. As long as such editors are allowed to violate policies in this way, the only solution may be to lock the article in The Wrong Version, and create a much larger and better documented article -- Homeopathy: Scientific POV -- or something like that, where their POV won't be allowed to dominate. -- Fyslee 22:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The homeopathy article represents the scientific point of view - or the anti-homeopathy point of view - in exhaustive detail. If you feel this can be improved, then you should make whatever changes are needed. I certainly don't have any problem with what Jimbo is saying. But I don't see what that quote has to do with the issue at hand which is whether a singularly perjorative, unscientific, and unsupported category is going to be applied to this article and whether there are grounds for making an exception to a very clear and reasonable editorial guideline. You claim that it is "true believers" who are obstructing the use of quackery as a category, but if you read the talk page carefully you'll see that a number of editors who are true "disbelievers" agree that "quackery" is not a useful category for homeopathy. --Lee Hunter 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This, as you well, know, is in response to an ongoing debate about whether SPOV rather than NPOV should prevail in Wikipedia. In this particular article, the controversy about homeopathy is presented rather coherently, and I don't think any attempt has prevailed to give the "majority" view prevalence over any other.
As an aside, I agree with Jimbo's rejection of SPOV for one simple reason. It's been my observation - and I'm not naming names - that the editors who most loudly call for SPOV are those who understand the scientific approach most poorly. What it typically means to them is "what is consistent with the beliefs and opinions of scientists I admire," which of course has absolutely nothing to do with science. Isaac Newton was one of the most phenomenal scientists who ever lived, and he believed a lot of stuff that in hindsight seems absolutely crazy. Scientists are people, and they are entitled to their opinions, but they're still opinions.
The case of homeopathy is a typical example. Homeopaths hold (and it's irrelevant or not I believe them) that the curative effect of homeopathy is an observable phenomenon. In other words, they assert that their approach is the most scientific of all, because it relies entirely on observable fact whether or not some underlying theory supports it. (It's as true as an apple falling from a tree to the ground, in their view. We would never reject the principle of gravity because we have no convincing theory to explain it, which in fact we don't.) Now, you can assert that they hallucinating, or deluding themselves, or confusing real effects with placebo effects, and that would be a reasonable criticism. But what can't do is to say that the theory is inadequate and we must therefore reject the observed phenomena. Theories are - by definition - attempts to explain reality, and not the other way around. So when people say that homeopathy is quackery because the theory that seeks to explain it doesn't make sense, they are demonstrating how little they know about science.
The truth is, of course, that the placebo effect is itself poorly understood. Nobody would in their right mind claim that we can heal ourselves with our minds, but that appears to be what the placebo effect does.
Finally, any medical doctor will tell you that the medicine they practice is based on experience, intuition, understanding of a wide range of physiological systems, etc., but it is evidence-based in a minority of cases. And researchers in pharmacology and other medical intervention will tell you that most medical breakthroughs result not from a rigorous scientific process but from hunches, suspicions, mental models, etc., that formed the basis for further inquiry.
I've given myself long breaks from the homeopathy article because I've come to the conclusion that a) sooner or later, knowledgeable editors will prevail and make this an NPOV article anyway; and b) there is no convincing the editors who are dogmatically convinced that homeopathy is bogus, quackery, fraudulent and who knows what else and will ignore any evidence to the contrary. --Leifern 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You can keep portraying the other side as "ignoring evidence to the contrary", and it'll make you only an equivocator, not a liar. Yes, we refuse to treat the few "to the contrary" studies as authoritative and conclusive--because they're not. You can call that "ignoring" them all you want. Treating the studies that support your religious or other views as the sine qua non of the field is a violation of NPOV. You also seem a little confused. People are asserting that homeopathy is quackery (A) because the remedies are diluted to the point where they're nothing but water or sugar (and water does not have "memory"...) and (B) because there's no solid evidence supporting its efficacy when compared to *other placebos*. Bkalafut 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For me the quackery comes in when sums of money are changing hands. People are buying into the remedies despite the lack of proof for any medicinal effect. No one would disagree with snake oil in the quackery category. Was snake oil more or less effective than homeopathic remedies? Was it as popular, in its day, as homepathic remedies are now? The fact homepathic remedies are popular does not excuse them from the quackery category. It is the packaging of a bogus product that makes it quackery.
