Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Indistinguishable

I don't feel strongly about this, but I think MartinPhi's compromise version "chemically indistinguishable" is excellent. It's not very conspicuous or restrictive in this context, and it's likely to keep most proponents of homeopathy happy. (This is the lede. Even in a debunking article it would be counterproductive to affront believers in homeopathy long before giving the detailed arguments. I don't understand why anti-homeopathic POV pushers keep pushing against their own interest.) It's also more correct in the sense that it doesn't assume any particular testing methodology. Double blind studies are not the only way of testing; if you give two substances, one marked as homeopathic medicine and one marked as pure water or sugar, to patients, you probably get a stronger placebo effect from the former. The word "chemically" makes clear that the sentence doesn't intend to deny this. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you say "it would be counterproductive to affront believers in homeopathy long before giving the detailed arguments". The first part of the lead sentence in Hitler diaries says "In April 1983, the German news magazine Stern published extracts from what purported to be the diaries of Adolf Hitler, known as the Hitler Diaries.......". The last part of the sentence says "which were subsequently revealed to be forgeries". Using the rationale you give here, seems you might argue for the removal of that last part. Is that so? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No: 1. The number of believers in homeopathy is far bigger than the number of believers in the Hitler diaries. (There are big regional differences, so you may not be aware of that. I have seen very bad instances of homeopathic quackery while working here, and they were from the US and India. I have never heard of such goings-on in Europe.) We have to allow for their believes in the same way that we do it for silly religious dogmas. 2. The main question with the Hitler diaries is: Are they genuine or not? The main question with homeopathy is: Does it work or not? This is not the simple question: Do homeopathic remedies have a pharmaceutical effect? If the main question has a simple answer, it belongs in the first paragraph. If the answer is more complex, that's less clear. 3. The Hitler diary lede says explicitly that they were forged. Here we are talking about sneaky hinting that comes before the proper discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the Hitler lead says the diaries were forged. I already said that, so stop stealing my lines because you have hardly made a profound discovery. You totally ignored my question, and point. If the lead of an article about X says X is a forgery, why should an article about Y not say Y is a (whatever it is). Why would it be "counterproductive to affront believers in homeopathy long before giving the detailed arguments" but not counterproductive "to affront believers in the Hitler Diaries long before giving the detailed arguments"? Why do you advocate a different principle for different subjects? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for saying something that you could apparently misunderstand. Of course you know that the diaries were forged. I am not sure which of my statements you misunderstood, but I am guessing it was in point 3. (Is that correct?) By "Here we are talking about..." I meant the homeopathy article. Both interpretations are plausible, and I apologise for not being clearer. I would be grateful if you could reread what I wrote with this knowledge and tell me if you still think I ignored your question and point. I still think that each of the three (numbered) points above answers your questions. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh... Hans? People who make double blind studies are already aware of which one will get a stronger placebo effect. Actually, it's done that way on purpose. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that homeopathic medicine and pure water (or pure whatever) are distinguishable if each is labelled according to how it was produced. Therefore edit warring the compromise word "chemical" out of this article has a strong odour of POV pushing. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think OM wants to push the point that homeopathy is not effective beyond placebo. There are two problems with this: 1. While doubtless true (in my opinion), it is not so universally acknowledged that we can just claim it in the lede without losing or affronting a large part of our readers. 2. It is only half the truth, because: a) The hypothesis that placebos labelled as homeopathic, or prescribed by homeopaths, are more effective than regular placebos prescribed by a regular doctor is almost impossible to test. b) In many situations placebo is the best treatment. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are two different points: (1) There is no known blinded method for distinguishing any physical/chemical difference in the content of two identically diluted and succussed products, with the one lacking any "active" ingredient to begin with; (2) There is no known and well-proven difference in effect beyond the placebo illusion, IOW no real lasting effects on serious illness, only a subjective effect. Conclusion: the biological results will be the same if you use the one or the other in a large and well-controlled double-blinded experiment. -- Fyslee / talk 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

... although basic probability theory predicts that if you make enough experiments some will "prove" otherwise. Apart from the fact that the placebo effect is most definitely not an illusion (this is one the few things that we know about it for sure – see placebo), that's unrelated to my point. My point is that one can't object to "chemically indistinguishable" on the basis that it's wrong or misleading:

• Even though the substances are in fact more than just chemically indistinguishable, the qualification "chemically" doesn't make the statement wrong.
• The results of double-blind clinical studies and of meta-studies are not (and cannot be, because of issues such as publication bias) sufficiently conclusive to clear out the efficacy question completely. Therefore it would be inappropriate to claim inefficacy passim in the first paragraph, before the extensive discussion of the second paragraph. "Indistinguishable" only works here because in context it's clear that it means "chemically indistinguishable".
• As a matter of style, it would also be a blunder to make this inefficacy claim in the first paragraph, where it definitely does not belong:

1st paragraph: History, ideology, description of remedies.

2nd paragraph: Selection of remedies, efficacy, plausibility, quackery.

3rd paragraph: Safety, criticism, placebo effect, regulation and prevalence.

This is just another example of pushing a viewpoint in a place where it doesn't even belong in the first place. If people could refrain from that, editing here would be a lot easier. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the placebo effect and have edited that article some time ago. I use the rather tongue-in-cheek "placebo illusion" expression to illustrate that it only works if it is a properly performed deception based on an illusion, and it only produces effects related to subjective experiences, with no proven significant, objective, long lasting effects on serious diseases. Read the best examination of the subject and all the research ever done on it, by Hróbjartsson and Gøtzsche, mentioned in this section: Objective and subjective effects. I communicated with them while they were performing it (they are Danes and I have lived in Denmark for years). Their discoveries were and are very significant. The realities of the situation are that calling it an "effect" is less accurate than calling it an "illusion". The effects have been overrated and exaggerated for far too long, and their studies show that previous research has been misunderstood and misquoted, leading to these faulty beliefs about supposedly great objective "effects", even though there is a lack of evidence of such effects. -- Fyslee / talk 06:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you making an implicit assumption that we are not talking about "headache, stomachache, asthma, allergy, tension, and the experience of pain"? (The quotation is from the section you referenced.) I am also not convinced by the study before I have read it. At the time when the old studies were conducted, showing a large placebo effect, people generally believed more in regular medicine than they do now, and doctors had more time for them. I would like to verify that the newer studies have taken such factors into account. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for answering so late. I just noticed this. I am making an implicit assumption that homeopaths in general often use homeopathic remedies and make claims for far more serious illnesses than the ones you list, including the use of nosodes in place of real vaccinationns. That's what's really problematic and dangerous. If a medicine has no more effect than the placebo effect, it is unethical to use it in clinical practice. OTOH, it is essential that placebos be used in research, and homeopathic remedies are perfect placebos, because the patient thinks they are getting something that really works, when it doesn't. The deceptive use of an illusion is complete, as required in such research. -- Fyslee / talk 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"chemically indistinguishable" is misleading in that it implies that there exist other means by which they are distinguishable. I have yet to see reliable sources that show such a mean. Hans, on a comment above you say that they are distinguishable because the recipients are labelled[1]. Double blind studies mislabel part of the recipients on purpose, and don't tell neither the patients nor the doctors which are mislabelled and which are not. That allows the studies to see it they can still be distinguished. I'm not sure that you undertand what a double blind experiment means. Read Blind experiment#Double-blind_trials, please.

That double-blind clinical studies and meta-studies cannot clear the efficacy question is your personal opinion, and it's not the conclusion reached by those meta-studies. According to them, all falsiable assertions (about homeopathy working) have been proved false, so, as far as science is concerned, homeopathy does not work.

Finally, as Fyslee said already[2], presenting the conclusions from mainstream science solid studies is not pushing a viewpoint, it's presenting facts. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that you can't understand the argument. What you are saying only makes sense if you read the sentence in question out of context. Our current lede only makes sense if you read "indistinguishable" as "chemically indistinguishable". Otherwise we are saying "The substances are indistinguishable, therefore one would expect that they are not distinguishable at all, and in spite of some methodical problems this is what the studies say (overall)." Why is it that so many anti-pseudoscientists insist on using circular reasoning when it's clearly not necessary? Is it something contagious that they catch from the pseudoscientists?

I did not say that studies "cannot clear the efficacy question". I said they "cannot clear [it] out completely", and it should be clear from context that by this I mean: to the point that we don't have a considerable numbers of readers who will start reading the article thinking that they know homeopathy has been proven effective because they have read (or more likely heard about) many studies and meta-studies proving that. My point in the parenthetical remark was that this is not going to change, for instance because of publication bias. Do you doubt that? By the way, the purpose of this remark was to make it clear that the fact that we have this problem is not an argument for the efficacy of homeopathy, even though many homeopaths, naturally, think it is. I am surprised that you have chosen to attack that. Were you unhappy with the surrounding paragraph and couldn't find anything else in it to attack?

You are not sure that I know what a double-blind experiment means? Thanks for insulting my intelligence. If I had that level of ignorance I wouldn't be editing here. In the first lede paragraphs we are not even in the context of single-blind experiments. That paragraph has no business talking (or hinting) about placebo-controlled studies.--Hans Adler (talk) 10:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for the unintended insult, I see that you really understand how double-blind experiments work, you just seem to believe that they don't work fully, if I am not mistaken). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, if carried out correctly the do work fully. Of course. What I believe that this sentence has no business talking about double-blind experiments because at this particular point in the lede it would be completely out of the proper context. It's a matter of style, reading comprehension, etc.; not of science. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Hans's point about labelling, perhaps as a compromise it could say that they are indistinguishable other than by looking at the label. If you want a source for this, see question 538 from these minutes of evidence given to the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, and the answer given by Kate Chatfield of the Society of Homeopaths: [3]. Brunton (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring most of the points I made. As you are aware, I am not questioning that they are totally indistinguishable other than by labelling. I am questioning that it makes any sense to say so shortly, but not immediately, before we discuss this point in detail; at a time when many readers will not be prepared for the statement. I am not pushing a pro-homeopathy POV, I am pushing a "professional text that you could read in a properly edited encyclopedia, rather than an incoherent sequence of random committe-produced statements" POV.--Hans Adler (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So far nobody has responded to my concern: That once you read the sentence in context, the claim that "chemically" makes the statement somehow wrong or incomplete is completely and utterly baseless. I just realised that the problem is worse than I thought:

... According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes the toxic effects of the substance, while the essential qualities are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol.[2]

Practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores the physical and psychological state[3] of the patient, both of which are considered important to selecting the remedy.[4] Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.[5][6][7][8] Common homeopathic preparations are diluted beyond the point where there is any likelihood that molecules from the original solution are present in the final product; the claim that these treatments still have any pharmacological effect is thus scientifically implausible[9][10] and violates fundamental principles of science,[11] including the law of mass action.[11] ...

Perhaps we can find a real compromise that solves this problem (saying the same thing twice in different places in what should be a "concise overview") as well. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Most homeopaths would accept that a remedy is chemically indistinguishable (or even better, physically indistinguishable) from the carrier (lactose, alcohol, water). A homeopath would argue (and trust me, I hung out with them for four years) that the remedy is distinguishable from the carrier - just in a non-physical, 'energetic' way. For example, the so-called 'proving' of a remedy distinguishes it from a 'blank' in a homeopaths mind. In a circular fit of logic, homeopaths would also suggest that a remedy can be clinically distinguished from a blank by the fact that if given in the apropriate dose to the apropriate patient, the patient gets better. A new reader probably doesn't understand the homeopaths position - that a remedy can be clinically distinguished from a blank in the absence of any physical/chemical distinction. It is a peculiar idea after all. The word 'indistinguishable' without a qualifier is confusing. Perhaps a rewrite along the lines of:

• "Although homeopaths claim that their remedies have distinct clinical outcomes, these remedies can not be physically or chemically distinguished from ordinary water, alcohol or sugar." Naturstud (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure that they're distinguishable by clinical effects either.[4] Brunton (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hans, you are pushing that modern double-blind clinical trials a) can't fully assess the inefficacy of a remedy b) can't take fully into account the placebo effect c) can't be right anyways because of publication bias (which means that we should interpret all of them with a certain bias instead of taking directly what they assert). That's your personal opinion, and you have not verified it with any source, and it goes against the reliable sources that have been presented on this discussion (which outright assert stuff that have been tested by those studies without hinting that the studies can't be trusted), and you are asking that the lead is changed on that opinion.

As for the lead, I don't understand how the reader can't be prepared to read that they are not distinguishable, or why we shouldn't say that outright. That's the strangest argument that I have heard for a lead change. As Brunton points out, the homeopathic argument that they can be distinguished by their effects has been verified false when tested, so there is no known method of distinguishing them and no hints of one existing. (and of course, if another method is suggested, we shouldn't add it until it has been tested right or wrong, or at least not add it on the lead). You are right that it's mentioned twice, but from two different perspectives. From the point of being distinguishible, and from the point of being actually effective even if they can't be distinguished. (the counterpoint is that, due to uncertainty, two radioactive atoms will send out particles at different times, even if they can't be distinguised from each other by any mean I'm sure that I have totally botched this comparison) Oh, and Fyslee and I have addressed your concern about "chemically", you just aren't convinced by our arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Enric, if you have trouble comprehending English, you should try to avoid complicated disputes on the English language Wikipedia. (I am already assuming good faith here. Another explanation would be that you simply think that I am a pro-homeopathic POV pusher and that you interpret everything I say that way, whether it fits or not.) You are reading a lot into what I wrote that simply isn't there. For example c) is completely and utterly wrong, both as a statement of fact and as a statement of what I said. The problem of publication bias has been discussed before, and it explains the appearance that there are more studies than expected that show (non-placebo) efficacy of homeopathy, without assuming this efficacy. The problem is not one of science, but of appearances and public discourse.

More later, when I have the time. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well. You mean that, even if the study is properly carried and it does show a non-placebo effect, the conclusion will still say that there was no effect due to social factors that cause a publication bias. Well, I'm not sure if it's due to publication bias, or due to researchers feeling that the effect was inside error margins.

