Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 →

Contents

Second paragraph

I've noticed that this talks about metaanalyses being difficult, then drops the subject. I saw a paper the other day that reanalysed Linde's 1997 paper, and showed that if you simultaneously used only the high-quality studies and corrected for publication bias, the results reduced to zero, and there was also a letter discussing (Shang?) that pointed out that a lot of these analyses were extreme, and only justified by the scientific implausibilty. I think we could make a good, NPOV section on that - If I can find the damn things again. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the Linde paper with me at this very moment, but I'm somewhat certain that when Linde included only the "high quality studies" (26 of them) and adjusted for publication bias, the odd-ratio was still 1.78, which is still significant. Some researchers have taken the 21 "high quality" homeopathic studies and the 9 "high quality" conventional medical studies and found that the homeopathic studies showed significance over placebo (P=0.0392)[ Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB (2006) What a difference a trial makes. FACT, Supplement 1, 28-29]. Yeah, this IS Ernst's publication. Considering that Ernst is a well-known skeptic of homeopathy, this data is both interesting and notable. DanaUllmanTalk 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not doing the research myself, but can somebody tell me with just what procedure Linde "adjusted for publication bias" and how large the adjustment was? Another thing that I noticed while pondering this question: Why are there two separate references given in Homeopathy#Research on medical effectiveness for the quote starting "The evidence of bias ..."? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic understanding

I have just removed a sentence from the lede which makes a point about the basic principles or understanding of science. I find this point to be tendentious and incorrect. It is supported by reference to Whorton. I tried to add some balance by adding a further point from Whorton to the effect that scientific understanding is or may be incomplete. This point was disputed. Since we can't have selective use of a source to support just one side, I am removing the other side for balance. The lede over-eggs this point anyway so pruning is generally a good way to go. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That was an undiscussed change away from the status quo, so I am not surprised it was reverted. The POV tag is still there, but it doesn't really make a big difference because the POV is fairly obvious anyway. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Why ARE we using Wharton for that? One would think that in all the fallout from the Benveniste affair in Nature that a good, strong source could be found. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I discuss changes and am here discussing them still. The problem is editors who revert without discussion and who just make tendentious edit summaries like "POV pushing". Such action seems contrary to good practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You have made some kind of strange edits, though. Removing the section cited by Wharton may have been justified in retrospect, but without explaining it in the edit summary, it looked random, and removed a fairly well-accepted view in the medical field. (I've found a better ref.) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I only found one sentence in the Nature editorial (your "better ref") that is relevant here, but it's a good one: Nor is there much comfort for anybody in the explanation offered at the end of the article - that antibody molecules once embodied in water leave their internal marks, as ghosts of a kind, on its molecular structure - for there is no evidence of any other kind to suggest that such behavior may be within the bounds of possibility. As a service to the reader, and in light of the controversy surrounding the decision to include this statement in the article, I would like to quote this sentence directly in the footnote. Or is that considered bad style? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope not, because it seems very sensible to me, and I have done it extensively elsewhere. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I have also quoted a few times on the footnote, when the quote was supporting the statement, but it was too long to include it on the text, or it was not relevant to include the exact wording of the source --Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the last few sentences were relevant too: [The suggestion that extreme homeopathic dilutions have an effect] strike at the roots of two centuries of observation and rationalization of physical phenomena. Where, for example, would elementary principles such as the Law of Mass Action be if Benveniste is proved correct? The principle of restraint which applies is simply that, when an unexpected observation requires that a substantial part of our intellectual heritage be thrown away, it is prudent to ask more carefully than usual whether the observation may be incorrect. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, that's nice, too, especially because it purports to answer the question that was repeatedly posed here, which basic laws are violated. Unfortunately, I don't immediately see where the Law of Mass Action is involved. As to the presentation here, if various parts and several sentences of the essay are relevant, then it might be better to leave the reference as is, considering it is online, and let the reader pick out the parts that interest her. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The law of mass action in a nutshell means "more stuff = more effect". If water memory were true, this law could not apply. Tim Vickers (talk)
Or, in the words of Law of mass action, "the rate of an elementary reaction (a reaction that proceeds through only one transition state, that is one mechanistic step) is proportional to the product of the concentrations of the participating molecules." That's all well and good, but it only applies to "elementary reactions", and it seems embarassingly naive to call any biological system "elementary". Besides, the standpoint of homeopathy is not that super small concentrations have in proportion super large effects, but that the active ingredient in homeopathic remedies is not molecules but something we do not yet know how to measure. That view can also be described as embarassingly naive, but the connection to the law of mass action seems to me to be extremely tenuous. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, this is a good example of why is is not sensible to approach this from first principles. Science does not work like axiomatic mathematics. You start with observations and experiment and the principles just summarise the results. In biochemistry and medicine, it seems quite normal for miniscule quantities to have a powerful effect due to their catalytic, triggering or controlling effect - enzymes, hormones, etc. Crude criticisms which are based upon tendentious reasoning from debatable principles should be excluded from the article and this is currently my main purpose here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Chemical reactions and association-dissociation equilibria, which are the two fundamental types of processes occurring within organisms, can indeed be broken down into sets of simple rate equations (see enzyme kinetics for example). In particularly complex systems, such as a living cell, there will be large numbers of these individual reaction steps occurring simultaneously, but the components of these complex reactions are still simple reaction steps. The chemical reactions that occur in living matter are no different than those in non-living matter, people who think otherwise are adherents of the "embarassingly naive" [Sic] idea of vitalism (which is now part of history). Tim Vickers (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a chance that 'science' hasn't yet devised methods to find out the mechanism of action of Homeopathic remedies?Happening (talk) [comments by a banned user]