What makes this controversial is that the snake oil sales men almost certainly knew their products were bogus. The homeopathic supporters, however, seem more genuine in their claims that the preparations have real effects, despite them not being well described in well controlled experiments. As such, this becomes a less than clear cut case. David D. (Talk) 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That, however, runs contrary to how Quackery is defined both in the dictionary and in Wikipedia's own article. Being practiced in ignorance of science is enough. Prancybald 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you think it's less than clear-cut, as we're still waiting for the loudest proponents of the 'quackery' category to come out from behind their conveniently abstract noun and state unambiguously whether the randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial in Vienna was conducted by 'quacks' or not. (See Homeopathy for critically ill patients, above.) 'Homeopathy' is a single term for an enormous number of health beliefs and behaviors, in totally disparate communities worldwide. For instance, it's part of the national health system in several Latin-American countries, where by all accounts they are happy with it (although you wouldn't know it from the ethnocentric "Homeopathy around the world" section). The NIH and NHS fund serious research in the US and UK, with positive and negative results - the same as all clinical research. So are all these politicians and policymakers, researchers and clinicians to be dismissed with a category from the days when there was nothing except quackery or worse? Let's also note that the article was reasonably stable until a new editor (of Homeopathy) slapped the category on on 27 Nov. Jedermann 17:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll read the section, i admit i have not followed this controversy too well. I think you make a good point that many clinical trials are borderline successful compared to placebo. And of course these still lead to drugs being marketed by biotech companies. I don't have my fingers on worst case examples, but some of the trials i have seen reported in the papers seem less than convincing. Worse they downplay the side effects. As is often the case, treatments have to be judged on a case by case basis. I assume this is why some doctors do presacirbe homeopathic medicines since some patients do strongly believe in such medicine and such a positive attitude may alone be enough for healing stress related problems. David D. (Talk) 18:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, homeopathy deals with issues of quackery. The category deals with quackery. It lists articles that deal with issues of quackery. Just as The National Council Against Health Fraud deals with quackery without being quackery, so too does homeopathy deal with quackery, or accusations thereof. Adding this article to the homeopathy category does not mean that homeopathy is quackery. It means that homeopathy deals with quackery. -- Ec5618 17:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please reread the rest of the talk page. The NCAHF is a little website run by a failed MD in his basement and it has, itself, been thoroughly discredited in court. Homeopathy is not about "issues of quackery". The field of homeopathy is about the use of dilute substances to treat ill health. Some people call it quackery and this is appropriately noted in the content of the article. Again I draw your attention to the WP guidelines for categorization: "8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." The guideline is crystal clear and barring some compelling reason to do otherwise, it should be respected. --Lee Hunter 18:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is, to what degree must it be uncontroversial--must the whole world agree?--, and what is to be done about unreasonable people who, despite admitting that an article fits the category definition, refuse it because the word is perjorative. Bkalafut 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Homeopathy is considered by some to be an alternative health care system that works, and by others a system of quackery that is based on fraud. Which ever view you have - it is at the moment, undoubtably, considered a very controversial subject. Maybe people should be happy that it is in the Pseudoscience category - where it definetly belongs as it does not follow the basics of modern science. Lethaniol 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "deals with quackery" means. From what I can tell, a very small minority of scientists and medical doctors are willing to label it as "quackery," a large majority are presumably skeptical or keep their opinion to themselves. The point is that it is not our job here at Wikipedia to resolve a controversy. If we label homeopathy quackery we are presuming to do just that. Lee and I are merely pointing out that this is a controversial subject, and Lee has even found references that indicate that homeopathy actually has