And you're right that I'm reading too much, your concerns about duplication on the lead were right. Since Scintizzle has already solved the issue, I'll just go edit some other article before I accidentally insult other editor. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What we're discussing here is the substitution of the term "chemically indistinguishable" for "indistinguishable". This would imply that there are ways (other than chemical means) in which they are distinguishable. In the absence of any good evidence from RS that this is the case, we really can't include this. It would give a completely misleading impression. Brunton (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand how this might flag one's weaselmeter, but after some thought, I don't see this as too problematic. There really aren't that many other forms of distinguishability besides chemical (not including status as a homeopathic therapy, of course). One might propose things like phase or particle physics status (e.g., isotopic), but aren't those exceptional enough to avoid concern?

If not, wouldn't a simple reorg to say "otherwise indistinguishable" get around the whole issue? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise than how? Brunton (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Price?LeadSongDog (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[good one] ...otherwise indistinguishable from similar material not prepared homeopathically. Wording open for discussion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word "otherwise" implies that there are ways in which they can be distinguished. This appears to not be the case. Brunton (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Try: "Water [say] made into a homeopathic preparation is otherwise indistinguishable from water not made into a homeopathic preparation." The only thing empirically distinguishing them is that this one is a HPic preparation, and this one isn't. Otherwise they're indistinguishable. That suggestion is to make my point; the exact language can be wordsmithed per consensus. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about: "Laboratory reagent grade 1 ultra-pure water contains up to 10 ppb of total organic carbon. Using this to prepare dilutions still leaves 10 ppb of total organic carbon, the equivalent of a 4C dilution.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Otherwise they're indistinguishable"? If I were to give you 2 bottles of water, one made into a homoeopathic preparation and one not, but simply labelled (at random) "A" and "B", would you be able to tell which was which? The use of the term "otherwise" implies that there is some way of doing this. Brunton (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

When I started this section I expected everbody to actually look up Martinphi's edit (in which he tried to find a compromise with a pro-homeopathic editor who had been reverted), and OM's revert of Martinphi. I am not sure that anybody has done it. The lede contained two instances of "indistinguishable", and the second one (which is still there) is absolutely OK. The problem was in the first instance; but it was solved very elegantly by Scientizzle. Unless anybody really wants to add more complicated technical discussions to the lede, I think we can end the discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hans. For anyone that missed it, this is the edit. — Scientizzle 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the lead

Significant parts of the lead largely consist of a series of disconnected sentences. Isn't anybody here taking account of the need for the article to have flow and be readable?Vitaminman (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

After taking a fresh reading of the current lead, I don't really see much of a problem, but I understand your concerns. Maybe the reason you see this as a problem is because of the rules governing LEAD content (not format). The lead must reflect article content, so any significant matters in the article must get passing mention in the lead. This means that the lead should get tweaked each time the article content changes. (I have my own rule of thumb: if a matter is significant enough to get its own heading in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead.) What this all means is that the lead evolves, rather than being written with a plan and proper flow. That doesn't mean that it can't be tweaked to improve flow, but that needs to be done very carefully, since every word, intonation, and phrasing in the lead has usually been the subject of edit wars, so any type of alteration can start new edit wars, and that needs to be avoided. Proposals should be made on the talk page first, and hammered out there into a consensus version everyone can live with. I hope that sheds some light on the situation, since your concerns are certainly legitimate and apply to many articles here. -- Fyslee / talk 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the order in which the various topics are addressed could be improved, and in the more contentious part the style has suffered a bit from formulation surgery. But I think overall flow and readability, while far from optimal, are more or less OK. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's badly written. Consider the first paragraph. The first sentence is a morass of etymology which, per WP:NAD, probably shouldn't be there at all. The second sentence addresses the topic but needs some polish. The following sentences then lose the plot as they digress on the issue of dilution and so must leave the reader a bit confused. Instead of being clear, focussed and simple, the paragraph tries to cram too much into a small space. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit of a mess, but this is typical in wiki articles that are about controversial topics. One of the reasons that the lead (or is it lede?) feels so choppy is that every facet of homeopathy that can be criticized in the main article is criticized in the lead itself. Most of the criticisms deserve to be in the article, but the question of style remains: What to do when the criticism becomes so thick that it prevents you from describing the thing that you are criticising in the first place?

For example, it is correct for the article to report that some homeopaths have "been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations,[18] anti-malarial drugs[19] and antibiotics". This sentence in the lead has nothing to do with the one the precedes it or follows it however. The lede reads like a shopping list of everything that is wrong with homeopathy. Perfect for a reader who already understands what homeopathy is, but nearly impenetrable for the uninitiated. Perhaps the solution would be to collect the criticisms into one paragraph at the end of the lede? The constant switching between claim/criticism is hurting us. The lede as it stands is readable - but only for the most patient reader IMHO. Naturstud (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As noted, I may not have noticed these reading difficulties because of my familiarity with the subject. We can't assume others will find it easy, so these comments are valuable. I wouldn't mind seeing some rearranging, as long as nothing is lost or buried, and no meaning changed. This is very important. All attempts should be made here first, so go for it. (I have taken the liberty to refactor the indents so we get some uniformity in the existing hodgepodge of confusing styles. I hope no one minds.) -- Fyslee / talk 03:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First, congratulations. The Lead is much better now than half a year ago when I left this article. However, I think it is too long and I disagree with Fyslee that everything that is covered in the main body deserves a sentence in the Lead. Here is a Lead sentence that I think should be moved to the main article: "such as vaccinations,[18] anti-malarial drugs[19] and antibiotics.[20]" We don't need this level of detail. This is peripheral to homeopathy. MaxPont (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a full sentence. I suppose it arose as part of a dispute, and I agree it's not needed in the lede. We may need a new reference though; or we can just put the references that we have now into a footnote. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that "significant matters" matters should be mentioned in the lead, not "everything". It is a summary of article content. Yes, there shouldn't be too much detail, but enough for readers to get the gist without having to read the whole article, which few will do. -- Fyslee / talk 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maxpont and Hans that it's unnecessary to detail that part. As far as I know, none of those details have been notable on their own. At most, leave the anti-malarian drug thing, as malaria is what caused Hahnemann to start homeopathy. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence....

Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.

....should logically come after these sentences in the lead:

Regardless of whether homeopathic preparations are effective, they may make people feel better via the placebo effect. Thus, like any placebo, such remedies may improve symptoms subject to psychological or behavioral influences such as chronic pain, fatigue, anxiety or depression.

The above two sentences describe what the placebo effect is and how it works. Logically therefore, "Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence" appears too soon in the lead, as we haven't explained what the placebo effect before the reader comes across it.

Would anybody object if I correct this?Vitaminman (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure it's a good idea. The first paragraph explains what homeopathy is. The second gives a scientific evaluation. The third discusses its role in society. The sentence you want to move from the second to the third paragraph is part of the scientific evaluation, and it would be a bit out of place in the new environment. What is worse, the obvious hole that it would leave would soon start a big dispute about how to fill it. The most likely outcome would be the addition of a sentence very similar to the one you want to move, and then the one in the third paragraph would have to be removed as redundant. So we would be back to the current situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that that the two sentences in that last lead paragraph

Regardless of whether homeopathic preparations are effective, they may make people feel better via the placebo effect. Thus, like any placebo, such remedies may improve symptoms subject to psychological or behavioral influences such as chronic pain, fatigue, anxiety or depression.

are redundant and unnecessary. They're not about homeopathy, per se, and could be readily excised to reduce bloat in the lead. This would also completely address Vitaminman's concern. — Scientizzle 22:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Your explanation is true only if you restrict homeopathy to its pseudoscience aspect. But homeopathy also has a treatment method aspect to which this is quite relevant because different treatment methods are likely to have different placebo effects. (I think there is not much, if any, good research about this.) Moreover, I think the two sentences do a good job of explaining to the lay reader where the tension between subjective efficacy and objective inefficacy comes from. In other words, they are necessary if we want that readers who tried homeopathy and felt that it helped them believe what we say about it. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with points made by Hans Adler. Vitaminman's offer to "correct this" would be more mistake than correction in my opinion. Also, claiming the sentences are redundant, unnecessary and not about homeopathy seems rather odd to me, especially as the first one begins "Regardless of whether homeopathic preparations are effective......". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt it somewhat redundant because we already say in the lead, "Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence", and link to placebo effect. Further explanation of the placebo effect and how it relates to homeopathic treatment is useful, I just question whether it's necessary in the lead, particularly since we can link directly to the placebo article. Anyways, I don't feel strongly about this, it was just a suggestion. — Scientizzle 01:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that these two sentences are not optimal. Something like the following would work for me:

"Like all treatment methods [or whatever uncontroversial term we can put here] homeopathy may improve symptoms subject to psychological or behavioral influences such as chronic pain, fatigue, anxiety or depression, making people feel better via the placebo effect."

It's at least a bit shorter. I think it would be even better as the first sentence of the second paragraph, explaining placebos where it's necessary and leaving the third paragraph more cohesive. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide prevalence

This sentence states that in 2005, around 100,000 physicians used homeopathy worldwide. It was added by Colonel Warden on April 25, and I don't know if it's inclusion was discussed here. The source doesn't look very reliable to me: it's just a news report, and maybe they got the data from a homeopath. If the numbers are accurate, I think there should be other sources to back them up. Regards.--190.20.247.97 (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The replacement reference provided: Poitevin B, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 1999, 77 (2) is available as PDF from the WHO (now linked.) Note that Potevin is clearly identified as a Homeopathy researcher, indeed the president of the "French Association for Homeopathy Research". Can't be counted as objective. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy is apparently widely-used in India, so I'm not surprised that a few thousand medics use it worldwide. That WHO source is one of the few peer-reviewed sources I could find that address worldwide prevalence, but there might be something better elsewhere. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The third paragraph in the lead is a complete mess. I'm not a big fan of homeopathy, but what is this sentence:

Regardless of whether homeopathic preparations are effective, they may make people feel better via the placebo effect. Thus, like any placebo, such remedies may improve symptoms subject to psychological or behavioral influences such as chronic pain, fatigue, anxiety or depression.

doing there? I think that should go in the second paragraph, but it doesn't seem necessary, anyway.

I also think that the last sentence would look better next to the one on current usage (just an opinion), which to me is a little bit misleading, as it seems to imply that the UK and the US are the countries where homeopathy is used the least. Looks like reliable statistics are available only for a few countries, but if worldwide usage is uncertain, maybe the article should say so.--190.20.247.97 (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pressed to wring one word of praise out of me for the current lead. It is bad prose written by a sharply-divided and fractious committee. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is bad, but perhaps not as bad as you think. The first paragraph gives an approximate definition. The second paragraph essentially says: "A lot of editors think it is scientific consensus that it's pseudoscience, but the standards for making such a statement are so high that they can't force it into the article." The third paragraph is about the place of homeopathy in society. It explains that it's mostly harmless and ineffective, and why people like it anyway. Then there is an odd mixture of statements about various countries. This part is relatively new. It is relatively "balanced", so currently there is no fighting about it, but it contains misleading statements. (E.g. homeopathy's share of a prescription budget is an exceptionally bad parameter, given that most homeopathic remedies are extremely cheap.) The problem is that part can't simply be removed, because it was introduced as a counter-weight to the very negative parts that precede it.

To say that worldwide usage is uncertain, we would need a reliable source that says so. (Unlike a scientist in a paper, we can't just say that we couldn't find such statistics, because references to the encyclopedia and its editors are not acceptable.) --Hans Adler (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The standards cannot be too high, we are talking about pure and simple water here, there is no reason to think otherwise. It is because of the pro-homeopathy editors that the lead is a complete mess. Anyway, I think this could be counted as a better reference, but I don't know about copyright issues.--190.20.200.159 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the usual kind of simplistic disinformation (related to outgroup homogeneity bias - topics you don't like are always much simpler than topics you do like) to which we are used here coming from anti-homeopathy editors. If you are right, I suppose it's safe to ignore the warnings against high alcohol content in liquid homeopathic remedies, and against lactose (for the lactose intolerant) in homeopathic pills? And you are obviously one of those who would have no problem whatsoever with taking Digitalis D2. The lede is a complete mess because of extreme opinions on both sides.

I had no idea that the WHO Atlas is on Google Books. Yes, of course it's an excellent source. There are no copyright problems for us (so long as we don't copy the map), since we can simply refer to the printed copy. This seems necessary, anyway, since there seem to be some problems with the colours. Thanks for finding this! My university library has, but it's currently borrowed by someone else. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY Volume 61, Issue 12, Pages 1197-1204 (December 2008) The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials R. Lüdtkea , A.L.B. Ruttenb Accepted 18 June 2008. published online 02 October 2008. Abstract Objective Shang's recently published meta-analysis on homeopathic remedies (Lancet) based its main conclusion on a subset of eight larger trials out of 21 high quality trials (out of 110 included trials). We performed a sensitivity analysis on various other meaningful trial subsets of all high quality trials. Study Design Subsets were defined according to sample size, type of homeopathy, type of publication, and treated disease/condition. For each subset, we estimated the overall odds ratios (ORs) from random effect meta-analyses. Results All trials were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 62.2%). Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo (OR50.76; 95% CI: 0.59e0.99; p50.039). When the set of analyzed trials was successively restricted to larger patient numbers, the ORs varied moderately (median: 0.82, range: 0.71–1.02) and the P-values increased steadily (median: 0.16, range: 0.03–0.93), including Shang's results for the eight largest trials (OR = 0.88, CI: 0.66–1.18; P = 0.41). Shang's negative results were mainly influenced by one single trial on preventing muscle soreness in 400 long-distance runners. Conclusions The meta-analysis results change sensitively to the chosen threshold defining large sample sizes. Because of the high heterogeneity between the trials, Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented. Keywords: Homeopathy, Randomized clinical trials, Meta-analysis, Selection bias, Heterogeneity, Sensitivity analysis Link --150.214.40.114 (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we've discussed that a thousand times, and every time decided the argument is invalid and inaccurate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also here (mostly a discussion of the associated Rutten/Stolper paper, but comments on Ludtke/Rutten and what it actually shows towards the end). Brunton (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations misapplied?