We have, but the mechanism of the placebo effect is still not understood in molecular detail. Neurobiology is not a particularly advanced field. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
So, for the moment, shouldn't we consider it's effects good enough? More importantly, I don't consider Homeopathic remedies to be 'placebo'-Happening (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
"Good enough" for what? That you choose not to accept the scientific consensus (that homeopathic theory is vitally flawed, that homeopathic dilutions of a certain level and beyond have no reasonable probability of containing an active ingredient, and that reported treatment successes are consistent with a placebo effect) is your deal, but it really has no bearing on this article. — Scientizzle 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is confused on a couple of points (1) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (2) No one in mainstream medicine or science denies that homeopathy might operate by placebo effect. I think it is even stated in this article (or used to be, but it might have been swamped with nonsense). What is going on is that some want to claim homeopathy results are NOT a placebo effect.--Filll (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientizzle, Fill,

There wouldn't have been so many Patients flocking Homeopathic Doctors if they were giving just Placebo. Our family is a 'testimonial' that it's worked for us. In fact, if I'd really been given placebo, I'd have died of Liver Cancer long ago according to other Doctors (probably Arion can testify to that)!-Happening (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
Have you ever heard of spontaneous remission? --Art Carlson (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This will sound harsh but, unfortunately, a personal experience that a person had is not a WP:V veriable source, it's not reliable according to the standards on WP:RS reliable sources guideline. Also, personal statements about how a medicine cured a certain person are probably WP:OR original research, and non-published statements of what a doctor told you personally can't be included either for some of those reasons. We can't make changes to articles based on that sort of evidence because it breaks wikipedia principles and damages its goals on several ways, directly or by encouraging other more damaging behaviours. These principles have been on a ton of experience with presenting this sort of evidence. All of this is independent of the personal feelings or opinions that we have as editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to believe you that it was homeopathy that helped you, and that a placebo given by an MD would not have helped. But I think that what helped you was probably the aspect of homeopathy that we cannot (yet?) measure with scientific experiments. Perhaps if your homeopath had given you a placebo, without knowing it wasn't the real stuff, the results would have been the same. Good homeopaths do much more than just giving medicine to their patients. They are interested in every aspect of their patients' lives, to the point that you learn a lot about yourself by going to a homeopath. (At least that's what I am told, I have never consulted a homeopath.) While we cannot consciously control more than a few of our body functions, it is well known that attitudes can heal diseases, that some people can kill themselves by just making their heart stop beating and so on. You can observe in children how long it takes to learn controlling some body functions.
Think of it this way: There is no doubt that the sound of running water is very effective against some problems with passing water. But we can't prove it's more effective than the placebo effect, because in some sense it is the placebo effect. We can't prove that homeopathy is more effective than the placebo effect, but do we have to? If it works for you, isn't that enough? I think that's what we need to convey in the article: That homeopathy still hasn't been proved effective in scientific experiments; but that they are not fair to homeopathy because it's something else that they cannot measure. That's why the right balance is so important: We need to be honest about the scientific evaluation of homeopathy. But we have no right to try to destroy its effect, when for some people it's exactly what they need. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

::::*Hans, you took the words outa my mouth!

  • Art, I do know about spontaneous remission, but not all the 'cures' of a Homeopathic Doctor can be attributed to it.
  • I wonder how many of you here have really tried Homeopathy. I presume all of you are just theorizing (the skeptics I mean)—Happening (talk) [comments by a banned user]
I'm answering on your talk page. This page is not a forum for this sort of stuff not related to improving the article. Compulsory links to policies with suggestive names: WP:TALK and WP:FORUM --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

The use of templates in this article is making it extremely hard to edit, which means the writing suffers. Would editors please consider not adding more templates? It's just as easy (in fact, easier) to add a reference manually.

Here's an example of a paragraph in edit mode from the sandbox:

The ideas behind homeopathy are regarded by mainstream scientists as "diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge."<ref name="shang">{{cite journal |author=Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, ''et al'' |title=Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy |journal=Lancet |volume=366 |issue=9487 |pages=726–732 |year=2005 |pmid=16125589 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2}}</ref><ref name="Ernst2005"/><ref>{{cite journal |author=Johnson T, Boon H |title=Where does homeopathy fit in pharmacy practice? |journal=American journal of pharmaceutical education |volume=71 |issue=1 |pages=7 |year=2007 |pmid=17429507 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507}}</ref> Claims for its efficacy beyond [[placebo]] are unsupported by the collective weight of [[scientific method|scientific]] and [[clinical medicine|clinical]] studies.<ref name="brienlewithbryant">{{cite journal |author=Brien S, Lewith G, Bryant T |title=Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C |journal=British journal of clinical pharmacology |volume=56 |issue=5 |pages=562–568 |year=2003 |pmid=14651731 }}</ref><ref name="asthma">{{cite journal |author=McCarney RW, Linde K, Lasserson TJ |title=Homeopathy for chronic asthma |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |issue=1 |pages=CD000353 |year=2004 |pmid=14973954 |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD000353.pub2 }}</ref><ref name="dementia">{{cite journal |author=McCarney R, Warner J, Fisher P, Van Haselen R |title=Homeopathy for dementia |journal=Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) |issue=1 |pages=CD003803 |year=2003 |pmid=12535487 }}<br/>{{cite web|url=http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=197&sectionId=27 |title=Homeopathy results |accessdate=2007-07-25 |publisher=[[National Health Service]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html |title=Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A–97) |accessdate=2007-07-25 |publisher=[[American Medical Association]]}}<br/>{{cite journal |author=Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, Willich S |title=The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture |journal=International journal of epidemiology |volume=30 |issue=3 |pages=526–531 |year=2001 |pmid=11416076 }}<br/>{{cite journal |title=Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments: systematic review of randomized clinical trials |author=Altunç U, Pittler MH, Ernst E |journal=Mayo Clin Proc. |date=2007 |volume=82 |issue=1 |pages=69–75 |pmid= 17285788}}</ref> The lack of convincing scientific evidence,<ref name="Adler">Jerry Adler. [http://www.newsweek.com/id/105581 "No Way to Treat the Dying"] - ''[[Newsweek]]'', Feb 4, 2008</ref> and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as [[pseudoscience]],<ref>National Science Board (April 2002) ''Science and Engineering Indicators,'' Chapter 7, "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding" - [http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm "Science Fiction and Pseudoscience"] (Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences)</ref><ref>Wahlberg, A. (2007) [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.024 "A quackery with a difference—New medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom,"] ''Social Science & Medicine'' '''65'''(11) pp. 2307-2316: PMID 18080586</ref><ref>Atwood, K.C. (2003) [http://archotol.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/129/12/1356 "Neurocranial Restructuring' and Homeopathy, Neither Complementary nor Alternative,"] ''Archives of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery'' '''129'''(12) pp. 1356-1357: PMID 14676179</ref><ref>Ndububa, V.I. (2007) [http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_18080586-medical-quackery-nigeria-silence.htm "Medical quackery in Nigeria; why the silence?"] ''Nigerian Journal of Medicine'' '''16'''(4) pp. 312-317: PMID 18080586</ref> or, in the words of a recent medical review, as "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."<ref name=Ernst>{{cite journal |author=Ernst E, Pittler MH |title=Efficacy of homeopathic arnica: a systematic review of placebo-controlled clinical trials |journal=Archives of surgery (Chicago, Ill. : 1960) |volume=133 |issue=11 |pages=1187–90 |year=1998 |pmid=9820349}}</ref>

SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Try going to your "preferences" link, clicking on "Gadgets" and then ticking "WikiEd", this will format references to differentiate them from the text. Makes dealing with any text dense with references (whether in templates or not) much easier. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim. I tried doing that a couple of weeks ago but it slowed my computer down quite a bit, and it also caused something else that was strange, though I forget what it was, so I had to uninstall it. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you running firefox? Most of the gadgets and java tools are optimised for that browser (its much better as well <start advert>..open source..blah..more secure...better compatibility...blah..</stop advert>) Nevermind, it doesn't even run in IE. You might also check you've got the current version of java on your machine, or try installing it in your monobook manually (see User:Cacycle/wikEd installation. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox for Mac. I'll check the java and look into manual installation. Thanks for the advice. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

There is no section for Criticism in this article which most Wikipedia pages have. Para 2 seems to be pretty critical, so shouldn't we title Para 2 'Criticism' (or else we may end up putting the same matter there as well)? 3 Paragraphs for the Lead may be a bit long anyway. I also found that Anthony Campbell's criticism of George Vithoulkas' statement about Syphilis has been repeated, at least once.-Happening (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Wikipedia pages do not usually have "criticism" sections and having such sections is not a good idea for many reasons. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't agree - there are "criticism" sections in a lot of articles and all the articles on 'Alternative Medicine' do have "criticism" sections. Why isn't it a good idea? It will make the article more NPOV-Happening (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
The theory is that the entire article should be balanced. It shouldn't be a positive article with a single section reserved for negative statements. Everything should be fair.
Apart from the special problems with this article's "population", which mean that any big changes need to be discussed first to prevent a huge fight, your edits also made the lede of this article very small. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The lede is supposed to be small - a succinct summary. See the Britannica summary above. Following its model, the lede should be one paragraph in which there should just be one sentence of criticism. What we have now is the usual result of editing by committee - a overblown compendium of diverse views. I am not convinced that Wikipedia has any good way of resolving such a case of too many cooks. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support Colonel. There is a sentence of criticism in the Lead which reads, "The end product is often so diluted that materially it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol". In a committee, there at least is a 'resolution', but here?Happening (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.