significant acceptance among medical doctors and scientists in some countries. Just five minutes ago, a colleague showed me a homeopathic remedy given to him by a medical doctor that says it is "clinically proven" to work. We can each have our opinion about these things, but nobody can credibly say that the categorization is beyond dispute. --Leifern 20:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Before there is any need to decide whether anything is "Quackery", the issue concerning placing the label at the bottom of the page becomes paramount. Because it is not presented in a neutral way with the category label, IMO WP realizes this is a problem. By attempting to place it, we only cause undo ill-will toward fellow editors and create an unnecessary schism that makes it more difficult to produce quality articles. Lets leave the label off. --Dematt 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The consensus is to remove the label. Bkalafut sneaked it back unannounced, under cover of minor verbal changes in the article, and also separated it by a mile from the category list - poor editorial practice in both cases. I've substituted a new category heresy, only partly ironically, in the hope of starting a discussion on who owns reality. Jedermann 11:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't this become a WP:POINT? Although I understand your frustration. David D. (Talk) 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Not yet sensing consensus here. Bkalafut 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe it does. Unless you are saying that homeopathy is heresy, it should come off, too. --Dematt 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard medical diagnoses

The previous version said that homeopathy "rejects standard medical diagnoses" which is, as far I can see, completely incorrect. If someone has a high cholesterol or a kidney infection, homeopathy would completely accept that diagnoses. The difference is that homeopathy also proposes an underlying imbalance which causes the illness to appear (in much the same way that any doctor might say that a patient has X illness due to something like lifestyle or stress). Homeopathy is much more concerned with this theoretical imbalance than with its manifestation (illness) but that doesn't mean that it rejects the diagnosis in any way. That's also one reason why it's difficult to compare homeopathic care to medical care. Pharmaceuticals are designed to address specific illnesses and pharmaceutical trials are designed to measure how the illnesses respond. Homeopathic remedies are often prescribed on the basis of a very detailed picture of the individual of which the actual illness might be only one small detail. Sometimes a particular remedy will be prescribed even though the presenting complaint is not mentioned in the literature for the remedy but the individual otherwise fits the profile. --Lee Hunter 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy does reject standard medical diagnoses as modern diagnoses are declarations of disease etiology, not symptoms. If you don't recognize this it's no wonder you don't understand why this belongs in the quackery cat. Prancybald 20:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Etiology can be a part of the diagnosis but it's not the same thing. Diagnosis is the identification of a disease. Etiology is the theory of how that disease came about. A doctor can certainly have a diagnosis without having any clue about the etiology. In fact, this is fairly normal. And homeopathy does not reject the standard etiologies but rather proposes what is claimed to be a deeper and more subtle underlying cause. --Lee Hunter 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
With no reason based in medical science or evidence to propose that cause, when such causes are even something that could be real and not just pseudoscientific jargon and hucksters' cant. Bkalafut 07:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll qualify that with "when the etiology is known." A medical doctor practicing scientific medicine would say (e.g.) someone has an infection and perhaps that bacterial toxins are causing disease. A homeopath would at best say more of the toxin or bacteria, albeit at low dose, is the cure. Prancybald 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
A homeopath would try to understand everything they can about the patient. By looking at a very big and very detailed picture which might include emotional health, food preferences, physical tics and many other things they could well come up with a remedy that has no obvious relationship to the illness. --Lee Hunter 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No *obvious* relationship? You mince words. They give a placebo. A sip of water, a sugar pill, something with no relationship to the illness at all. At best it's witchdoctoring, at worst it's outright fraud. Bkalafut 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick question. Would the homeopath give a low dose of the toxin or bacteria, or would they give a low dose of something that causes say a fever, headache, and sore throat in a normal person. It wouldn't be the actual bacteria would it? I thought they would give something to increase the body's natural responses, but that shows how much I know. --Dematt 02:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heresy