Can someone explain how it's possible for a guy (SH) who died long ago to tell us what "practitioners" do today? For that matter, how is the Organon even considered a WP:RS on current practice?LeadSongDog (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Organon" plays the role of the "bible" of the homeopaths, and their modern practice seems to be generally quite close to what he wrote. You are right that it's not an adequate source – if someone actually has doubts about the statement itself. You seem to be the first one – so now is the time to do the tedious work of looking for a better reference about modern practice. Thanks for notifying us of your doubts. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be the case for practitioners of "classical" homoeopathy, which is a major school. See for example the current "message of the month" on the website of the International academy of Classical Homeopathy[5] (my emphasis): "The term classical homeopathy was termed by George Vithoulkas in the mid seventies to indicate that the rules of Hahnemann, as expressed in the Organon, was to be followed, not to be transgressed or changed in order for one to claim he was practicing classical homeopathy." Brunton (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. The statement in question (in first lede paragraph, about selection of treatments) is probably true to a lesser extent for "clinical" homeopaths as well, but we really need a better source. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this sort of approach to The Organon as some sort of inviolable "holy book" has been discussed here before.[6][7] Brunton (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Organon is the 'bible' only to some homeopaths, and is routinely ignored by others. It is important that the article not present the illusion that there is only one 'official' form of Homeopathy, with a dominant set of rules and common practices. I would compare the term Homeopathy to the term 'Christianity'. You can find some homeopaths who believe that remedies are only potentized if succussed against the Organon, just as you can find some Christians who see the bible as a literal description of events. Christianity holds many sects and sub-sects, some of which violently disagree with each other, and there is no central authority that governs and defines the term 'Christianity'. Similarly, homeopathy is a loose connection of ideas, not a clearly defined set of beliefs or practices. There is no central authority that will take away your license for breaking one of the Organon's aphorisms. Naturstud (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are making some very good points. I would really like to worry about the various viewpoints of different types of homeopaths; blur over the differences in some places to make the main points clear, and explain them in detail in others, etc. The usual things you have to do to get a good article. Unfortunately I know almost nothing about these differences and don't know good sources for them, so I can do no such thing without a dialogue with actual homeopaths of different persuasions. Unfortunately, when there were still some of them active at this article, the absurd polarisation made that impossible. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I add to it that we the people and scientists in this world have just reached at some sub atomic levels or more or less slightly lower molecules, neutrons, protons, positrons, nano units etc.... but none has reached at a level below it. Just go beyond it and you will find homoeopathy working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.137.60 (talk)

Sorry, but at the moment this is pure speculation (and in my eyes not even plausible speculation, but that makes no difference). I think it's not compatible with our policies to reflect such speculations in an article before they have become part of the scientific mainstream. or otherwise noteworthy. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It debunks itself - no need to beat the dead horse.

Let's assume that the principle of homeopathy is correct for a moment, and that the water molecules retain the memory of the substance that has been diluted out and is no longer present. Now, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and although we get some matter infalling from meteors and whatnot, and some of our atmosphere is being ablated away by the solar wind, the amount of water on the earth has been constant for most of that time, whether it was in oceans, glaciers, rain, lakes, etc. During that time, it has been exposed to just about every bacterial or fungal toxin, dead animal and human putrefying bodies, feces, etc. So, if the water retains the memory of substances it once contacted but no longer contains, then every living thing would die upon contact with that 4 billion year-old witch's brew. --David 09:00 06 December 2008 (UTC)

"Exposure" is not enough. It needs "succussion". They say. Please don't use this space to tell us your opinion of homeopathy unless it is directly related to improving the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Dana Ullman, for example, has implied that Charles Darwin's studies of the effect of ammonium salts on Drosera involved "homeopathic doses" despite the solutions not having been succussed.[8][9]. Brunton (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a discussion page, after all. My "opinion" is that this argument reveals a striking deficit in the claims underpinning homeopathy, and perhaps another author would like to expand on this in the article itself. Do we believe everything that is stated just because it has been stated, and is perhaps supported by someone else's statements previously? Is an encyclopedia just a regurgitation of words, or should it attempt to provide the best available information? Is supression of information (by pointing out the inconsistency of the underlying claim to the entire system in question) the correct goal? --David 07:15 07 December 2008 (UTC)

The homeopath will respond with different arguments depending on the claim being made. That their system is overall inconsistent, they usually ignore. However, I don't think this argument needs to be elaborated on in the article. Verbal chat 12:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that little "active ingredient"!!!!!

A recent edit reminds me that I wanted to ask whether we can get a consensus for something like the following:

The dilutions in some, but not all, homeopathic remedies are extreme. Very much so. The article already says so repeatedly and tries to give the reader a feeling for how extreme the dilutions can be. Every editor who wants to add yet another sentence that describes how extreme these dilutions can get should:

1. Read all the other explanations of how little active ingredient there is (in many, but not all, cases).
2. Count the similar descriptions of superlatives in Sun or Milky Way for perspective.
3. If the edit really makes sense, remove one other sentence that describes how incredibly diluted this stuff can get.

By the way, did I mention that some of this stuff is practically pure diluent? Who would have thought it. Perhaps that's where the term "homeopathical doses" comes from. There's practically nothing there. Wow. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you can't in any practical sense make a dilution containing less of a substance than the dilutant does. If you use watter that has impurities of only 10 ppb (unavailable in the 19th century) the most it can dilute something is by 10^-8. Beyond that what you have is a "remedy" based on the impurities in the water, not on the nominal substance. Extreme dilutions are entirely bogus. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The point is that we are writing an encyclopedia, not collaborative homework for school. Apparently you still can't see the problem. This is a long article. One of the reasons is that we keep repeating the same points in different words. In Homeopathy#Dilution and succussion:

• 24X/12C is marked as the point where the dilutions stop having molecules of the original substance. (In table – details omit an assumption and seem to be the result of an incorrect calculation.)
• 60X/30C – your edit. (In table)
• 12C – under certain assumptions 0.602 molecules/liter.
• 15C – chances for retaining a molecule are negligible.
• Lake Geneva example.
• Atlantic Oceans example.
• 13C corresponds to 1 drop in all of the earth's oceans.

In Homeopathy#High dilutions:

• (Ordinary water should be treatment for every imaginable condition.)
• How huge a container 30C solution would have to be to contain a molecule.
• How much lactose would be needed to produce enough 30X pills that one contains a single molecule.

Did you actually see all these other instances? What do you think was new about what you added? Why was it needed in the particular place where you added it?

BTW, I suspect you made an incorrect "calculation". Having 0.602 molecules on average is of course not the same as a 60.2 % of having at least a single molecule. This kind of precision is preposterous anyway, when doing back-of-an-envelope computations as we are doing here. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rereading my post from yesterday, I fear my usage of the word "you" may have been taken to mean "you, Hans Adler:, but that was not my intent. I meant it in the third-person-indefinite. Sorry if it came across wrong. To your last point, you are correct.

A more formal statistical presentation would have invoked the concept of expected value, which struck me as beyond the level of mathematics that many readers of this article would likely possess. We could use other phrasing such as "on average 0.6 molecules" if that's more acceptable to you. Please note that anyone with a rudimentary popular science grasp of quantum mechanics should have no conceptual difficulty with fractional molecules. I'm quite sure Robert Park's understanding of physics is sufficient to get this, so I infer he was engaging in oversimplification for the sake of communication or else just wasn't thinking too clearly when he made the quoted statement. Curiously, a corollary of Bell's theorem would effectively say that the entangled states of doses of remedies beyond 24C would, hypothetically achieving a single cure, render the remaining doses made from diluting that 24C to be void and hence unethical to dispense! Probably not the "spooky action at a distance" that Einstein was thinking of...

I wouldn't let the 98k article length trouble me, there are many longer at WP:FA. Still, If trimming is desired, I'd suggest that the bulk of "High dilutions" can be condensed into one para. It shouldn't be a surrogate for a "Criticisms" section, which are discouraged at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure. The table can effectively replace the numeric content of the section. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this deeply, but there is a page on Homeopathic dilution which could do with some assistance, and perhaps more references to this and more material copied there would be good. In general, things should be mentioned whenever relevant and in proportion. The question of dilution is very prominently featured in nearly all discussions of homeopathy, although I personally think it interesting and important when discussing possible mechanisms for homeopathy, it is largely irrelevant compared to the lack of evidence for any therapeutic effect (bar placebo, regression, etc). Sorry if this has all been said. Verbal chat 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, no, I didn't misunderstand you. Thanks for replying to my second point, although I am not sure that you have understand the "back-of-an-envelope" part: Saying 0.602 rather than just 0.6 amounts to lying because it gives the impression that this kind of precision makes any sense in the context. It's exactly the same kind of nonsense as the population of "19,297,729" that is mentioned in the New York article (which even says it's estimated; it says for which year, but not for which day and minute, as one would expect with this precision). I am not sure why you didn't reply to my first point, which was in short: We already had 9 instances of basically the same statement, and you added a 10th instance. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. One digit precision is more appropriate given the cumulative errors involved. I didn't get that was your concern, it's now fixed. As to your first point, the place for discussing serial dilution is in the section on Dilution and succession, not all those other places. Pick the best explanation. Put it there. Chuck the others. I've done some.

I agree that the serial dilution aspect of homeopathy is overstated in the article - especially given the new breed of infinately more concentrated (and potentially dangerous) homeopathic remidies. Arsenicum 2X anyone? There is a scary trend to mix physiologically active concentrations into modern homeopathic preparations. The article should mention the trend and the resulting debate between these 'new homeopaths' and the classical homeopaths. Naturstud (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of this as a recent phenomenon, although it is of course possible that it had disappeared for half a century or so and is coming back now. So far as I know this was discussed extensively among homeopaths from the beginning. If you want I can see if I find a few sources for this. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot who it was, but I think someone had removed quite a few instances. It looks like the article will soon be saturated again if we don't do something about it. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The dilution thing is harped on endlessly by all reliable sources not promoting homeopathy. It's the key point to understanding why Homeopathy is considered so extremely dubious by the scientific side. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Where, of course, any source that does not "debunk" homeopathy promotes it, and be it the WHO or a mainstream scientific book explaining what homeopathy is (do we have such a thing?). And since Wikipedia is the Big Online Book of Debunking Articles the right thing to do is to follow them and repeat the same point until at least 10 % of the article (disclaimer: not sure about the exact number) is filled with it, rather than explain this point properly. Repeating the same argument 10 times in slightly different words is what you do in a school essay to get full marks with minimum effort, not what you do at university or in an encyclopedia. Is that so hard to understand? If you really want to spend so much space on dilutions, you need to give additional information. E.g., why not explain the Korsakovian method, which uses the same container in all stages? That could even save lives, because the actual concentration with this method can be dramatically higher than the nominal one. If the only message that our readers take home from this article is that homeopathic remedies contain no active ingredients at all, then some will happily take Belladonna D1, and even the most attentive readers might not worry about Belladonna 6CK. (A nominal 6C dilution using the Korsakovian dilution, so it may actually be more like 2C. Not sure how dangerous that is, but I wouldn't want to try it.)

A good encyclopedia contains interesting, informative, professional articles. Soapboxing and endless repetition are inconsistent with that. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That could even save lives!!!??? WOW!!!!! The article should say that, and it wouldn't be soapboxing. Right, Hans? We cannot emphasize enough how absurd homeopathy is. We are talking about pure and simple water, and they claim it can cure almost every illness.--190.20.194.64 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. I'm not sure that Belladonna D3 and D4 are only "pure water", given how toxic Belladona is (who the hell sells D1? 1 part of Atropa belladona with 9 parts of excipient? isn't that dangerous? I'm not sure that it even qualifies as homeopathic, having so much active ingredient on it) The dilution and succusion table needs a "D" column. Oh, I just realized 1X = 1D --Enric Naval (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to get too far off topic, but just a couple of things I'm not too clear on here: 1.) stating that a given volume of diluent contains 0.602 solute molecules on average per sample would suggest somewhat less than a 60% chance of finding one molecule of the solute per sample, would it not? Stating a 60% chance of finding one molecule, based on the number 0.602, assumes that there are only two possibilities, zero molecules or one molecule, which is not the case. Since we might find two, three, or four molecules, per sample, we are actually more likely to find zero molecules than at least one. 2.) What does a "popular science grasp of quantum mechanics" have to do with the concept of finding 0.602 molecules of solute on average in a given sample size? Just curious, thanks.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(Just for fun, because we really don't want this kind of detail and misleadingly precise calculation in the article ...) If the average number of solute molecules in a sample is <N>, the probability that the sample contains at least molecule is p(N.ge.1) = 1-exp(-<N>), which, as you correctly point out, is always less than <N>, although close when <N> << 1. For <N> = 0.6, p(N.ge.1) = 0.45. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

Although an edit comment asserts that they are an "attempt at a more readable organization of the lead without changing its content", the recent edits make the lead read much more sympathetically towards homoeopathy.

A detailed discussion of the dilutions involved, which is not really appropriate for the lead, has been inserted, concluding with comment about safety (previously covered in the third paragraph).

I don't think the changes make it more readable. The inserted comments about dilutions, for example, really make it less readable, and I'm not too keen on the addition of "As such homeopathy constitutes an axiomatic theory of treatment in that it is based on postulates that are accepted at face value and do not themselves rest on further postulates or mechanisms that might account for its purported efficacy. Homeopathists evaluate its efficacy on the basis of clinical experience with suitably applied treatments, relying essentially exclusively on internal assessments and neither seeking nor heeding independent external review by the medical community at large" either.

The reorganisation and addition of additional and inappropriate verbiage has had the effect of pushing mention of the actual efficacy of homoeopathy, or any critical comment, further down the page. Even there, "Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence" has been changed so that the paragraph starts "Homeopathy has been actively studied by the external medical community over a long period".

We have also lost virtually the whole of the third paragraph, including the comments about prevalence and regulation, about homoeopaths advising clients to avoid conventional medicine, about homoeopathy working via the placebo effect etc.

I suggest that the changes should be reverted, and that further changes of this nature should be discussed here before being made. Brunton (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless the recent edits being more or less sympathetic towards homoeopathy, they make the lead completely unreadable.--190.20.212.215 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that long leads are not good, and that the details of dilution can go (they're all in the body). Detail at that level does indeed make the lead unreadable, and that was a mistake on my part (I have a bad habit of getting on a roll and adding detail, which I need to cure myself of).

However I disagree that structuring the basic facts about, and rationale behind, homeopathy so as to make it clear what they are is a bad thing---in the old version, now back, these facts are not presented as clearly as they could be, as has been complained about before (see above).