Also, the length suggested for an article of ">30,000 characters" is "three or four paragraphs". I'm not arguing that the current lead is perfect or anything, but it's at least within-guideline regarding size and content. There's certainly no need to break it up as Happening (talk · contribs) did, but wordsmithing to enhance brevity while maintaining accuracy is a worthy goal. — Scientizzle 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have my issues with the lede, but the size is approximately right. With SlimVirgin's new paragraph the balance is also much better than it has been for weeks (at least). And reducing the size by reformulating in a more elegant way is generally a good thing. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If I understand it right it used to be the WP consensus that NPOV is achieved by a criticism section (around 2007 and earlier). This has changed and now the demands are higher, that the entire article should be balanced. However, many articles still have the old structure and in my opinion it is still tolerated if it is impossible to reach a consensus on the new structure. I think we should develop a criticism section for this article as a way of reducing all the conflicts. MaxPont (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Max! Why don't you create a 'Criticism' section?-Happening (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
In a sense we already have two criticism sections: Homeopathy#Medical and scientific analysis and Homeopathy#Research on effects in other biological systems. Just adding another one is not going to solve the problem if, as seems likely, hell breaks loose as soon as you make other parts uncritical. One thing we do need, though, is a good section about the history of the relation between homeopathy and mainstream medicine. So that's criticism both ways. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You didn't get the point Hans, I wanted Max to create a section on Criticism, just to realise that the whole article is critical-Happening (talk) [comments by a banned user]
Sorry for that, now your comment makes more sense. Normally I am quite good at detecting irony, but Wikipedia culture is a bit special. Ironic remarks are so often taken at face value here, that it's better not to make them. As a result they are very rare, and therefore I had to readjust my irony detectors. You might be interested in WP:SARCASM. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Young people are smarter than 'old men' (just pulling your legs—all 3)—Happening (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
Don't you see that Happening is another sockpuppet of the infamous Dr.Jhingaadey? 201.223.174.213 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why you say that? I hope you can give us your name! —Happening (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
Well, IP address 61.2.70.139 (Talk) (Contribs) has been editing in your name, and Dr.Jhingaadey has used 61.2.70.140 (Talk) (Contribs) here [1]. Unless he's trying to make you look like a moron. 201.223.174.213 (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That IP matches well with numerous other IPs he has used. Check out Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. According to accepted practice here, all edits and comments by 61.2.70.139 and Happening can be reverted/deleted. Further discussion with this blocked user should not occur. -- Fyslee / talk 05:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Stop making false allegations. This is preposterous! My I.P. isn't even listed there! — Happening (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
User talk:61.2.65.95‎ has also been used by you. -- Fyslee / talk 14:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please stop it! I'm sure we can discuss things on my Talk Page. — Happening (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]

Talk:Homeopathy/Lead - a sandbox / work space

I've copied the Lead section to Talk:Homeopathy/Lead just to kick some ideas around.... - I don't know if this has been tried before, but feel it might be worth a go! It's a kind of specific sandbox really, and I hope it helps! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now completed what a hope is a simplification, and clarification of the lead in neutral terms - and I think it's better than the current draft! - I presume the eyes and ears around here are fairly well trained, so I won't be bold until we've got some feedback here.... take a look, and thoughts most welcome... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks much better. I changed one detail where it wasn't entirely correct. Perhaps we can shorten the last paragraph as well, but even as it is it's a great improvement. Getting rid of the etymology in the lede, as you have done, works for me if we discuss it in the History section. Anyway, if we implement this new lede I expect we will check that we are not losing any information and extend the body where necessary. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the last paragraph reads more like body text than lead. I would clash all of it except the one sentence "Current usage around the world ...". --Art Carlson (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
glad you found some merit in it! - I think it's a good idea to take this really slowly, and encourage a wide range of views before any edits to the actual article (I gather this subject is somewhat heated, and although I consider myself quite neutral - that's not really for me to judge I guess!) - I think the length of lead is probably ok - but I kinda agree that the final para reads a bit like body text.. I'll take another look to see if I can either synthesise, or write some new stuff which makes it work better as its own 'mini article'- cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree about the prevalence section and duly cut it down - the section on prevalence in the lead should not rival the section on prevalence in the body. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the information about the use of it in the UK. This has been repeatedly removed by anti-homeopathy editors, both from the lead and from the body of the text. But it's clearly relevant that the British government is willing to pay for it to the extent of financing five hospitals that offer it (and so far as I know offer only that). Anyone who knows anything about the way the National Health Service in the UK is funded will understand the significance of that. I therefore feel it's important to retain it in the lead to balance the allegations of quackery. SlimVirgin talk|edits 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It needs to be said: NPOV isn't about balance, it's about due weight. That being said, the question becomes whether or not it's undue weight to include this mention here. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Prevalence is a one-paragraph section. The lead is supposed to summarise the article. Giving more space to the one-paragraph prevalence than any other section seems bizarre. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The prevalence paragraph is important to show that homeopathy is not just some pseudoscientific thing that hardly anyone has heard of — it may or may not be the former, but it's not the latter; on the contrary, it's a very popular alternative therapy that many people swear by, rightly or wrongly. Paragraph below so we can see what we're talking about. SlimVirgin talk|edits 22:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions,[25][26] although homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations,[27] anti-malarial drugs[28] and antibiotics.[29] In many countries, the laws that govern the regulation and testing of conventional drugs do not apply to homeopathic remedies.[30] Current usage around the world varies from two percent of people in the United Kingdom and the United States using homeopathy in any one year[31][32] to 15 percent in India, where it is considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[33] In the UK, the National Health Service runs five homeopathic hospitals,[34] and in the 1990s, between 5.9 and 7.5 percent of English family doctors are reported to have prescribed homoeopathic remedies, a figure rising to 49 percent in Scotland.[35]

  • The 2nd section, titled, "Another Suggestion", seems to be more balanced. We can also title the last Para, "Criticism" - we do need a section titled "Criticism" isn't it?
  • Like Scientizzle and many others said, I think we need to make the matter more concise—Happening (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
Not to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Arthur, can you please explain — Happening (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
(Possible edit conflict, above) The assertion of individuated diagnosis and treatment does not seem to be a core belief, and probably shouldn't be in the lead. If that were the case over-the-counter "homeopathic remedies" would be an oxymoron. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A Doctor (Homeopathic) may be able to answer that better. From what I know, they do take a detailed case-history, which leads to an 'individuated diagnosis and treatment' — Happening (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC) [comments by a banned user]
Remark: User:Happening has been indef blocked as a sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey, case is reviewd at ANI here --Enric Naval (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, ignoring Happening, per below - I still think that way too much weight and specifics are being gone into about prevalence, and it's adding an odd Anglocentric bias as well. Can't we keep more general? I think WP:LEAD almost requires us to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have provided a global summary. We might also say something about Germany where it originated and remains popular. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
For some reason I think that's perhaps not exactly the kind of solution Shoemaker's Holiday had in mind. By the way, we were talking about the proposed new and shorter lede, see link at the beginning of this section. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The logical error is assuming because UK govt funds it, it believes it or supports it. Govts fund for political reasons. They think its useful for them at the polls. eg Govts fund religious education in Australia too, not because they like it but because the religionists would massacre them at the polls if funding was withdrawn. An encylcopedia shouldn't be limited in this way, especially by poor logic when arguing the case. Mccready (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