In WP, heresy is defined, among other things as "By extension, heresy is an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative." By this definition, homeopathy is most definitely heresy, so I don't think we're dealing with a WP:POINT here. I'm untroubled by such a categorization, though I'm sure others would disagree with me. --Leifern 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that homeopathy is a kind of heresy, but category:heresy seems to be exclusively theological. Homeopathy would look a little funny amongst the cathars and judaizers. --Lee Hunter 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point with regard to the more complete defintion. WP:POINT comes in, however, since the category appears not to encompass the broad spectrum. Rather it is limited to common usage (primarily theological). Did they burn homeopaths at the stake? Clearly an extreme example but that is the immediate connection I make with heresy. I suppose homeopaths could be considered witch-like to some, especially with the potions, but now we're off track. David D. (Talk) 20:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In the mid-19th century, the forerunner of the BMA tried to get government to outlaw homeopathy, but failed. So they made it a punishable offence to practice homeopathy or to consult with a homeopath on a case. Breaches of this ideological heresy led to being struck off the physicians' register. The same happened in the USA. Jedermann 10:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Barrett as a source

I didn't realize he runs quakwatch which has been given many awards and is a well-regarded website by a variety of both lay and science groups. As such his opinion that something is quakery should be highly relevant. JoshuaZ 02:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all it's only a website (see [[WP:RS]). Second it's a tiny basement organization. Third, several court cases have thrown him and his organization into disrepute. Fourth, Barrett calls EVERYTHING quackery. That's how he makes his money. Anything that is not the most conservative mainstream medicine is outright quackery. Despite all that, we do use him as a source in the article but I see no reason why this hack is the final word on quacks. --Lee Hunter 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No substantial evidence for being "thrown" "into disrepute" has been given. Losing court cases doesn't throw him into disrepute and no claims of that other than from his opponents have been sourced. Quoting from our article on Quackwatch "In 1998, JAMA named Quackwatch one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources" "In 1999, U.S. News & World Report listed Quackwatch as one of three medical sites in their "Best of the Web" " among others. And you are trying to claim that this isn't a reliable source? Please explain what it fails in WP:RS- nowhere does WP:RS say a website can't be reliable. Between this and the other citations I think its pretty obvious that the category can go in. JoshuaZ 04:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Lee Hunter, your use of hyperbole and directly untrue statements isn't very conducive to helping your credibility here. As an editor you should guard it as a treasured asset. If you don't it becomes a liability. I suggest you reserve your comments for things which you understand. You are either getting your information from some pretty deceptive sources, or you're speaking from ignorance. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suspect the former is the case. Another point - Barrett is an editor here (User:Sbinfo), so any negative comments about him written anywhere on Wikipedia are subject to the WP:BLP and WP:NPA policies. -- Fyslee 12:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, some agreeement with the above. However, I don't think NPA override discussion of a user's credibility. To use an extreme example, if Joseph Goebbels were still alive and were editing Wikipedia I don't think we'd say that NPA somehow overrode discussing his reliability as a source. Other than that, I'm in complete agreement. JoshuaZ 13:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct. According to the policies mentioned, not all types of negative comments are covered, but some are, and it's those types that need to be watched. I just provided the links as information so editors are properly forewarned and don't inadvertently get too negative and end up getting in trouble. -- Fyslee 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone pointed out in the context of another article that labeling someone a "quack' was specificially decided to be non-actionable (actually in a case where Barrett was the plaintiff) so