The much more interesting question is whether a sympathetic treatment of a dubious theory is a bad thing. For those who just want to look up "homeopathy" in Wikipedia to see whether they should be taking it seriously, an article that gives the appearance of taking it seriously conveys the wrong first impression, which may be what you have in mind. On that basis I think it's right that the objections to homeopathy come earlier than where my excessive detail had moved them down to, certainly no later than the second paragraph.

But then in the spirit of self-contained first sentences of a lead, what is wrong with adding "but now widely discredited" after "1796" (with a suitable reference to go with the one already there)? That's a change I would not want to make myself, at least not without first raising it on the talk page, being in the nature of a confrontational addition. But the confrontation is key to the article, and is already under way by paragraph 2, and it is therefore entirely appropriate that the first sentence foreshadow the upcoming confrontation.

You're also missing out on the strategically placed links to vitalism in my version, a "proof-without-words" (i.e. purely via links) that Hahnemann's rationale for his approach was founded on a now discredited understanding of the difference between organic and inorganic matter. But this can fixed without changing the first paragraph by just linking essential qualities (near the end of the paragraph) accordingly.

The one other change I made that I still think is a good one is to make the point that homeopathy is based on two principles, the law of similars and potentisation. After reading the rest of the article one can go back to the first paragraph and see that this is what it was saying, but in the present form it is not immediately obvious from a first reading, for those not already familiar with the subject, that Hahnemann had two novel concepts, whence my proposed reorganization clearly labeling and stating them.

While I did not feel it was necessary that the lead get into details at the level of physical and psychological state, neither did I want to annoy anyone by simply moving them down to the body, so I put in the "Regarding the first principle" paragraph as a place for it, and then made my usual mistake of getting on a roll with details. But does the state stuff really even need to be in the lead at all? I would be inclined to go straight from the bald statement of Hahnemann's principles as I stated them (or something of equivalent content and organization) directly to the objections, leaving all the elaboration to the body, which is a masterpiece of exposition btw. I would also move a lot of the rest of the lead into the body so as to give a definite conclusion to the lead rather than letting it drag on the way it presently does.

But while getting to the confrontation early in the lead is a good thing, I do believe that this can be accomplished in a minimally confrontational manner. One way to do this is to present the underlying rationale neutrally, so as not to appear judgmental, but clearly, so as to make it as easy as possible for readers to draw their own conclusions that homeopathy is a house built on the sand of a long outdated view of life, supplemented with novel but unsupportable principles (the law of similars, and potentisation) governing that view. Homeopathists could care less that there are no molecules of the substance retained by potentisation, in fact that was half the point of the process, to get those toxic molecules out of the medicine, the other point being that the vital essence of the substance was not only retained but even activated and enhanced. By that logic 200C is better than 100C. Hopefully most readers will find that logic ridiculous, but if you're concerned about those who don't, explicitly saying it's ridiculous probably isn't going to get that crowd on your side anyway so you lose little or nothing by leaving "ridiculous" implicit. It is important however to say that all known treatments generally recognized as effective involve measurable phenomena (one can feel an acupuncture needle, radiation is measurable, and one can hear a patient's laughter), whether or not it is clear why they are effective, whereas no method has yet been devised to measure the difference between 100C and 200C.

If my attempt at reorganizing the lead accordingly made me sound in sympathy with homeopathy I hope I've made my position on the subject a little clearer. I also hope Hans Adler finds it more or less in accord with how he would like to see this article organized, Hans thinks very clearly about these things even when his writing does not always convey it. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally one side effect of the reversion has been to restore the POV tag dated June. As I pointed out when I commented it out, the objections that presumably gave rise to it seem to have been taken care, given the paucity of neutrality complaints on this page in recent months, surely none at a level sufficiently heated to justify the tag. That sword of Damocles hanging over the article doesn't exactly enhance its credibility. Anyone have a vested interest in seeing it stay? Otherwise I suggest commenting it back out. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The POV tag should stay because the article has not been significantly improved in this respect during this time. Verbal made a brief attempt at improvement but we scarcely got a few sentences into the lede before stalling. For examples of online encyclopedic treatments with a more NPOV tone, please see NHS and NIH. Our article compares quite poorly with these and we would serve our readership better by reducing the article to a stub while providing good external links such as these. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vaughan, welcome at this article! I was very happy with large parts of your version of the lede, especially how you conveyed a lot of criticism of homeopathy elegantly and encyclopedically. Notably this part:

As such homeopathy constitutes an axiomatic theory of treatment in that it is based on postulates that are accepted at face value and do not themselves rest on further postulates or mechanisms that might account for its purported efficacy. Homeopathists evaluate its efficacy on the basis of clinical experience with suitably applied treatments, relying essentially exclusively on internal assessments and neither seeking nor heeding independent external review by the medical community at large.

Homeopathy has been actively studied by the external medical community over a long period. These independent studies overwhelmingly report finding scientific and clinical evidence only for its effect as a placebo.

There was no chance that such a big change would stick; there is too much suspicion around, and you touched too many aspects that have been carefully fine-tuned. E.g. "… overwhelmingly report … evidence only for … effect as a placebo" can be read as claiming there is a consensus that homeopathy causes a placebo effect. If you search for "placebo" further up on this page you will see that among the editors of this page there isn't even a full consensus that the placebo effect exists as something desirable. But overall I think your approach is exactly what we need: Show, don't tell.

I think some kind of POV tag is currently still needed because of the sometimes openly hostile language. The most obvious example is something that you had as the last sentence in your version of the lede:

[Convincing reasons] have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience or quackery.

This is factually correct, but strongly POV in the way it's formulated. (How long would the following survive in George W. Bush? "His disregard for international law and human lives has caused him to be called a war criminal or butcher.") After a cursory rereading of the article body I don't remember any issues with that. Perhaps we can restrict it to POV-intro. That there isn't much discussion of actual POV problems currently seems to be a natural consequence of the fact that all regular pro-homeopathy editors left the article. In my opinion, real conflicts currently exist exclusively between pseudosceptics and sceptics.

The loss of actual experts on homeopathy is a big problem because many aspects of homeopathy are still totally underdeveloped here. Homeopathy was extremely important for the history of medicine, but we are not doing the history of homeopathy justice. And the fundamental distinction between classical and clinical homeopathy is only hinted at. These important topics were lost because they didn't play a role in the epic battle that happened here. Another aspect we should cover is the phenomenon of companies that market pseudo-homeopathic products. I found a case where they even mix this with cortisone, making it obvious quackery from a homeopathic POV. Some editors conflate the activities of such companies with homeopathy, just because they are more present in advertising and easier to attack. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hans, glad you saw some merit in my edits. Actually the bit about "[Convincing reasons] have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience or quackery" was not something I wrote but was there before and is still there now; I disliked it for the same reason as you but knew that changing it would cause protests and therefore refrained. Even what I wrote was deleted on account of being too sympathetic to homeopathy, even though what got deleted included "Homeopathists evaluate its efficacy on the basis of clinical experience with suitably applied treatments, relying essentially exclusively on internal assessments and neither seeking nor heeding independent external review by the medical community at large." How is that "sympathetic to homeopathy"? I get the feeling that people are reverting edits without even bothering to try to understand proposed improvements! Most edit-hostile page I've been involved in, I think. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The general philosophy of many editors here seems to be "the blunter, the better". Your mistake was trying to explain what homeopathy is about. That's what Britannica does with homeopathy, and that's what Wikipedia does with Christian Science or even more problematic topics. But here it's not allowed, because even the appearance that one has taken homeopathy seriously and evaluated it with an open mind before coming to the conclusion that it's bullshit is evil. Any attempt to move the article in that direction is pro-homeopathic POV pushing. At this article, being a scientist is synonymous with supporting the science team, not with following the scientific method.

Sorry for the rant. I hope you stay around. This article only makes progress when there is a temporary influx of editors who normally have better things to do (as if I didn't), like when the present lede was created. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider all of the edits to be without merit. The clear and brief statement of the two basic principles of homoeopathy could be retained, for example. The start of this version, as far as the words "thereby increasing its potency", with the addition of a brief description of the homoeopathic prescription process, would be an excellent replacement for the current first paragraph. Some of the wording might need a little tweaking, for example in the phrase "a suitably chosen substance that can produce ... symptoms similar to those of the illness", "substance" should perhaps be replaced by "remedy" as provings are invariably carried out using potentised remedies, and the words "suitably chosen" are possibly unnecessary, but the basic format and content of that section reads clearly and sets out the basic principles. Brunton (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I was about to replace the POV tag (removed by Verbal, then restored by Colonel Warden) by a POV-intro tag, but this sounds as if we might be about to solve some of the problems with the lede. I agree that the passage needs some tweaking. Perhaps we can also summarise the following two paragraphs very shortly, and retain the language I highlighted above (except for the implicit claim that homeopathy is at least an effective placebo, unless we have a really good source for that; since this is my POV, I think I would remember it if I had seen one). --Hans Adler (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We need the lead to do three things, in my opinion: (a) briefly describe what homoeopathy is, when it was established etc; (b) because we are dealing with a subject outside the scientific mainstream, we need to indicate how the mainstream regards homoeopathy (I think this may be covered by WP:FRINGE?); (c) because homoeopathy is an alternative medical system, we need to say something about its prevalence, how and whether it is regulated, and how it related to mainstream medicine. The three paragraphs of the current lead more or less do this, but there is certainly room for improvement. (Sorry if I'm stating the bleeding obvious here.) Brunton (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try this again. The WP:LEAD should reflect a summary what is in the content, not drive it. Fix the sections first, then come back to the lead afterwards. Let us have a moratorium on lead edits until there is some stability in the sections being summarized.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the other sections? They've been stable for months, apart from the recent history section which wouldn't need mention in the lead anyhow. Verbal chat 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A moratorium on lede edits is fine for me, as long as it is POV-intro tagged. Recall that neither "pseudoscience" nor "quackery" is even so much as mentioned in the body of the article. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They both were, when were they removed? (no, still there Homeopathy#Medical_and_scientific_analysis - I thought I'd have noticed that removal) :) Verbal chat 16:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. The phrasing is very similar, and working with my tiny EeePC screen I thought this were just additional search results in the lede. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Offtopic, but "oooh I want one". They are similar but I guess there are only so many ways you can say it. Verbal chat 16:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Stable doesn't mean good. It just means editors have been otherwise preoccupied (with the lead). Consider the jumble of citation styles used. Many of the citations are grossly incomplete, making it implausible that a reader will assess their quality. How about starting with fixing those?LeadSongDog (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In judging NPOV, I naturally start with the lede because that is the primary content which any reader, such as myself, will read first and which sets the tone for the whole article. I don't consider the article to be stable so much as deadlocked and moribund. There's lots of content which needs editing but working upon this article seems a poor use of time. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In view of the wholesale reversion of my contribution I feel that the effort I put into it was time better spent on other articles where one's edits are not unilaterally reverted. I agreed already that the additional detail further down in my rewrite of the lead should be dropped and I'm happy to write off the effort there (which in any event took less time, its length notwithstanding, than my opening few sentences) to my bad judgment and as good learning experience. However I don't agree that the present first few sentences set out the nature of homeopathy with the clarity and organization of the first few sentences of my version. Edit wars are counterproductive and can be very time consuming, and I therefore leave it to others to decide whether to restore any portion of what I wrote. My preference is to contribute to those articles where the editing can be agreed on with the least angst and where two-way interaction with an editor (contacting them on their talk page if necessary) is required before simply reverting their edits. Not to do so, as happened here, is in my view the height of bad manners on Wikipedia. This article holds itself to a lesser standard of etiquette. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Size of industry

Just dropped by the page. As the old expression goes "Fools rush in where fools have been before", but I don't notice any mention of the amount of money spent on this....hmmm, how do I say this NPOV...this business? Is that okay to say?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to get exact numbers about these things. I have seen numbers from Germany that indicated that as far as prescriptions are concerned, the average price per unit is dramatically lower for homeopathy than for medicine in general. I think they are generally doing a relatively good job of keeping the prices almost as low as you would expect for something that consists mostly of diluent and doesn't need/get much research. They do have a lot of overhead for keeping remedies based on thousands of substances, in many different dilutions, apart, and distributing them separately. E.g. they recently complained to the European Union that in most member countries the less popular remedies can't be marketed because if you sell only a few dozen units the registration fees of a few hundred euros per remedy lead to an enormous increase in the unit price. If you are curious or don't believe me, I can try to dig up the references again.

On the other hand there are companies selling "homeopathic" remedies with a lot of advertising effort, and probably making a lot of money with that. Perhaps you were thinking of them, but I don't think that's fair. Homeopathy is mainly about talking with the patient, and obviously that doesn't occur in that case. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Our lede contains the statistic 0.006% of the total prescribing budget. This is orders of magnitude less than another source which says, approximately 7% of the European non-prescription pharmaceutical market, or 1% of the total European pharmaceutical market. Overall, this is a clearly a significant activity with billions of turnover. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that source is from the European Coalition on Homeopathic and Anthroposophic Medicinal Products, while the BBC's source on the lead appears to be quoting the Prescription Pricing Authority, which appears to depend from the NHS. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What seems more important is the scope of the statistics. The larger ones cover all of Europe and non-prescription as well as prescription. I suppose that the German contribution to these statistics has a major effect as this is the home of homeopathy and I gather that CAM treatments are more commonly available there on prescription. Anyway, our article's selection of statistics seems distorting in that a narrow statistic for a single country has been cherry-picked to give the impression that the amount of homeopathic turnover is tiny when this is not the case. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Errrr, rather than using an unreliable source, isn't there a reliable source for Germany's market so we can put it on the article as an example of where homeopathy is more popular on Europe? --Enric Naval (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user: It should also be added that Indian Ministry of Health has a Department of AYUSH, which is an official department for Homeopathy (and Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Yoga, Naturopathy). In India Homeopathy is widely recognized with official clinics open for the people.

Quin source

The Quin source is published by a standard publisher; what makes it questionable? hgilbert (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not as much "questionable" as "unreliable and biased". It's a popular guide with only a generic outline of homeopathy's history, it doesn't cite its sources, and it's probably biased towards highligthing positive aspects of homeopathy and omiting the negative ones.