How do we know he was a sockpuppet? has it been proven beyond reasonable doubt? if he had been strongly anti-homeopathy one imagines he would still be here, for example. It would be helpful to see the proof. thanks Peter morrell 15:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

He was just a banned user with a new user name who forgot to log in and thus revealed who he really was. His editing also failed the duck test. The evidence is pretty strong and he has been blocked (again!). Take a look at the links already provided. Whether he was pro- or anti-homeopathy has nothing to do with it. Anti-homeopathy editors have also been blocked for such offenses. -- Fyslee / talk 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few places to look:
As to my reasons for refactoring his comments above, you can read here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

India

Someone has added that homoepathy in India is confined to poor community and for minor diseases. This is an OR uncited claim. As I happen to know several Indian homeopaths, I also know that this statement is false. Homeopathy in India is used in all sections of society and for all disease types, including serious ones. There is even a government homeopath in India. So this statement needs either removing or sourcing very carefully. Peter morrell 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It was an editor who is obviously from India, and who has done less than 20 edits in the last 2 years. My guess is that homeopathy has a bit of an image like that because it's cheaper. It seems natural in countries where this point isn't in the shadow of a pseudoscience debate. I wonder if there are any reliable sources for this line of thought. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is and isn't implausible

Friends, there is a RS[2] referenced in this article in the 2nd paragraph, "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. And yet, at another place in this article, it says, "Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed." If we are going to make an effort to have this article maintain a NPOV, I believe that we also need to provide this quote, and we should reference it to the same source. This is an obvious one. DanaUllmanTalk 04:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "extremely dilute" and a 30C Homeopathic dilution, specifically, one actually has an active ingredient. Doing something with zero active ingredient still goes against everything we know about science. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the second sentence is unsourced and should be deleted. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear that the paper we are citing is actually relatively sympathetic towards the "water memory" hypothesis. But then, given how much has been published about the subject it seems a bit strange to source a claim in the lede to the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. So we should get rid of the quoted "is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" bit and stop citing the paper. I am not sure if that's what you mean, but if you do I agree. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's face it — homeopathy is scientfiically implausible. Pharmaceutical Education isn't a great source, but it's not likely a paper in a serious medical journal is going to say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The implausibility bit has two other references (currently 14 and 15). We are talking about numer 16, which is the reference for "is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge". --Hans Adler (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems in line with the thrust of other references, though, if slightly stronger stated. E.g. "The preparation of remedies involves serial dilution, commonly to the extent that no molecules of the original substance remain, and vigorous shaking between dilutions (potentisation). During this process information is thought to be transferred from the diluted substance to the solvent,6 which in the light of current knowledge seems implausible" (Shang). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pharmaceutical Education is a good source - no one can seriously argue it is not a reliable source -you cannot decide that a source is not good only because it states something positive for homeopathy.--Area69 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a good source in this case. There are so many sources on this particular topic, some of them excellent, that there is no valid reason to choose an article in an educational journal, especially if one of the authors seems to be a recent graduate. It's like using the Leeds Roundhay Weekly as a source on the Queen's income. It was cherry picking, to source a negative statement about homeopathy to it, and that shouldn't be done. And it shouldn't be used to cherry pick a positive statement either. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, one could argue that we could use this as the third reference for the first half of the sentence, i.e. the implausibility part. But I don't think it makes sense to use a paper for this purpose in which theauthors also mention lots of possible explanation for a water memory effect in a sympathetic way. Especially not when we already have two others. Or do they have similar problems? (I haven't looked.) --Hans Adler (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, are you still talking about the Shang metaanalysis that I was quoting, or did you misread that as being from the Pharmaceutical education source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I am still talking about the Pharmaceutical Education source with which Dana started this thread. Are you sure you are in the right thread? It looks to me as if you have changed the topic completely without making it clear that this was your intention. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. There was another change of topic which happened with OrangeMarlin's cryptical "second sentence" remark above, or when I tried to make sense of that. Perhaps I got that wrong? --Hans Adler (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a little confusing, aye. There's half-a-dozen separate topics under this same header. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found this quote in a higher-quality journal:

"Homeopathy has, in its 200 year history, remained a subject that is controversial, to say the least. It is based on the assumption that “like can be treated with like” and that serial dilutions render a remedy not weaker but stronger. Both of these assumptions are contrary to what we today know about the laws of nature. There are, of course, many therapies of which we currently do not understand how they work. But homeopathy is different: we do understand that it cannot work, unless we re-write whole chapters in basic textbooks of science."