claims that labeling the category as quackery as having BLP (which it is very hard to see how that would be a BLP problem anyways since its describing an area not a person) don't hold any water. JoshuaZ 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also true. The term "quack" simply applies to anyone who practices quackery, and thus is not necessarily an accusation of illegal activity. It most often applies to people who really believe in what they are doing, and have no evil motives, but that doesn't mean what they are doing or promoting is correct or proper. -- Fyslee 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Using that set of criteria could potentially include everyone who believes in anything. I think Barrett even suggests the intent of fraud. --Dematt 13:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually Barrett is one of the few who is careful to exclude fraud from the definition. If you read these you'll have a much better understanding of the subject:
Quackery can exist without any bad intentions. Fraud is indeed often involved, but not necessarily. My wording above may be confusing. Of those practicing quackery, it may apply to people who really do believe in what they are doing. They may not be frauds, but they are still quacks. -- Fyslee 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than operating a link farm with no less than 22 (yes folks 22!) crappy little "websites" and graduating from med school, Barrett has no special qualifications (see his credentials) for making pronouncements about anyone or anything. To Barrett, Linus Pauling is a quack. Herbal medicine is quackery. Everything not mainstream medicine is quackery. To use the old hammer and nail analogy, since Barrett's only tool is the accusation of quackery, everything looks like a duck. See the rather extensive criticism. --Lee Hunter 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lee Hunter, you're still showing off your ignorance of Barrett and the subject. Silence is golden.... -- Fyslee 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So enlighten me. Barrett is a retired psychiatrist (who never passed the board exam for psychiatry) and who runs a link farm of several dozen shitty little websites. He doesn't publish in peer-reviewed journals and he has no particular expertise. He makes a practice of describing everything as "quackery". Who is this guy that we should give him special weight for making a decision about applying a category? He's obviously a guy who has a vested interest in spreading his "anti-quack" jihad to all points of the compass even to the point of smearing people like Linus Pauling (probably the foremost chemist of the 20th century). I can't see that Barrett has any credibility whatsoever. --Lee Hunter 20:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I am just letting you know that your ignorance is showing. You have obviously not read the Barrett article here, nor investigated the reasons Barrett and others have criticized Pauling for his abominable behavior in his later years. It's a sad story. Barrett has written about it and you can read it. As far as your personal opinions about Barrett and the websites he and his large staff of advisors maintain, well, I think we are convinced that it's your opinion. Now let's get on with producing an encyclopedia. -- Fyslee 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
And any of that is convincing at all? Most of those claims are raised either by a) direct proponents of alternative medicines (such as the charming Deepak Choprah) or are complaints that Barrett focuses too much on certain things. The number of sites he runs is also irrelevant. The bottom line is that the website has been endorsed by both major medical journals and lay magazines as reliable. JoshuaZ 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure he's had some logrolling. The bottom line, is that he's just some guy with no particular credentials who makes a business out of applying the label of "quackery" to anything and everything. Some of his accusations (Linus Pauling) are simply preposterous. We're talking about applying a category here and the rules regarding categorization are quite clear. "8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." --Lee Hunter 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh please- we already dealt with the category guideline argument above- summarize a) that's a guideline b) if your intepretation was accurate nothing could ever be labeled pseudoscience or quackery which is clearly wrong. And I like the dismissal of endorsements from US New and JAMA as a result of "logrolling". JoshuaZ 16:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