It's much less reliable than, for example, the detailed foot-noted account at, History & Status of Homoeopathy Around the World, and much more suspect of bias than Homeopathy in Perspective (which explains how cholera is treated in the actuality and doesn't imply by omission that it could be homeopathy, and not lack of contemporany conventional treatment, what caused the lower death rate on Quin's hospital) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

can we jsut not argue for a couple of revisions please??? I will not objoect to the quin source and i will instad find a more realible source. `Smith Jones (talk)

Page was fully protected after the last edit war :( --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misleading image

The image in the section "Regulation and prevalence" doesn't show a woman looking at homeopathic remedies, but Bach flower remedies. They are not homeopathic, although they follow a similar concept of dilution. The image text should be corrected e.g. saying: "A person looking at Bach flower remedies, a concept similar to homeopathy." Otherwise it sould be deleted. The image is rightfully used in the article Bach flower remedies. Maybe the remedies on the shelf above are homeopathic - hard to identify from the picture. --Sasper (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Quin

This history appears to be the genuine source of homeopathy's popularity in Britain, including among the royal family. It should probably be included. hgilbert (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As Hgilbert says (altough I'll check on sources before saying so on the article).

Please notice that I'll replace the "Popular guide" source with three reliable sources that Hans Adler (thanks again, Hans) kindly pointed me to Homeopathy in Perspective Homeopathic Pharmacy History & Status of Homoeopathy Around the World (please kindly check them out and point me to posible biases built on those books so I can take them into account and/or point me out to reliable sources I can use: only online versions and books that have paperback editions that I can buy on Amazon, please)

See, on the long term I would add all this info to the history section:

1. Dr. Quin's stuff: contribution to popularity on UK, Royal College of Physics opposition, first homeopathic hospital, PR stun with 30% thing (which I'll expand with explanations of why more people died on traditional medicine hospitals at that time, that's not POV, that's the reality of medicine at that time, historical articles and sections are supposed to have that sort of stuff even if we don't like it)
2. Hering and Kent's classical homeopathy,
3. Kent's repertory (upon which all modern practice of homeopathy is founded, I think, how can this not be on the article?),
4. Kent's invention of homeopathic constitutional types (and short list of them on a separate section, again something that I don't understand how it isn't even mentioned on the article),
5. apparition of Hughe's doctrine which predicated the use of low potencies
6. cisma between Kent's followers and Richard Hughes's at a delicate time for homeopathy (traditional medicine was getting into shape)
7. how the decline was affected by this cisma, finishing with the practical disparition on the 1920s
8. how the revival was done only with Kent's doctrine (which explains why today's homeopathy is based on it)

In short, a detailed historical account that doesn't lack parts that are vital to understanding homeopathy's evolution over time.

I made an extended commented on Hans' page about my wicked evil plans to expand the history section with notable content until it's long enough to *gasp* make a content fork spinout for size reasons into its own article, just like Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy did.

Finally, I would be very grateful if you would please attempt to fix the grammar failures and perceived POV problems in my edits instead of reverting wholesome my additions of relevant content as if I was doing vandalism or something, thanks. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this, and sorry for my reacting first with a revert, and then not being able to help before well into the new year. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

People, please, can you comment here and support my expansion proposal? I need to show some consensus before asking that the page is unprotected. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Enric, you have my support absolutely. Anything that will take homeopathy away from the credulous editing that has plagued it will be a great improvement. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

one quick note: I see this history section as an interesting history article that needs expanding, nothing to do with fringe science or pseudoscience or anything similar, I swear :) I have been editing history-related articles since 2004 and I like them, so this is the part of the article that I like better. Now, please, support the proposed expansions. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a very reasonable way forward for this article - delving more into the history cannot help but aid our readers' understanding. Please source everything as solidly as possible, and please, everyone, adjust wording (as supported by the sources) where needed and explain any absolutely necessary reverts. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what editing on this page should look like

The edits done to the "history" section in the past days should have looked like these edits from spanish wikipedia:

1. I expand an article with an outdated source[10]
2. Escarlati warns me on a friendly manner, asks if I am taking this into account, and provides me a reliable source with up-to-date information[11]
3. I tell him that I have enough problems as it is, and that he please fixes my silly errors[12]
4. Escarlati fixes my silly errors with the said source[13]
5. Glendininng swoops in to make minor fixes[14]
6. I keep expanding the article[15]
7. Glendinning swoops in again to fix a part made confusing by my edits and expand it with a good source[16]
8. after several iterations of the above, the article is significantly sourced, corrected, expanded and improved[17]. Lengthy OR discussions on sources and reference formatting are held at user talk pages in a civilized manner and using mostly reliable secondary sources[18][19][20]

An editor (me) adds relevant content that the article lacked, the editor struggles to get it right, editors more knowledgeable of the subject check in at regular intervals to fix his lousy writing, they fix the mistakes providing reliable sources that back the changes, and they use their better knowledge to help the editor. Please let's make our best to make editing here look like this.

It's a pleasure to edit in this way, it prevents edit wars, it improves articles, and you don't get the damned page full-protected just when you finally have reliable sources to make the changes. Again, please let's make our best here. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Question of dilusion

I haven't gone beyond 2nd year highschool chemistry. From rough calculations, to get about 1 mL of an active chemical in a 30C concentration, you would need to have something upon the lines of 10^27 Litres of water. (I'm probably off by a little, but even in that magnatude, it is easy to see that it would be virtually impossible to get a meaningful dose.

I just want to verify that water (or any other substance for that matter) doesn't contain a "memory" of past interactions with other substances does it?

Also, is it the idea to drink or consume a lot of these doses, or does the patient only consume 1 bottle at a time?

Seems pretty ridiculous to me... but I am no professor of chemistry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.168.244.49 (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You make the dilution in several steps, so you only need a small amount of water on each step. I'm not an expert, but, for example, you can dissolve 1 centiliter of active subtance in 1 liter of distiled water, then you take 1 centiliter out of the resulting substance into another 1 liter of distiled water, then you take 1 liter of that dilution, etc. so a 10 steps process will require only 9 liters of distiled water and give you 1 liter of 10C remedy as a result (same as 20X or 20D). And you can refine that so you use less water. You definitely don't need 10^27 liters of water for manufacturing the remedies, you can do a sizable amount of remedy using only test tubes on a lab (. Oh, and you are supposed to shake it at every step (succussion), or it won't work (or so say homeopaths.....), see Homeopathy#Dilution_and_succussion. (some explanation like this one should go into the article, for people with the same doubt)

The patients take small doses, one or three times a day. The frequency and potency is tailored to each pacient, the homeopaths recommend what they see fitting for a particular person according to his specific symptoms. Homeopathy guides give general guidelines and advice on how to determine the adequate dose for each individual pacient. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The remedies are not usually drunk, by the way: they're administered in the form of sugar pills onto which the liquid preparation has been dripped and allowed to evaporate. So not only does it involve the memory of water, it also seems frequently to rely on the hearsay evidence of lactose. Brunton (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that's correct. I believe they are quite often administered as a water-alcohol solution. I am not even sure that the pills are more standard, although they may be. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous user: The above is actually a question on the basic philosophy of Homeopathy: Homeopathy is using water as a medium to store vibrations which is transferred onto the small balls. These vibrations are informations to be interpreted by the body, which will induce the healing process on the appropriate level: body, soul, mind. Low dilution=physical problems, high dilution=mental problems. These remedies use the energy of the patient for the healing process, therefore, results can vary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.254.188 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you claiming is vibrateing?Geni 12:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A load of bouncing WP:BALLS? Guy (Help!) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but is that a physical vibration? Because surely any such 'memory' would be affected by the temperature and handling of the "solution". And if it is made into tablets, where is the vibration memory held then? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is documentable that some followers of Homeopathy believe this vibration transfer leads to spiritual healing, it should be documented in the article. Let the facts speak to how useful Homeopathy is in a modern age. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Anonymous reply 1/21/09 Regarding the ability of water to take on information of substances - perhaps look into Emoto's water crystal photos. The idea seems to be water is able to be imprinted (the implications for our bodies and thoughts are huge). Homeopathic remedies aren't really "dilutions" they are a mix of serial dilution combined with "succussion" or forceful jolting of the mix whereby the physical information is transmitted and transmuted into a subtle energy form. Materialist have a hard time envisioning this kind of process. Yet they also have a hard time envisioning their own minds or how such a "thing" can direct their hands to type.... I'm a bit shocked by the hostility of this article towards Homeopathy, being able to get away with labeling it "quackery" (based on one reference!) Meanwhile, we are bombarded with mainstream medical/quack pharmaceutical cures nightly on TV. And we all have heard horror stories of phony science in the name of profit and reputation (ie modern corporate medicine). There seems many basic points left out relating to philosophy (no mention at all in Wikipedia of Hering's Law of Cure! And this seems to me a major basis for modern diagnostic medicine...). SO, according to Emoto water is much more subtle and amazing, and instantaneous than we think as a vehicle for vibrations/information. In Homeopathy very little of these minute "doses" are needed. In practice they are recommend to be given only once and let act for a long time. Theoretically you could even get the dose from dreaming about it...I'm serious, why not? (this isn't an orthodox opinion, I've never heard a Homeopath state it ,as I just made it up). If you question the whole notion of "vibrations" you need to study what physical matter is made of. Welcome to the modern world - materialism is no longer solid. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.109.55 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are intended for communication regarding the article and how best to improve it, not on speculation about the article's subject. Furthermore, any contribution to Wikipedia has to conform with our policies at WP:V,WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Stating that things are true, without actually providing any reliable sources to back one up (and when contradicted by some fairly reliable sources as provided by the article) is not acting in a manner that is particularly conducive to encyclopedia building. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can hold such a conversation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

I notice this article has had a pov tag since June, but I don't see any discussion here about disputes. Can we remove it, or is there any dispute? --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has improved somewhat, but the tag is still justified. If you compare this article with the one in Encyclopedia Britannica you will see that EB mostly explains what homeopathy is, and Wikipedia mostly explains why it is stupid. Homeopathy's principles have been obsolete since scientific progress that happened a few years after Hahnemann invented it. But that doesn't imply that plausibility discussions, together with unrelated criticism, must dominate the article. I don't see any reason why this article needs to be more negative in overall tone than the article on Nazi eugenics, other than that this article is about something less evil.

In the atmosphere that prevails at this article, lack of discussion is a symptom of exhaustion, not of consensus. That said, I would personally agree with downgrading to a POV intro tag, because the problem is mostly one of the lede. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Much discussion may be found in the archives of the talk page above. The matter is still unresolved as Hans says. I still find the entire article reeks of POV and so the current tag saves us from tagging numerous sections individually. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It would actually help if you pointed out or tagged the specific parts you have a problem with. Verbal chat 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler and Colonel; the Pov tag should stay. "In Encyclopedia Britannica you will see that EB mostly explains what homeopathy is, and Wikipedia mostly explains why it is stupid." Notable homeopaths opinions in reliable sources about the way homeopathy is evaluated have been removed - I dont know why. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230 --JeanandJane (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we need an NPOV tag, it does not need to be any more realistic than it currently is. I've just read the article and had some difficulty establishing the supposed problem, other than that there is a lot of "he-said-she-said" style narrative. We (correctly) note that double-blind clinical trials do not support homeopathy, that the supposed mechanism by which it works has no provable existence in fact, and that the few trials which supposedly show benefit fail the test of reproducibility; this is a great improvement over most descriptions of homeopathy on the web, which skate over these awkward facts or rely almost exclusively on the claims of proponents. And I had no idea that the C scale dilutions were so much weaker than the allowable levels of arsenic pollution in drinking water, a most interesting fact. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I fully support the removal of the NPOV tag, per SW and JzG. Verbal chat 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless editors are able to spell out exactly which sentences are POV, the tag is an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is therefore disruptive. We cannot have a constructive conversation if you can't be specific. Skinwalker (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• That would be fine, absent concrete ongoing discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any ongoing dispute on this talk page. Perhaps it is older than 30 days and has been archived - in which case it is not "ongoing". Anyway, if anyone has any specific problems with the page, I would suggest either starting a discussion here, or actually making the changes to the page. And simply not liking what the article says is not grounds for calling it "POV". --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that to read 'unless anyone starts a concrete discussion of points that have not already been discussed ad nauseum an this talkpage'. Removing the tag is fine by me right now. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked a specific question here and I didn't get a response.Notable homeopaths opinions in reliable sources about the way homeopathy is evaluated have been removed. Why? Dont you think that in an article on homeopathy the homeopath's opinion (on such a central and controversial issue) should be included since it is appearing in a good source? Myabe I m wrong, I dont know. Not a very friendly atmosphere here... Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Homeopaths say they are being treated unfairly and that The Lancet is a biased, unreliable source"? That's, uh. Well, it's something. And not useful. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I observe that the NPOV tag has been removed with the edit summary, "For this to remain, we need specific, credible claims of how this violates policyt just a geneneral statement that it', n.)". This is not acceptable since the issues causing the tag to be placed have not been resolved and there is no consensus for this removal here. As stated above, particulars may be read in the archives of this talk page and, to assist, I have just been back through a couple to provide links:

• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 37#Problems with the lead
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 37#Recent changes to the lead
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_36#NPOV tag
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_36#neutrality of tone
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_36#POV tag
• Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_36#Apart from quackery in the lead...