-Exploring Homeopathy, Edzard Ernst, Preventive Medicine Volume 45, Issue 4, October 2007, Pages 280-281 doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.008

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC )

.........well. If you are going to use that you should also state that homeopathy is controversial in the article. Then you should remove the category pseudoscience since this is again the wikirules. Besides that It is a peer review paper?--Area69 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


I just remembered seeing a reference a couple months back to plausibility in the print version of US News & World Report, a tertiary source beyond reproach (in the appropriate contexts). Sure enough, the online version is available, here (see paragraph 6). This is probably about as canonical an example as we can get of a good tertiary source as it is summarizes alternative medicine secondary sources (albeit unnamed); it only would be nicer if the mention was a more focused on homeopathy instead of all alternative medicine. I would suggest not taking the language verbatim as when out of the context of the comparisons of different practices it takes on unneutral connotations ("woo-woo"), but the underlying message is fine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be reluctant about quoting the media in such matters. Jefffire (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's useful for making general observations, if backed with other references. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a compromise proposal. I suggest the following: Homeopathy is scientifically implausible[14][15] and based on "the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge,"[16] and yet, similar sources assert, “Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed.”[16b] Please note I added a couple of words to the quote at the first part of the sentence because the authors did not say that homeopathy was diametrically oppose to... but saying that its theories are. Does this work? DanaUllmanTalk 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, in which paper does that new quote appear? Saying "16b" is really unhelpful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I see. Per WP:UNDUE, that's a tiny minority view in science, and as it purports to assess science, we should leave it out. There are better sources with better quotes, for instance, the Preventive Medicine one, which is by Edzard Ernst, a respected authority. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the quote above from Preventive Medicine ("But homeopathy is different: we do understand that it cannot work, unless we re-write whole chapters in basic textbooks of science.") supports the contested claim in the article about defying fundamental principles. MaxPont (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We have already made reference to the Pharmacy Education article, and there is consensus that it is RS and notable, but to date, we have not incorporated its more balanced presentation. Are we or are we not interested in providing NPOV information?