You have not in any way, shape or form dealt with the guideline question accept to claim that guidelines don't matter. Guidelines are not intended to be followed religiously, but the guidelines for guidelines do say that if you're going to break them you better be able to provide a good explanation of why you're doing so. So far you've provided nothing, absolutely nothing of substance (other than the fact that you've found a couple of pages on the web - one of which is by Stephen Barrett, who is himself highly controversial). --Lee Hunter 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"We" have not dealt with it - you and a few others simply assert that the guideline doesn't apply in this case because it doesn't conform with your point of view. The endorsements in question are very old and in any case don't endorse Barrett's labeling as authoritative. Clearly, with so many MDs - whom you clearly consider to be the final authority on everything medical - implicitly or explicitly endorsing homeopathy, there is plenty controversy around the categorization you're pushing for. I'm involved in content disputes on the Arab-Israeli conflict that are less ridiculous than this. --Leifern 16:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Leifern, you should know by now that the authority of MDs can be paraded only when they are against homeopathy on principle. If other MDs find evidence for it in RCTs, then "....The opinions of individual clinicians are irrelevent, as we all should know, due to falability of unquantified obsevation, especially on an issue such as this. Jefffire 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)" I proposed the heresy category for sound epistemological reasons, and not to make a WP:POINT - see User talk:Jedermann. But let it pass. Jedermann 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant matter is not that Barrett is an MD, he could have a JD or no degree for all I cared. What matters is that he is regarded as reliable by the medical communities. See the mentions already discussed. JoshuaZ 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
He's regarded as reliable by some people but not by others. You can't put words in the mouth of entire communities. You've already rejected research in peer-reviewed journals and the opinion of thousands of medical professionals because it doesn't fit with your world view. Apparently you believe that whoever in the medical community shares your opinion is legitimate and whoever disagrees is not credible. Wee bit of a logical fallacy there, I'd say. --Lee Hunter 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? Rejected what research in peer-review journals? The bottom line is that the vast majority of peer-review material on this which is in decent journals is overwhelmingly negative. JoshuaZ 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's one. --Lee Hunter 00:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Evidence does not exist in a vacuum. Ignoring the problems with the paper (and having read the whole thing, I can say IMO there are several in both methodology and reason), initially rejecting studies with a clear bias that have not been independently replicated, especially because they profoundly disagree with well-known tenets of scientific and medical research, is both appropriate and pragmatic. For instance, it wasn't so long ago that the study regarding ultradilution effects of histamine on basophils was seized on by homeopaths (the fact that this would seem to violate the Law of Similars was surreptitiously ignored - shouldn't ultradilute histamine inhibit basophil degranulation?). It has not been properly replicated, and when Guggisberg et al tried, they suggested that the results were probably due to methology problems. So given that the few positive trials consistently seem to fail when replicated, given that homeopathy has had decades and decades to produce reams of reliable data but hasn't, given that the homeopathic community wildly cherry picks specific, directed studies like this as evidence for the remarkably numerous tenets of homeopathic principles - yet simultaneously claims that homeopathy just can't be tested by RCTs, it is reasonable to conclude that homeopathy has not provided satisfactory evidence to demonstrate that its remedies or therapeutics are effacious. Dissenting conclusions to this are undeniably the minority view. T.J.C. 03:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting the RCT in Chest is more than 'interesting', and it may deserve replication to address the legitimate concerns you raise. It was brought in here to gain clarification from the Quackery contingent whether the clinicians and biostatisticians involved were quacks, and whether Chest was involved in the promotion of 'quackery'. There has been complete silence on the specific issue. Jedermann 11:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So you were serious? I thought you were being sarcastic (or something like that). No, they were doing research, and the performance of real research and its publishing by Chest wouldn't fall in the quackery category at all. If they (privately) actually believe in homeopathy and promote it, then one could say they believe in and promote quackery, but unless they are actually marketing it or using it to treat people, they aren't quacks. -- Fyslee 13:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler?