Since these discussions are unresolved, I am replacing the tag now. Moreover, note that the particulars discussed above focus upon the lede. Similar issues arise throughout the article. I might, if time permits, catalogue some of the more egregious examples but we have enough specifics for now. The objective is an article which stands comparison with the dispassionate accounts to be found at such reputable sources as the NHS and the NIH but we currently fall short of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted. Other than dyed in the wool homeopathy fans saying this article is teh suck because it doubts the scientific basis for this wonderful thing, I fail to see what actionable neutrality issues currently exist. Sure, some homeopaths don't like what it says, but that is not a Wikipedia neutrality dispute, it's a homeopathy versus science dispute. And most of the debates you link seem to be along the same lines: someone identifies that there is still no specific actionable detail as to what, precisely, needs to change, and you assert that it's still disputed. Most of those claiming NPOV violation seem to be redlinked WP:SPAs anyway, and we are entitled to give less weight to their opinions particularly when thay are unspecific. What, specifically needs to change? You think we need to obscure the fact that "water memory" is pseudoscience? You think we need to rewrite the article to be more like other sites which have no WP:NPOV policy? Or is it just that you want it to be less grounded in reality? There is absolutely no credible mechanism by which solutions at this dilution can possibly have any effect whatsoever, and that is probably the single most important fact in the article. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removing the tag without resolving the issues nor obtaining consensus here is not proper dispute resolution as specified by the tag. Since this article is subject to specific sanctions forbidding over-bold actions and edit warring, it seems that the matter requires enforcement. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • CW, when ever this subject comes up, you imply that you don't have enough time, for example, just above you say "I might, if time permits, catalogue some of the more egregious examples". However, you always seem to find enough time to revert war over the tag, and argue on the talk page. Your involvement with this article has achieved very little, and unless you conduct improves, I'm going to issue a temporary ban. PhilKnight (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• What is your complaint - that I am talking too much or too little? I have provided six detailed links and two good sources above. Who else has done as much in this section? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • OTOH, perhaps CW will re-purpose the time it takes to complain about the tag and instead use that time to identify the wording changes he thinks most necessary to achieve neutrality. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please see the linked discussions above where we were going through the lede in some detail. Those discussions and activity were not concluded. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• By definition, if the discussion is in the archives, it is no longer active. If you'd like to begin debate over an issue, please start a new section here (with a link to the previous discussion as background) and explain a specific change you would like to see made. (EhJJ)^TALK 16:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it, these archives are automated and move sections off the talk page regardless of whether they are resolved or not. Certainly the tag was not removed as a result of such a resolution. It is only now that we have editors claiming that the tag should be removed on the technical grounds that there is no active discussion. But the passage of time is not adequate reason to remove such tags. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • I agree with LeadSongDog. CW, your time would be better spent making realistic suggestions on how the phrasing of the lede could be improved, instead of arguing over the tag. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked a specific question twice and no one answered including the administrators who issue bans and blocks and the same time edit the article. I think the tag should stay.Maybe someone who is not involved should tag it.--JeanandJane (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression the comment by Consumed Crustacean was in response to your question. Regardless, if you want to propose an improvement to the article, then go ahead. Finally, I think your possibly confused as to the distinction between involved and uninvolved admins - have a look at WP:UNINVOLVED. PhilKnight (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an answer: The question was "Dont you think that in an article on homeopathy the homeopath's opinion (on such a central and controversial issue) should be included since it is appearing in a good source? and the answer " Homeopaths say they are being treated unfairly and that The Lancet is a biased, unreliable source"? "That's, uh. Well, it's something. And not useful." Is this an answer? --JeanandJane (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

--JeanandJane (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that one of the top three medical journals is a biased, unreliable source stretches credulity to the snapping point. The only way that such an obviously WP:FRINGE viewpoint could be included, with appropriate weight is if it was being discussed as part of a section on Homeopathy rejection of science or similar. We have WP:NPOV (particularly WP:UNDUE), WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience as our major policies and guidelines related to this article's treatment of points of views. For the POV tag to remain, there's going to have to be an arguement that shows it does not follow those guidelines and policies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is about them - homeopaths - It is their opinion, they explained it and it must be presented since it is published in a good source. You could write "homeopaths say or claim" so it is not undue weight. This is the way is presented in all reliable sources. The lancet ( you can define its impact - fairly) published ....this...and homeopaths say, claim....that.... or whatever verb you want to use.

Not doing so it is a violation of Neutral Point of View.

I might disagree or agree with homeopaths but my opinion does not count. --JeanandJane (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's about homeopathy, which is not the same thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My being an administrator is absolutely irrelevant here. Admins are normal editors with extra tools. I have not threatened to, nor actually used those tools in this case, and I generally prefer avoiding the use of them in anything pseudoscience-related to avoid any potential issues. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

* Why has the start of this section been rewritten by User:EhJJ? I'm not understanding the point of this but my impression is that he is rewriting other editors' comments in his own words. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• My goal is to compress this discussion into something that can be quickly reviewed, thereby allowing future editors to avoid repeating the same discussion. I'm waiting for the second-half of this discussion to end before I add concluding remarks. You'll see exactly what I mean in a bit. I hope I have properly reflected people's comments in-so-far as they contribute to the goal of resolving the use of the POV tag. (EhJJ)^TALK 18:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Concluding remarks? I fear that you are over-reaching. As a spot check, I have just compared my first remark with your summary. You have omitted two distinct points which I made - firstly that I supported the comments made by Hans Adler and secondly that I contented that a single NPOV tag covering the entire article spared us the nuisance of numerous tags for individual instances and sections. By summarising the points which seem to you important, you filter and distort our comments. This is an unusual practise and, while it may have merit, a needed pre-requisite is obtaining the consent of all editors in advance that you are accepted as an honest broker. We see elsewhere other editors such as Elonka applying such controlling techniques with some success but considerable squealing. Please state your intentions in more detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides all these is Homeopathy a fringe belief ? ["It's all about something you can find on every high street in Britain: homeopathy. Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief.http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml"] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanandJane (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm presuming that the above statement is not by Orangemarlin below. In short: Yes. See WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and various Arbcom rulings that have said that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is expected to present mainstream scientific thought. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish everyone would indent properly. This section is a mess to read. Nevertheless, the article was POV about 18 months ago. It's quite fine now. Homeopathy is quackery, it is fringe, and there is no evidence that it works. Unless there is some credible and reliable evidence otherwise, this article is NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Concrete lede problems

Concrete problems with the lede have been asked for. Here is the rough structure of the lede:

• One paragraph explaining what homeopathy is.
• One paragraph explaining why it can't work.
• One paragraph about its prevalence.

The information density of the second paragraph is a lot lower than that of the first paragraph, going into much more detail. I realise that this is because of the fighting on this page, but the result contributes to a biased lede. A single sentence (such as: "There is no evidence that homeopathy has any effect other than as a placebo.") would be sufficient. The worst thing here is the last sentence of the second paragraph. While I have no doubt that homeopaths' explanations for homeopathy's perceived efficacy are pseudoscience, I think more guarded language would be appropriate when talking about homeopathy (which is mostly a method, which is not exactly the same as the rationale behind it). But most importantly, dropping the word "quackery" here is gratuitous, insulting and simply unjustified in what should be a "concise overview of the article".

The information density of the third paragraph is even worse. Again I understand how it happened: There is a lack of trustworthy sources discussing the prevalence of homeopathy on a high level. But the effect is a paragraph of advocacy for homeopathy (introduced by a strangely misplaced sentence of criticism), trying (rather awkwardly, IMO) to be a counterweight to the second paragraph.

It's not easy to translate this situation into specific tags, since all individual sentences (except for the quackery one) are actually OK and the problem is one of inappropriate weight. I would be happy with the lede if the last two paragraphs were condensed into one that is about as short as the first. E.g.:

There is no evidence that homeopathy has any effect other than as a placebo, and large parts of the theory behind homeopathy as well as some notable attempts to justify it are pseudoscience. Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions, although homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations, anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics. Both the popularity of homeopathy and the way it is treated in legislation show strong geographical and temporal variation.

--Hans Adler (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2009

Why ias it necessary for the criticism paragraph from the lead of a very widely criticised technique to have equal length to the paragraphs setting out the fringe view? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. But for another rhetorical question: Why is it necessary for it to be extremely long rather than concise? --Hans Adler (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the alternative is reducing the fringe view even more so it's shorter than the mainstream view, which would have its own problems. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that the first paragraph, because it explains a fringe view in a neutral way, would have to be reduced if the debunking following it doesn't take enough space? I don't think that's correct. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Concise is good, but there is more than just placebo that should be mentioned. The fact that homeopathic principles are contradicted by scientific principles discovered after the invention of homeopathy needs to be explicated so that readers know exactly what the context is for any discussion of "efficacy". In particular, descriptions of the lack of logic behind serial dilutions and the law of similars need to be made up front. Another point is that it is a common trope in discussions of pseudoscience, being perhaps the most commonly employed bit of pseudoscientific nonsense in many countries. That's at least four separate points that I think belong in the lead. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SA. Good point. But there are other things they should be added.--JeanandJane (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

However "lack of logic" is not accurate here. We dont even have a theory which is incosistent. Lack of a plausible mechanism maybe. --JeanandJane (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

These are good points, although I don't think they all have to be discussed individually in the lede. I'll try to cram them into my proposal anyway. I am not sure how you counted your 4 points, so I make it 5: 1. principles are contradicted, 2. serial dilutions unlogical, 3. law of similars unlogical, 4. common trope, 5. most commonly employed pseudoscience.

Homeopathy played an important role in the history of medicine, even though its principles were soon refuted by advances in science. There is no evidence that homeopathy has any effect other than as a placebo, and notable attempts to explain or justify extreme serial dilutions or the law of similars are pseudoscience. Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions, although homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations, anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics. Both the popularity of homeopathy and the way it is treated in legislation show strong geographical and temporal variation.

I think this takes care of 1-3, and 5 is at least hinted at (to the extent it is true – I am sure there are many countries where homeopathy is basically not used, or other pseudosciences are more prominent). 4 is probably true in many western countries. Do you have a RS for this? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Minimal Discussion on Lower Dilutions

The text reads

"Not all homeopaths advocate extremely high dilutions. Many of the early homeopaths were originally doctors and generally tended to use lower dilutions such as "3X" or "6X", rarely going beyond "12X". The split between lower and higher dilutions followed ideological lines with the former stressing pathology and a strong link to conventional medicine, while the latter emphasised vital force, miasms and a spiritual interpretation of disease"

There is very little discussion positive or negative, on homeopathic 'remedies' that contain diluted solute. The criticism is focused on the higher dilutions containing no solute. Seems like there should be more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.178.109 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's not very much use, and that's still pretty small quantities: 6X is one part per million - and remember that only a single drop of the diluted remedy is generally taken - and 12X in a trillion, far below any detectable level. In any case, as far as I'm aware, there's been no good-quality, replicated studies demonstrating the lower-potency remedies work anyway: The Law of Similars is not an actual medical law. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not exact. This contains 2 % Urtica D2 (=2X), for example, making a total dilution of 1:5000. The typical amount taken is also more like 10 drops several times a day. When quickly researching this I also found an apparently ayurvedic preparation that is marketed as homeopathy: [21]. It's Adhatoda vasica D2; 5-10 drops to be taken up to 12 times a day. That makes up to about 100 drops of something diluted 1:100, i.e. one drop of the original substance! We are doing our readers a big disservice if we make the impression that homeopathy is always extremely diluted and therefore, a fortiori, harmless. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I used google translator[22][23] and those calculations look correct. I added one sentence to the end of the "Dilution and succussion" section, maybe it can be expanded with sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't think under "Coverage in the mainstream press" is a good place. Moreover, your formulation implies that "most homeopathic products" are "extremely diluted". This may well be true, and I am sure it's true in some countries for regulatory or other reasons. But I am not sure (as in: I just don't know) if it's correct in general, and it would be nice to have a source. (It's also not clear what the metric is supposed to be: number of registered homeopathic preparations, or sold units/market volume). --Hans Adler (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

ooops, wrong section, moved under "Dilution and succussion". About what percentage of products are extremely diluted or not, yeah, a source would be good. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy as PS: Universities drop “pseudo-science” degrees "in subjects that are not science"

Here we have the reaction to the successful objections from the scientific community. The universities are money making institutions, but they also have to think about their credibility:

Universities drop degree courses in alternative medicine

"Universities are increasingly turning their backs on homoeopathy and complementary medicine amid opposition from the scientific community to “pseudo-science” degrees.

The University of Salford has stopped offering undergraduate degrees in the subjects, and the University of Westminster announced yesterday that it plans to strengthen the “science base” content of its courses after an internal review which examined their scientific credibility.

Both universities are following the lead of the University of Central Lancashire, which last year stopped recruiting new students to its undergraduate degree in homoeopathic medicine.

The decisions by Salford and Westminster open a new chapter in the fierce debate about the place of awarding of Bachelor of Science degrees in subjects that are not science."

-- Fyslee (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAC

I think that it may be time to start taking this towards FA. We finally have a relatively stable article, and now have a chance to begin working on making it clearer, and moving it towards quality content.

A good first step might be to run this as a good article, then open a peer review.

If there aren't any (reasonable) objections, I'll do this in 24 hours. The article will probably need some more work, but it's time that we pulled other experienced Wikipedians in to review it, not just us regulars. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but it is already listed as a good article. Click "show" under archives and other info. Skinwalker (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thought it managed to lose that in the old edit wars. Well, then, let's open a peer review. If it's already a GA, that shouldn't be controversial. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting more exposure to editors who don't actively look for the topic sounds like an excellent plan to me. I am looking forward to the featured article, but I am sure it will take a long time to get there. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. It really needs a good copyedit, but if both sides can agree on someone neutral to do the copyedit - I mean a full copyedit, with ability to rearrange things, improve flow, and so on - We at least have the sources in place, and general agreement as to what should be included, and that's a big start. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the article and decided that I didn't have time to give it a proper review. However, I did make the time to review the lead; please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive3 #Review of the lead by Eubulides. From what I saw in the lead it appears that considerable work will be needed to bring the article up to FA quality. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's impressive. I understand why you stopped after the lede. Thanks! --Hans Adler (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

I tried something per Eusebius here, though it turned out a bit specific, and I'm not sure if it's actually an improvement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's better than before, in that it is a better lead into and summary of the article, but the caption is way too long and is more than a little browbeating (plus it's citing an algebra textbook? isn't that a bit snarky?). Also, on my browser (Firefox) the "1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000" is so long that it is cropped and I can't read it. A better caption would be "This homeopathic preparation has one part Marsh Labrador Tea diluted with 10³⁰ parts water." Eubulides (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Except we don't know it's water; more likely pure alcohol in all stages but the last few. If this is even a liquid – I am not familiar with this type of container. Couldn't it be pills? --Hans Adler (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, then how about this caption instead?

"This homeopathic preparation contains the herb marsh Labrador tea diluted by a factor of 10³⁰, so that it almost certainly contains no molecules of the original herb."