There is absolutely no need for Ernst's strident statement. DanaUllmanTalk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
There is no need to quote Ernst's statement, but it can be used as one supporting RS for the "fundamental principles" sentence. MaxPont (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ernst's statement should not be used because it is obviously wrong. He says baldly that "it cannot work". It clearly can work via such mechanisms as the placebo effect. His language is sloppy and so it is not a good source. It is a matter of basic science which has been demonstrated by experiment that apparently inert medicines with no active ingredient nevertheless have a distinct healing effect. People who say that this action contradicts scientific principles are talking nonsense. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you already have this discussion at Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_34#Ernst_ref_.2316_added_today? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly - I don't recall Ernst coming up before. The basic issue which needs to be grasped here is that, so far as I know, science doesn't have an especially good theory as to why the placebo effect works. According to our article on the subject, A considerable body of work has attempted to elucidate the 'mechanism' of the placebo effect - but without much success.. So, if science relies upon this mysterious effect in determining the results of clinical trials, we are in no position to cast aspersions upon homeopathy which works in a somewhat similar way. Both homeopathy and allopathy have gaps or mysteries in their workings and science has yet to get to the bottom of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Peter Morell talks about him on the thread I linked, and Ernst was also discussed on the RS noticeboard on December 2007 --Enric Naval (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Complementary or alternative medicine: the need for plausibility.
Whatever Happened to Plausibility as the Basis for Clinical Research and Practice After EBM and CAM Rushed in?.
A critical overview of homeopathy. - general review, quite positive but notes implausibility and fact that it contradicts "contemporary rational basis of medicine".
Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment - notes that "there is no plausible mode of action for these highly diluted remedies" Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanx Tim. The article, "A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," is particularly NPOV and was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Because it seems that we have a strong enough anti-homeopathy statement near the top of the article that suggests that homeopathy is implausible and runs counter modern pharmaceutical knowledge, I suggest that we add in a quote from this article's abstract: "Some data—both from randomized, controlled trials and laboratory research—show effects from homeopathic remedies that contradict the contemporary rational basis of medicine. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea." I can provide the references to each of the meta-analyses for these four conditions from major conventional medical journals. DanaUllmanTalk 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, we've solved the "implausibility" problem. We can just say "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible" with this as a reference (or added to some of the other references for this statement). As the the rest of this review, that sentence about meta-analyses doesn't reflect the current state of knowledge, since the 2005 Shang review represents the state-of-the-art in the analyses of homeopathy. Including dated material is not a good idea, so I wouldn't agree with the suggestion to quote that sentence. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because Shang wrote his analysis of homeopathic studies does not automatically invalidate them or make them any less significant. I do not agree with giving Shang such an inordinate amount of power to invalidate significant research findings. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There might be a better wording to the effect that some positive studies of homeopathic efficacy do exist, but that they are old rather than recent; they are regarded by many as methodologically flawed; they involve small statistically insginificant groups; and there remains the bald fact that trials of homeopathy have been in general a big disappointment. This combines with the lack of a scientific mechanism to create the situation where this article does indeed read like a 'hatchet job' and 'an attack piece' BECAUSE that is a correct evaluation of the status of homeopathy in the world as seen by the average person. The many people who have good experiences with homeopathic treatment and thus a strong personal conviction that it works (including Dana) clearly do not outnumber the majority of people who remain sceptical about it. I think this is a more balanced assessment. However, I do think the article should mention the positive studies en passant at some point with a clutch of refs added of the best. That would be a fairer situation than leaving the article entirely as 'an attack piece,' which it currently undoubtedly is. If so, we need to agree on a slight rewording and which refs to use. thanks Peter morrell 05:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't agree that the average opinion of homeopathy is that it is bunk. My impression is that it is still seen as fairly respectable in countries such as the UK. Hostility seems to come from the hard-science types who are a minority. It is like religion - mocked by rationalists but still commanding widespread support. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to ”Colonel Warden” above: I think you make an unfair misinterpretation of the statement from Ernst that homeopathy “cannot work” when you make references to placebo. Homeopaths themselves claim that it works regardless of the placebo effect and the focus of this entire debate is whether homeopathy actually works in the way the homeopaths claim. No one has disputed that placebo exists and can have an impact on studies of homeopathy. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My general position to be sceptical of all sorts of medicine. Presenting some sorts of medicine uncritically while presenting others in an overly critical way does not seem NPOV. They all have their problems - both practical and theoretical - and we should be wary of vested interests on all sides. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to DanaUllman above: If Dana gives a correct description of the article “A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," (Annals of Internal Medicine) I think it should be included without disclaimers. I base that on the title of the article and the reputation of the academic journal. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • General Comment: I don’t at all buy the arguments that articles should be rejected just because they are old (in particular if “old” means 2003). The average quality for acceptance in academic journals was not significantly lower in the 1980s than today. Well designed peer reviewed studies are not invalidated by time, only slowly superseded by the growing body of other studies. MaxPont (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Two points. Ernst is in no sense a respected figure. He is reviled by most folks in CAM as a persistently scathing commentator about CAM, a so-called professor of a subject he seeks to invalidate with everything he publishes. In this way, he has made himself into a joke in the academic world. Regarding older studies, nor do I think they are necessarily worse than recent ones, but some of the older studies were not constructed using genuine homeopathic principles or they had small numbers, or they were seen to be flawed in some way or other. That is what many people think. It is not especially my view but it is the predominant view among researchers. Hopefully better studies will come along. Peter morrell 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst is unpopular among certain people because he is researching the effectiveness of CAM using rigorous methods and the results are unpalatable to them. Elsewhere he seems to be respected. Even within CAM, he appears to be enough of "a respected figure" to be on the editorial board of Homeopathy[3], for example. Brunton (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Quick note: Dana's descriptions of studies have been discovered to be highly misleading in the past, both as to hyping/disparaging notability based on whether he likes the conclusions, and very selective quoting. Hence Ullman's review of A Critical Overview of Homeopathy should probably be ignored until other, more trustworthy editors have looked at it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dana and arion. The 2005 meta analyses should be included but they cannot invalidate significant research findings. Besides that the 2005 meta analyses have been critisized in mainstream notable journals and press and this critisism should appear in the lead in proportion to its appearence in reliable sources. ( All these exist in references already cited in the article.I will provide them upon request. )--Area69 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are these "significant research findings" you're referring to? If you're suggesting, as it sounds like you are, that single studies are more significant than metaanalyses, and that criticism in alt-med journals and letters from homeopaths should be counted higher simply because it's more numerous, even though there's no studies to back them up, then you fail at understanding reliability in terms of science. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If I might quote something I said above: "There's probably a lot more that could be said on the presence of positive primary studies. Linde published a lot of papers on general problems with homeopathic studies as a whole, and this article in Time does a decent job of showing why there is a debate." We can discuss positive studies, explain why they aren't generally accepted in science, and so on. This doesn't mean yo get to reject a meta-analysis in The Lancet because you dislike it, nor that you get to claim that multiple very poor-quality individual studies should be given equal weight with respected, high-quality metaanalyses. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more than tad ironic (major chutzpah, in fact) that Shoemaker questions the accuracy of my descriptions of studies when he erroneously refers to the 2005 Lancet review of research as a "meta-analysis." Even the authors of that paper do not refer to it as such. Despite the RS nature of the Lancet, they lost a lot of credibility in publishing that paper, as was evidenced by the many harsh criticisms that this "review" got. That review began with 110 homeopathic and a "matching" 110 conventional medical studies, and then found 21 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only 9 similarly high quality medical studies, and yet, they never revealed what these studies showed. Instead, they chose to assess only the largest studies in this group, 8 homeopathic and 6 conventional. One homeopathic study was a "weight-loss" study! They ignored two large studies testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu. They ignored the meta-analysis of 3 childhood diarrhea studies as well as one of these studies that was published in PEDIATRICS (was it not RS enough for them?). They ignored ALL four of the Reilly allergy studies. Their review didn't even analyse external validity because 6 of the 8 homeopathic studies didn't have it. It is interesting to note that the authors of the Lancet report didn't even reveal which studies that they included in their review until critics demanded that they do such. What type of high quality medical journal would provide (hide) such a "black box" of data? DanaUllmanTalk 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Question to Shoemaker's Holiday (or others). Is DanaUllman getting the facts right here? Above you claimed that DanaUllman should be dismissed because he misrepresent the content and conclusions of academic studies. MaxPont (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Since DanaUllman concedes he was wrong in his accusation against me below, I don't think there's any point further discussing something that attacks The Lancet as conspiring against them, and other ridiculous claims. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Upon more precise review of this article, Shang (2005) referred to his work as a comparative study of homeopathic and conventional medical research. Only once in this article did he refer to the word "meta-analysis" in reference to his comparison, though due to the broad definition of the word ("A procedure for statistically combining the results of many different studies"), I will concede that one could refer to this review by Shang as a meta-analysis, though my above criticisms of this review of research still remains. The following quote from this article will be of interest to all: "Simulation studies have shown that detection of bias is difficult when meta-analyses are based on a small number of trials. For example, for the eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract that were included in our sample, the pooled effect indicated a substantial beneficial effect (odds ratio 0·36 [95% CI 0·26–0·50] and there was neither convincing evidence of funnel-plot asymmetry nor evidence that the effect differed between the trial classified as of higher reported quality and the remaining trials. Such sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works. However, the biases that are prevalent in these publications, as shown by our study, might promote the conclusion that the results cannot be trusted." It is interesting that Shang refers to the results of 8 homeopathic studies on acute infections of the upper respiratory tract as "robust," and yet, he claims that 8 studies is too few to obtain unbiased results, while at the same time, they final analysis compared 8 homeopathic trials and 6 conventional ones. You cannot have it both ways. DanaUllmanTalk 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Since we are citing Whorton in support of the idea that homeopathy is contraty to mainstream medical principles, it seems reasonable to cite his balanced view that the matter is not fully explained and so that it would be prudent to allow that these principles are incomplete. I have added a sentence to this effect with a substantial supporting quote in the citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Statements like 'Homeopathy is scientifically implausible.' is hopelessly POV and can not be verified. These gems need to be replaced with verifiable statements like 'Acording to so-and-so, homeopathy is scientifically implausible'. Why is everyone here arguing about whether or not homeopathy works? This is not something that a good article should determine. Report facts from verifiable sources and let the reader decide. Presumably homeopathy is scientifically plausible, if only to homeopaths. The need that some editors have to judge homeopathy has made for a nearly worthless article.