I wanted to draw everyone's attention to the categorization of the Adolph Hitler article. Everyone knows that Hitler was a dictator, but there is no "dictators" category. Everyone knows that Hitler was a madman, but there is no "stark raving heads of state" category. Instead what we have is this: Categories: Semi-protected | Articles with unsourced statements | Articles with large trivia sections | Adolf Hitler | Hitler family | Nazi leaders | Chancellors of Germany | World War II political leaders | German military leaders | Artists who committed suicide | Anti-Semitic people | German anti-communists | Time magazine Persons of the Year | Wagnerites | Austrian Germans | German political writers | German vegetarians | Nazis who committed suicide | Politicians who committed suicide | Suicides by firearm | 1889 births | 1945 deaths. In other words, all very obvious, self-evident and completely indisputable. So how on earth, can we apply a category like "quackery" to homeopathy. A category which is utterly vague, un-obvious and obviously highly contentious. It completely flies in the face of the use of categorization throughout all parts of Wikipedia. --Lee Hunter 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that I agree that placing homeopathy in a specific category called 'quackery' is counterproductive and far too argumentative to be useful. It's judgemental. Editors should be neutral. The category shouldn't even exist. T.J.C. 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
So homeopathy is the same as... Nazism? Lol. Skinwalker 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Bloodletting

I'm new to this debate, but I noticed that the wikipedia entry on the practice of bloodletting, in which a patient's veins are opened and blood is allowed to flow out of the body in order to relieve the body of an excess of "heat," does not have any mention of "quackery." Nor do I think that it should, even though I shudder to think of living through the age when bloodletting, and dosing with the mercury compound, Calomel, was the norm. If there is an area called "quackery" on wikipedia, then let that area have all the entries people want to add. I just don't think it's right to add the quackery label inside individual wikipedia entries on health practices. Just about every medical practice out there has its detractors, and somebody who experienced it and didn't like it or find it helpful. At any rate, as far as bloodletting goes, in his book, Homeopathy in America: The Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy, Martin Kaufman claims that Hahnemann invented homeopathy in part to respond to the contemporary common practices of bloodletting, purging, sweating and the dosing of patients with very large quantities of calomel. (Kaufman, Martin. Homeopathy in America: The Rise and Fall of a Medical Heresy. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD: 1971, chapters 1 and 2.) If the medical practices that were later eschewed in favor of less dramatic processes don't merit the label of quackery, then neither should the contemporary practice of homoeopathy that fell out of favor in the middle of the 20th century. As a solution, I believe the people who would like to warn others away from the use of homeopathy whould just enter their views into the quackery section, and not this one. Iris Anthe 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Iris. Here are a few thoughts to put this in perspective:
An obsolete or prescientific phenomenon can follow at least one of three paths leading to extremely different conclusions:
  1. It can be scientifically validated and accepted, becoming a part of scientifically accepted fact. In medicine, such phenomena often start as traditional medicine, or "alternative" medicine, and end up becoming evidence based medicine (EBM).
  2. It can be disproven and rejected after much experimentation shows negative results. Such phenomena are relegated to the history books as historic artifacts.
  3. It can, in spite of a lack of scientific validation - and even in spite of clear rejection - be preserved and believed, thus becoming a current pseudoscientific phenomenon. In medicine, such phenomena are often labeled quackery by the medical community and skeptics.
Such stubbornly held ideas fail to become totally obsolete, simply because often large numbers of true believers keep them alive. -- Fyslee 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Categorizing bloodletting as quackery would be anachronistic, that is, unless it had current adherents and practicioners. At the time it was not being practiced in contradiction to or ignorance of science, because medical science itself was in its infancy. Bkalafut 19:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, Bkalafut, but venesection as a treatment for pneumonia was not abandoned after PCA Louis statistically demonstrated its inefficacy in 1835, but was still recommended in the 1928 edition of Osler's textbook. And just to recontextualize this side issue, bloodletting and mercurialization were consistently and loudly targeted as unscientific threats to health by Hahnemann and his followers. In other words, homeopathy was a campaigning medical reform movement as well as a protoscientific therapy. Perhaps this should also be mentioned in the article, in the interests of balance. Jedermann 11:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just had to get off the floor from laughing at this argument. There was no evidence that bloodletting ever worked to the extent that its practitioners thought - in fact, it may have killed people. But it's not quackery, because, well, it isn't practiced anymore? Interesting definition of quackery, but then I'm not surprised. Unless - it's one of those things that medical doctors practiced without evidence, in which case we should assume that it was all in good faith. --Leifern 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Bkal's comment seems perfectly reasonable to me. The analogy might be if we labeled Newton a young earth creationist. JoshuaZ 22:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well pick yourself up, Leifern, pop an oscillicoccinum, and read it again. Quackery necessitates a certain context, namely one in which there is extant evidence-based medicine. Bkalafut 00:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, a new definition. Evidence-based medicine is still fairly new, and quackery clearly predates it. I don't think anyone would argue that snake oil, sold by quacks who knew they were selling something that wouldn't work, was a matter of quackery. Having said that, there is plenty of widely accepted medicine that hasn't (yet) been "proven" with gold-standard trials. It's called "clinical experience," and it's why there are internships and residency requirements for medical doctors and surgeons. --Leifern 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is a most logical, clear, and lovely reply Fyslee. Thank you. I think, however, that for the sake of being polite and stopping what is clearly an extended bit of antagonism and baiting going on in this entry, that the folks who feel very strongly about the invalidity of homeopathy (for whatever their reasons) should make a separate entry on the valid doubts of homeopathic treatment, and then the folks who would like to present only the ways in which homeopathy is claimed to work should add a link at the bottom of the page to that entry and label it "doubts about homeopathy." The detractors of homeopathic treatment may even use the "q" word to their hearts content within their own entry. This I think ought to allow both sides of the debate the freedom to speak their minds, and let those researching the term have access to both sides of the argument, without having to continue this degrading back and forth over the use or misuse of the word "quackery." It would break up this ridiculous fight, while still allowing a freedom of expression. It would also allow those researching the topic to have unencumbered views on both sides of the debate, rather then having a confusing back and forth inside a single entry.