The last phrase captures the central notion that it's not the molecules of the original substance that make it a homeopathic preparation. (And a minor point: the "marsh" and "tea" shouldn't be capitalized.) Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I wonder. One problem is that we talk about the dilution problem a lot - it comes up in almost all reliable sources, so it's not entirely unjustified, but I'm worried that adding an image with a caption about it may well be going too far. On the other hand, a lower dilution is less typical, at least based on the sources we have. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As the one who keeps insisting on this talk page that low dilutions exist, I have no problem with the image and caption. There is no doubt that high dilutions are a typical feature of homeopathy. I am more concerned about misleading text that confirms (implicitly or explicitly) the prejudice that all homeopathic preparations are of this kind. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're alright with it, it seems fine to me. Maybe we should put the arnica in later, just to show a low(er) dilution. (Or we could talk about the rather horrifying "1X" written on this deadly nightshade infusion - please tell me that doesn't mean what I think it does?) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that's a good find! I would be quite surprised if homeopaths gave 10% belladonna tincture to patients. More likely either 1X here means something like 1 drop per day, and the dilution is indicated on the other label. Or this tincture was used by pharmacists, who prepared the final dilution from it. --Hans Adler (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, how much belladonna would be in the 1X preparation would depend on how much belladonna there was in the Mother Tincture. I haven't managed to find any indication of the concentrations of MTs (possibly this is not considered important?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunton (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See an example from 1854 on how to prepare a Belladona tincture: 4 dried leaves of Belladona disolved in 2 imperial pints (1.1 L) of diluted alcohol, macerate fourteen days, filter thought a paper. Dose, 10 to 30 drops[24]. Question: how many molecules of the active principle are finally taken by the pacient? :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but suspect I'd rather have it homeopathically diluted first. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Enric. Doesn't look as if there would be much in an MT based on that preparation. In any case, it's quite possible that, as Hans suggests, the 1X preparation was used by pharmacists to prepare further dilutions rather than administered directly. For example, it appears that Boiron ship mother tinctures to pharmacists, who then prepare remedies from them; I don't have a direct reference for this, but it is mentioned on this page. (sorry - forgot to sign my last contribution). Brunton (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second the motion of keeping the current lead image, but with the revised caption mentioned above; and to also put in the Arnica image (with the lower dilution) in the body of the article. I suggest putting the Arnica in Homeopathy #Dilution and succussion, after the table, as it will help illustrate the table. The caption could be something like "The homeopathic preparation Arnica D 6 contains extract of Arnica montana diluted by a factor of one million." Eubulides (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

History expansion

Remember my attempt to expand the history of homeopathy and how it finished? I'm giving it another try, making smaller additions. Please don't make wholesome reversions and please remember what editing in this page should look like.

Some sections may look unbalanced in comparison to others because they haven't been expanded yet, I'll try to avoid that but please have patience. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a minor change to the wording of your last edit which (I hope) doesn't alter the meaning you intended. Brunton (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's good, thanks for the edit :) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

not NPOV

this article ain't NPOV and so the Tag should remain on the article. 122.167.21.180

Would you care to be more specific ?--McSly (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is an attack piece, just look at Citizendium which is also based on 'collaborative editing' and is really NPOV. 122.167.21.180

You mean the Citizendium piece written by banned user Dana Ullman, banned for his ridiculous over-promotion of homeopathy. Yeah, removing the tag. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Dana, but Citizendium is not promoting Homeopathy.

This article here is an attack piece. What's wrong in having a small Tag on top of this article stating it ain't NPOV, see the articles on Chiropractic, Osteopathy and Naturopathy, don't htey also have those tags? 122.167.21.180

The "attack piece" comment is not a specific criticism, and as such it does not support the presence of a POV tag. For the purposes of Wikipedia, the Citizendium article is not a reliable source on homeopathy; but even if it were, "just look at Citizendium" would not suffice as a specific criticism of Homeopathy. The presence of tags on other articles is not that relevant as to whether a tag should be present here. Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, simply put, NPOV means reflecting the views of the majority of the experts and reliable sources on a topic. Most doctors and scientists see homeopathy as a surprisingly complicated form of placebo, so this is the view this article has to take. People often confuse a neutral point of view with a sympathetic point of view, but that is a long way from the truth. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Eubulides, I wonder if you have different yard-sticks for Chiropractic and Homeopathy. I'm going to make this article more NPOV, I hope you're going to allow it and not Ban me. 122.167.21.180

Chiropractic? That rings a bell. 122.167.21.180, are you associated with any participants in those looooong discussions on Talk:Chiropractic a few months ago? It seems like only yesterday, no? But anyway, to answer your question, no, I don't use a different yardstick for Chiropractic. Eubulides (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim, can you tell me how many homeopaths there are, posting here, for you to get an NPOV? Looking at the archives, I see that only those who are pro-homeopathy get banned from here. 122.167.21.180

Tim, Professional Qualifications are necessary to practise Homeopathy, so why do you delete that addition calling them weasel words? How do we get an NPOV then? 122.167.21.180

There are a large number of situations where qualifications of any sort are not in fact required.Geni 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that homeopaths are generally supportive of homeopathy isn't a relevant consideration for deciding the balance of the article. After all, advocates of the hollow earth are supportive of that idea, but we apply NOPV by looking at the views of the experts in the relevant field - in that case geologists. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can 59.96.130.219 please post their reasons that the article is not NPOV here before adding the NPOV tag. Can I also remind the user that as this is a controversial topic all information should be cited and not to remove referenced information without discussion. JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede still not NPOV, please comment on proposal

Somehow I managed to edit the article without noticing that the NPOV tag was gone. Now there is an edit war about it. Apparently the issues with the article expire if they are not repeated once a weak or so.

I intend to tag the lede with POV-intro for the reasons stated under #Concrete lede problems. In particular:

• Too much lede space is devoted to debunking homeopathy in comparison to other, equally notable aspects of it.
• The lede uses the offensive and inappropriate word "quackery" gratuitously, even giving a reasonable sounding explanation of why it is used. I am reasonably sure that putting the following into the lede of Barack Obama would lead to my being immediately, and deservedly, blocked: "The African origin of his father, and his attendance of a Muslim school as a child, have caused him to be regarded as a nigger or terrorist."

I am not tagging the sentence as improper synthesis, although I strongly suspect that the source for "quackery" does not actually say it applies the word to homeopathy for the reasons that our lede states. But as in the Obama example, the sentence would be improper even if a reliable source made the connection in exactly this way.

Under #Concrete lede problems I also made a concrete proposal for a new lede. Three established editors (Shoemaker's Holidy, Enric and ScienceApologist) made one critical comment each. If I go just by these comments, it looks like there should be consensus for my proposal to replace the last two paragraphs by the following:

Homeopathy played an important role in the history of medicine, even though its principles were soon refuted by advances in science. There is no evidence that homeopathy has any effect other than as a placebo, and notable attempts to explain or justify extreme serial dilutions or the law of similars are pseudoscience. Homeopathic remedies are generally considered safe, with rare exceptions, although homeopaths have been criticized for putting patients at risk by advising them to avoid conventional medicine, such as vaccinations, anti-malarial drugs and antibiotics. Both the popularity of homeopathy and the way it is treated in legislation show strong geographical and temporal variation.

It can probably be improved, and of course appropriate sources would have to be identified. But currently I have no idea what other editors think about this proposal because nobody comments anymore. Instead the NPOV tag was removed without fixing the article first. That's quite frustrating and looks a bit like an abuse of the status quo. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the proposal. It deemphasizes the present state of homeopathy, making it sound far too strongly as though it's a simple historical footnote. Your Obama analogy makes no sense whatsoever; while the efficacy of Homeopathy is probably the most crucial and widely discussed feature of the topic (notably amongst reliable sources), accusations of Obama links to terrorism are nowhere near that level, especially when verifiability is actually taken into consideration. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)

Your "historical footnote" objection makes sense; I am not sure how to fix that.

Discussion of efficacy is of course very notable. Use of the word "quackery" is not. As far as peer-reviewed sources go, we have the absurd Nigerian article (which we are no longer citing, for good reasons), and the "quackery with a difference" article. The justified criticism of homeopathy and its foundations is clearly a coatrack for using this highly offensive word. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also the rather dubious "Homeopathy played an important role in the history of medicine". Had homeopathy never existed, medicine today would be....pretty much exactly the same as it is. - Nunh-huh 06:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know homeopathy gets quite a bit of space in regular books that give an overview over the history of Western medicine. I did not mean to imply that it has had an effect on today's medicine. This may or may not be the case. (E.g. homeopaths stressed the importance of hygiene long before it became standard for regular doctors to wash their hands before operating a patient. This is one of the reasons for homeopathy's initial success in killing less patients.) I am open to reformulations that are less likely to be read as saying homeopathy had a lasting impact. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For homeopathy to have played a "role" in the history of Western medicine you would have to show that the alleged importance of hygiene within homeopathy directly influenced the development of hygienic practices within Western Medicine, as well of, of course, reliable sources documenting the existance of hygenic practices within homeopathy predating such practices within Western medicine.JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing "quackery" from the lede to Homeopathy makes about as much sense as removing "murder" from the lede to Charles Manson. Please review the discussion at Category_talk:Pseudoscience from the days around 10 October 2008.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC

Your first sentence is absurd. Homeopathy has not been convicted of quackery in any reasonable sense of the word, and "murder" is not a derogatory word. The pointer in your second sentence is ridiculously vague. You could at least have mentioned the topic of the discussion you want me to review. Are you perhaps referring to Category talk:Pseudoscience#Homeopathy a Pseudoscience?? There is nothing relevant there. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not like the proposal either. As stated, it is rather dubious that homeopathy played an important role in history and I think any lede on a contemporary topic should definitely start with an assessment of the current state of affairs instead of history. Furthermore many critics of homeopathy will be quick to point out that the only reason homeopathic treatments are safe is because they lack any active ingredients. The current lede states this "Common homeopathic preparations are often indistinguishable from the pure diluent because the purported medicinal compound is diluted beyond the point where there is any likelihood that molecules from the original solution are present in the final product" and I think this perspective is necessary in any discussion about the safety of homeopathy.

The Obama analogy is not fair as there is no reliable evidence Obama is a terrorist, unlike the many negative trials examining the effectiveness of homeopathy. Furthermore, there is no reason a lede cannot contain critical information as long as it is verifiable. Maybe you should compare the homeopathy lede to the Adolf Hitler lede which states "He was appointed chancellor in 1933, and quickly established a totalitarian and fascist dictatorship... His forces committed numerous atrocities during the war, including the systematic killing of as many as 17 million civilians[3] including the now controvesial genocide of an estimated six million Jews, a crime known as the Holocaust." The differences between this and the Obama lede is these statements have reliable sources to back them up as do the statements about homeopathy.

Also I reject the notion that the use of the word "quakery" is gratuitous as the lede itself explains why this term is used "The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[13] and its use of remedies without active ingredients..."JamesStewart7 (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• The proposed replacement would make the lead way too short.
• The proposed replacement has no sources, which makes it hard to review it in detail. That being said, I share some of the skepticism noted above about some of the claims made in the proposed replacement.
• Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive3 #Review of the lead by Eubulides for a detailed review of the lead and suggestions for improving it. One of those suggestions has been acted upon, but many problems remain.

Eubulides (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for not taking your comments into account. I wrote the proposal before your peer review, and I only repeated it here to draw attention to the POV problem. (In retrospect it wasn't the best way of proceeding.) We are currently driving homeopathy-friendly readers away in the second lede paragraph, instead of educating them. The sources are not there because in the climate of this article it makes no sense to source a statement before there is at least a rough agreement. Even then it's likely the statement changes dozens of times, many of these changes making it necessary to look for new sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec: this was written before I saw Eubulides' comment) This is getting ridiculous. From quackery:

Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe unproven or fraudulent medical practices.

A lot of people are defending use of the word, but so far nobody has answered the following two questions:

1. The term 'quackery' is ambiguous. We only have sources for "unproven", but use it to justify a word that can also mean "fraudulent". Why is this necessary? Are there no other, less ambiguous, words left to describe the situation?
2. The term 'quackery' is derogatory. What's a derogatory word doing in the lede as a factual description of the article subject?

--Hans Adler (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some people regard the prescription of treatments with no active ingredients as fraud. I will, however, concede that we cannot that fraud implies a deliberate attempt to deceive and we cannot ascertain whether or not homoeopaths actually believe their treatments work so fraud/quackery may be an inappropriate description. I think it is probably sufficient to say that homeopathy has been described as pseudoscience and the reference to quackery is probably unnecessary.JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes James, the intent to commmit fraud is difficult (sometimes even impossible) to prove, but in any case it is far less important than the diversion to placebos of patients who would otherwise get effective diagnosis and treatment. It's not just money, it is that peoples' lives are being endangered. That is why quackery matters and why it belongs in the lede. Otherwise, it would just be a quaint little low-stakes game, separating fools from their money for a few drops of alcohol or magic sugar pills. Now, wp does not wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but neither should it perpetrate them. Failing to highlight this danger is tantamount to telling sick people they don't need real medical care. If there are other word options to highlight the danger as succinctly, I'd be interested.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to give our readers a little more credit. I don't see how our readers can read that homeopathy contains no active ingredients, is pseudoscience, is scientifically implausible, has no good evidence supporting it and then still think homeopathy is effective and buy into it because we didn't use the word quack. Maybe people are worried about the foot-in-the-door technique and think the removal or attribution of the word quack will start us down a slippery slope? JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hans, quackery can involve fraud, but not necessarily. Most quacks and promoters of quackery are believers in their favorite ideas. The word is a legitimate description, and is often used regarding homeopathy. If you were to ask medical scientists and skeptics to name three of the most classic and popular forms of quackery, homeopathy would likely top the list. We couldn't give a hoot as to whether it's derogatory or not. That is not a legitimate reason for deleting it. Wikipedia is uncensored. We use the whole dictionary here. We could use the word "murderers" for those who prescribe homeopathic potions for pay, but "quack" is good enough. This perpetual attack on the use of the word reeks of meatpuppetry by carrying on the battle fought by the indef banned Dr.Jhingaadey. It needs to stop. You and others who promote this objection to the Q word keep getting the same response, and a paraphrase of Albert Einstein's quote comes to mind: "It is futile, disruptive, and stonewalling to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results." Please adopt a more collaborative attitude toward this issue, as you have done in the past. (See here for context.) -- Fyslee (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC) ^{Stricken an already refactored and milder version as a good faith attempt to defuse the situation per request from Shoemaker's Holiday.[25].}

Note: The above post was heavily refactored, but without removing the unsubstantiated accusation completely. The original version accused me of meat puppetry. [26] --Hans Adler (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was refactored at your request, and I would have expected that you had accepted my good faith refactoring for what it was, rather than digging up the corpse to keep the fire burning. Let's bury it and move on. My original statement unfortunately left the impression in your mind that I was accusing you of directly being in collusion with Dr. Jhingaadey and meatpuppeting "for" him. No, my refactoring is my correct meaning, and I apologize to you and everyone who got the wrong idea. As I explained to you on my talk page, meatpuppetry also applies to when a user repeatedly trumpets the same tune as a blocked or banned user, and such supportive action is called meatpuppetry, which doesn't have to be done in concert with the banned user, or even with their knowledge. Simply fighting for the same cause in such a repetitive manner against a firm wall of resistance from mainstream editors can bring unwanted attention. I've seen it happen before. The whole idea behind forbidding meatpuppetry is that when a user is blocked or banned, their disruptive actions should not be continued by other editors. The problem should be gone with their exit from Wikipedia. Editors who pick up where they left off and keep fighting their battles can get banned, just as they were banned. It's the disruption and stonewalling which has to stop. I continue to appeal to you to reconsider one of your previous compromises, which closely mirrors what is being proposed below: "I think something along the following lines would be fair: "Homeopathy is highly controversial. Mainstream scientists often describe it in unfavorable terms such as "placebo therapy", "pseudoscience", or even "quackery"." That wording of yours sounds pretty good to me, and it could be considered along with the suggestion below as good wordings. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of the above wording. JamesStewart7 (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So do I, obviously. I have no idea where Fyslee is getting the idea that I am no longer supporting it, only 23 hours after I said on his talk page: "I still stand by this compromise proposal, which I had forgotten about. Thanks for digging it up. This demonstrates that NPOV is often a matter of nuances, which it is hard to get right in a combative atmosphere."