64.235.217.157 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Of course, homeopathy is scientifically implausible. That's been demonstrated to be true and to be generally accepted. That some homeopaths may be scientists doesn't move the contradiction outside their heads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please notice that the implausibility statement has been beaten to death on this thread, until it was finally sourced by two sources considered WP:V verifiable and WP:RS reliable by wikipedia standards. Please notice that when we talk of "verifiability" on wikipedia, we are talking of WP:V and we are only talking of it. (you will see this sort of acronyms being used all the time here)
    • The change on wording that you propose is called "attribution", and, according to WP:V, that sort of attribution is only necessary if there is disagreement between the sources (not the case here). To make attributions on "material challenged or likely to be challenged" it's enough to use an inline reference, like the article is already doing. Please feel free to provide sources stating that homeopathy is considered plausible and propose them on this talk page, but be aware but they may be rejected by other editor, and that you might need to raise WP:CONSENSUS consensus among editors about the inclusion, and that the changes proposed by you might never enter the article or can tweaked by other editors beyond recognition before or after inclusion on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead prevalence

This section goes into FAR too much detail about Britain, adding an odd Anglocentric bias. It currently reads:

Current usage around the world varies from two percent of people in the United Kingdom and the United States using homeopathy in any one year[31][32] to 15 percent in India, where it is considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[33] In the UK, the National Health Service runs five homeopathic hospitals,[34] and in the 1990s, between 5.9 and 7.5 percent of English family doctors are reported to have prescribed homeopathic remedies, a figure rising to 49 percent in Scotland.[35] In 2005, around 100,000 physicians used homeopathy worldwide, making it one of the most popular and widely used complementary therapies.[36]


I suggest we cut it to:

Current usage around the world varies from two percent of people in the United Kingdom and the United States using homeopathy in any one year[31][32] to 15 percent in India, where it is considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[33] In 2005, around 100,000 physicians used homeopathy worldwide, making it one of the most popular and widely used complementary therapies.[36]

Which includes enough information to get across the idea that it is popular, without giving undue weight to Britain.

Are we agreed?


Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Better. The India paragraph that Tim removed can be added back with a fact tag if preferred until a good source can be found for it...if one ever can be found, that is. Peter morrell 06:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That 'offending' Scotland and UK para can of course be moved to the prevalence article maybe ? Peter morrell 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No objections. I just think it too much detail for the lead. which should take a world-wide view, and the body is a summary section of the main article which already mentions the UK. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I support reduction of these lede paragraphs as they are overblown and tendentious. I would go further than Shoemaker because the first sentence is an improper synthesis. It presents the numbers of 2% to 15% as a range, implying that these are the bounds of the range and that 2% is low. Neither implication is supported by the sources. One of the sources, Use of complementary or alternative medicine in a general population in Great Britain., says things like Previous population-based studies in Europe, Australia and the United States show that the use of therapies and treatments referred to collectively as complementary or alternative medicines (CAMs) is widespread. and its statistics suggest that usage in the UK is high rather than low. So, the points which we might properly make in this section are:
  1. That homeopathy is widespread and common.
  2. That it is a comparatively popular form of alternative medicine.
  3. That the regulatory and support regime for it varies from country to country and continues to develop.

For the latter point, see The Economist, in which I just read an interesting account of Britain's new regulator for alternative medicine. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

2% is low. Perhaps it would be better to keep it, but say that 2% is widespread and common for alternative medicine. --Huffers (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the text: "where it is considered part of Indian traditional medicine.[33] In the UK, the National Health Service runs five homeopathic hospitals,[34] and in the 1990s, between 5.9 and 7.5 percent of English family doctors are reported to have prescribed homeopathic remedies, a figure rising to 49 percent in Scotland.[35]" This information could be included in the prevalence section, but the information about Scottish doctors needs to be amended - the source cited says that "forty-nine percent of practices", not individual family doctors, prescribed homoeopathic remedies, and that this "indicat[es] that at least 12% of Scottish GPs prescribe homoeopathy." Brunton (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

While the passage is still in the lead section, does anyone object to my amending that to "a figure rising to at least 12 percent in Scotland", as per the reference? Brunton (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead... Peter morrell 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)