Does anyone out there agree with me on this courteous solution? Iris Anthe 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That would be a POV fork, which is a forbidden practice here. Articles are supposed to cover all sides of the subject, including all significant POV. -- Fyslee 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I also don't think this addresses the actual question we're struggling with. The problem is not the use of "quackery" within the body of the article. If there's a reliable and notable source that applies the term to homeopathy, then that usage can be noted in the text (with the appropriate attribution). The question is whether the use of "Quackery" as a category falls within the WP guidelines for categorization which say that you should not apply a category unless it is both self-evident and non-controversial. It is self-evident that the application of Quackery as a category is not self-evident and it is also very clearly controversial. The people who argue otherwise would say that "it's self-evident and non-controversial to me and people who think like me" but that hardly meets the guidelines. --Lee Hunter 17:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Hmmm. Well, then there really must be a well-written, non-antagonistic section in this entry called perhaps "doubts about the proof of homeopathic efficacy" in which the arguments about the problems with the homeopathic system are clearly outlined. It should bring up and reference the studies that show trials in which homeopathy did not work. It should explain the difficulty in analyzing a physical treatment (pills or tinctures) that are said to affect the patient on an energetic level (vital force). It should outine the problem of not being able to analyse pills or tinctures with no grossly traceable chemical compounds in them. It should outline the long history of debate between the AMA and the AIH. It would only be polite to refrain from using the derogatory and inflammtory term "quackery" in this section. Most likely the point of homeopathy being a system that is not backed by the AMA, and that has not reached a level of solid proof to satisfy medical researchers would come across quite clearly without the need for baiting or rudeness. It is only fair that these doubts and valid critiques have a place in the entry on homeopathy, but to ask that they overpower or completely negate all the positive knowledge that should also be shared on the healing technique would simply reduce the knowledge-sharing of the entry. I think we can allow the readers to make their own judgments on whether or not to actually use the technique. We are not a medical guide. We are simply here to share knowledge, even knowledge that some people find offensive. We must remember that there are people who DO see the logic and efficacy of homeopathy. Does anyone agree with this? Iris Anthe 17:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There's already a section like that in the article and there's no debate about it. What we've specifically been discussing is the categorization (i.e. the links at the very bottom of the page that show how the article is grouped with other articles). This is something on which it is apparently impossible to find a compromise. Either it goes in the category "Quackery" or it doesn't (the category itself has been nominated for deletion several times). --Lee Hunter 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I apologize. To be honest, that was no longer very clear in the debate. It had degraded terribly. Well then, my two cents would be that the insistence upon adding the "quackery" link, after a section outlining the doubts on homeopathy is in there, is an inflammatory bit of rudeness. Sorry to have sidetracked this debate further. It was not my intention. I was unable to see the beginning point of the debate as a newcomer. Iris Anthe 11:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/m/Talk%7EHomeopathy_15b1.html"