Note: Fyslee is repeating his unsubstantiated and highly offensive claims to the effect that my position (that homeopathy is plausible as a placebo that is more effective than some other placebos, and that there is practically no research on this) is indistinguishable ("trumpets the same tune") from that of a banned user (who claims to be curing cancer and other serious diseases through homeopathic email consultations). The only thing in this thread that has been disruptive is the unconstructive POV pushing by Fyslee and other fans of offensive labelling. I will pursue this elsewhere. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I only asked you to reconsider your old proposal. (Look up "reconsider" in an English dictionary.) You have admittedly forgotten it and thanked me for digging it up. Great. No need for more straw man drama, since I have NOT said that you were "no longer supporting" that precise statement. I'm glad to hear that you might reconsider your forgotten wording as a good solution. That wording supports inclusion of the word quackery, which you have of late been fighting against using. A reconsideration of your old statement and adoption of it would thus represent a reversal of your present position, in support of an old compromise position you proposed. Great! That's the type of collaboration I've been asking for.

• I did not know your "position" was as you describe it in parentheses, since we haven't been discussing that in this actual situation. I have been addressing your pushing of the war against the use of the word "quackery", a war that was previously carried on by a notorious sock master and indef banned user, who happens to have reappeared with two IP socks, which is why the article is now protected. That's all I have been addressing. Don't create another straw man.

• Nor was I aware of the banned user's claims to cure cancer, etc., and I have therefore not addressed that either. I was still addressing your pushing of the war against the word "quackery". Another straw man. To the best of my knowledge, you are a German mathematician who believes in homeopathy and I don't believe you are claiming to cure cancer. That's absurd.

• Like I said to you on my talk page, we are misunderstanding each other, and I can now see more clearly why. You are creating straw men and attacking them, rather than asking me what I mean. Since repeated attempts to appease you by replying to you, explaining myself (futilely), and by refactoring my comments at your request haven't helped at all (and you have in fact stepped up your attacks on my talk page and now here), I have forbidden you from continuing that discussion and I will consider further attempts by you as personal harassment. It's hopeless, so give it up.

• I don't want to fight. If you want to use Wikipedia as a battleground, then find another combatant. You are fighting straw men, not me. My most charitable interpretation for what's going on (which I have suggested on my talk page) is that you speak German and I don't. It might be a language thing, so maybe you should edit the German Wikipedia. -- Fyslee (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You are in no way an uninvolved admin, and you have no standing to "forbid" me to continue this discussion here. On your talk page it's a different matter, but you can't expect to have the last word with a comment that is full of misrepresentations. I will, however, keep my response here as short as possible.

• "I only asked you to reconsider your old proposal." – This is hard to reconcile with "That wording of yours sounds pretty good to me, and it could be considered along with the suggestion below as good wordings."
• "I have NOT said that you were "no longer supporting" that precise statement." – Likewise with "I continue to appeal to you to reconsider". That's in no way the same as "Hans Adler said on my talk page that he still stands by his earlier compromise proposal, so let's discuss that." Which you did not write.
• Your continued accusations of "pushing [a] war" are noted, as well as your continued attempts to connect me to Dr.Jhingaadey. The appearance of sockpuppets does have a discrediting effect on the position they are trying to push, but if you are trying to use this to discredit a user in good standing who has no control over the sockpuppet you are gaming the system.
• "To the best of my knowledge, you are a German mathematician who believes in homeopathy". You are either a) lying, b) responding to my comments without reading them, or c) have a very idiosyncratic concept of "believing in homeopathy". I have made it very clear that in my opinion any effects of homeopathy are due to the placebo effect, and I have asked you to retract the "believes in homeopathy" claim. Instead you are repeating it and retracting only a strawman ("is a homeopath" – of course you didn't claim that).
• If repeating your misrepresentations of me is the only way you know to try and "appease" me, it's better not to bother.

These comments are necessary because the fact that I am editing under my real name makes me vulnerable in real life to defamation in Wikipedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than attempt to defend myself, I suggest the use of a large salt shaker when reading Adler's comments. Then apply the salt to his numerous straw men, and you'll discover a rather confused picture which even I have a hard time understanding. My most charitable interpretation has to do with the fact that Adler is a German speaking editor and that difficulties in understanding nuances of the English language may be part of the problem.

I have suggested deescalating this conflict, but he insists on misusing Wikipedia as a battleground. Well, I won't fight. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I would describe homeopathy as quackery but that doesn't mean I'm being neutral about it, but the article does say homeopathy is "regarded as ... quackery". I should point out that, although Wikipedia:Npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves contains an example about Hitler/Saddam which states "That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man", the Hitler article itself says "Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are typically regarded as immoral. Historians, philosophers, and politicians have often used the word evil in both a secular sense of the word and in a religious sense.", so as long as we are pointing out that Hitler is commonly described as evil, it is probably fair to say homeopathy is commonly described as quackery. "Evil" is by no means a neutral term after all. To be fair though the lede in the homeopathy article does not attribute the use of the term quackery to those using it whereas the Hitler article does and could thus be considered WP:Weasel words. Maybe we could offer "The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[13] and its use of remedies without active ingredients have caused most skeptics, scientists and doctors to regard homeopathy as pseudoscience[14] or quackery" or similar as a compromise. JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise. As editors we aren't in the business of declaring homeopathy or any other subject "pseudoscience" or "quackery", but we are duty-bound to note that many V & RS do call it PS and quackery. We let the sources speak for themselves, and we don't introduce editorial bias by censoring what we don't like, even if it's offensive to believers. Note that Wikipedia is approaching a stage in its maturation where it will soon be likely that we will be able to (according to the concepts in WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI) openly declare, as editors, that this subject and several others are indeed PS and quackery, and we will be able to include it and them in those categories since this is one of the most obvious examples for both categories. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Above I have included a previous wording from Hans Adler that sounds pretty good. It should also be considered. Maybe a blend of the two proposals will work. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Hans about this, and his reasoning. Quackery is not ambiguous (the "or" is fine) and the use in the lead has been supported many times, by editors and RS. I've even argued against it being there, but that was due to trying to find compromise rather than policy or guideline issues. My view is still that the lead would be fine without it, so long as PS and placebo remain prominent, but I have no problem with the current verbiage - and neither does the majority of editors (it has also been discussed on other noticeboards). I don't see a problem with the Hans/Fyslee reformulation above either. Verbal chat 11:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the Q word. All three words (placebo, pseudoscientific, quackery) are accurate descriptions of homeopathy that are commonly used in V & RS. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeopaths can't post to this page

I don't think this is true, but it is an allegation being made by an IP who is attempting to edit war the POV tag onto the article with this as a justification. Is there any reason to think this? I invite the IP to discuss it here. Verbal chat 11:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See below for links about our IP sock of a banned user. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• The wording of the lead seems to have improved lately but there still seems enough POV in the article to justify maintenance of the tag, per previous discussions here. We should focus upon continuing to improve the article and the tag provides good pressure to do this. As for the issue of whether homeopaths are able to edit this article, my impression is that they are not, since there is an open and concerted effort to prevent them. See WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Homeopathy, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion resulted in the tag being removed. Please provide evidence for you allegations or remove them. What does your link prove? What does it show? Nothing. We have had homeopaths contribute, and two have been banned from wikipedia due to their behaviour (including the IP editor above) - not because they were homeopaths. Verbal chat 17:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm reverting your addition of the POV tag. We've been over this ad nauseum. Unless you can give specific examples of POV text the tag is not constructive or appropriate. If you continue engaging in slow-motion edit wars over the tag without substantive discussion I will request arbitration enforcement. Skinwalker (talk)

I have provided numerous details in previous discussions and these have not been resolved. We have continuing discussion about the quackery usage and I agree with those who contend that this is not NPOV. The article is far from perfect and so we should expect tags to assist in its improvement. I am no homeopath but your threat indicates the problem of which the homeopaths complain - that heavy-handed force-majeure is used to control the article and exclude them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you haven't provided any specific issues. As for quackery, join the discussion on that (Note, it has been discussed and consensus and policy has always supported it before.) Next, what threat? No threat has been made. Please stop disrupting this page with unsupported allegations and accusations - remember this page is under special mesures. Verbal chat 18:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have certainly been specific and provided support for my points. The general problem is that the article is too given over to criticism rather than a neutral description of homeopathy. We see this in the undue weight given to criticism, the lack of specific details of homeopathic practise and the derogatory language and tone. I and others have demonstrated this by comparison with other independent encyclopaedic treatments of the topic such as those provided by the NHS, the NIH and the Encylopaedia Britannica. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That argument was rejected. Repeating it doesn't move us forward. The weight given is appropriate given the preponderance of criticism in RS, and relevant WP policies and the consensus established here and elsewhere. You still haven't provided specific issues, or responded to the questions about your allegations. Verbal chat 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The matter was not resolved and your account of these matters is not impartial as you are a heavily-involved party. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide specific issues and address the topic of this thread and improving the article. Your continued unsupported accusations are in breech of our guidelines and policy - I have already reminded you that this article is under special sanctions. Verbal chat 19:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk page archives for details of the earlier issues which were not resolved. IIRC, I listed them at least once. For a fresh example, see the section about Zinc below. This matter seems quite peripheral to homeopathy and appears to have been added to the article simply to make homeopathy look bad. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Studies

There are lotsa studies which show Homeopathy works on Citizendium, can we incorporate them here?—Dr.Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.130.219 (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by User:Dr.Jhingaadey. See below for further links. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid those studies don't show such a thing. We have used meta-analyses here to get a better picture. If you think a study is missing that should be included, please bring it here for discussion. I would note that the citizendium entry is edited by known homeopathy advocate and arbcom banned editor Dana Ullman. Verbal chat 12:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Positive results in a study are not proof that something works or doesn't work. They may not even be an indication. That's why replication and meta-analysis are so important, and far more reliable than the results of any particular studies. In fact, Wikipedia requires and gives preference to such sources per its reliable sources policy. The section Homeopathy#Research_on_medical_effectiveness covers much of the prominent research, including positive results. If you feel a study has been left out, and doesn't give undue weight compared to meta analyses, then you can always add it. Phil153 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What about the Oscillococcinum study that you just deleted? How come the articles on Chiropractic, Osteopathy and Naturopathy hardly have any criticism, while this is full of criticism?—Dr.Alex 59.96.130.219 (talk) 12:27, February 14, 2009 (UTC)

You included far more than that - you changed signficant portions of the text and deleted other references. Also, the reference you included is cherry picked and inappropriately placed in the lead. See Oscillococcinum#The_efficacy_of_Oscillococcinum for a fuller treatment of the subject. If there are studies you think should be included please place them in the appropriate section, and make sure they give appropriate weight vs secondary sources. Given the nature of the topic, it is probably best to discuss them here first.

Also, please do not remove the SineBot's appending of the date, time and IP - you are required to sign your posts using four tildes so we can know who says what; if you don't do it, the bot does. Phil153 (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the sig and added a sock template to our old friend who can't take a hint. See

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey and
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey.

-- Fyslee (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, an IP that translocates to New Delhi, India, doesn't like the law of mass action, edit wars, and uncritically promotes homeopathy. We haven't seen that before, have we? Skinwalker (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That was my thinking but I couldn't remember his name - even though it's in the section 2 above. I guess he's right that at least one homeopath has been banned, but he still edits the bloody page! Verbal chat 18:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We actually need and welcome homeopaths who are willing to edit in an NPOV manner and who won't use this talk page or the article for forbidden WP:ADVOCACY purposes. Unfortunately, since a belief in homeopathy is often (but not always) a sign of a severe lack of critical thinking skills, these types of editors have a hard time resisting the temptation to spread their version of the homeopathic gospel here. Why do I say "but not always"? Because some people live in environments where they have been deprived of the necessary insights into the true nature of homeopathy. If they possess critical thinking skills, once they become acquainted with the foibles and unscientific nature of homeopathy, they change their minds and reject it. That is the proof that they aren't true believers or are immune to cognitive dissonance. -- Fyslee (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Zinc gluconate

We have some commentary upon Zicam in this article. As I understand it, the active ingredient in this is zinc gluconate which has a significant history as a treatment for the common cold - it was the only treatment found to be efficacious by the Common Cold Unit. Zicam uses this in a fairly conventional way and my impression is that the only reason it is here is that the manufacturer describes it as homeopathic - perhaps as hype or a regulatory tactic - and the lawsuit regarding anosmia provides some more mud to throw at homeopathy.

Now, do we accept zinc gluconate as a homeopathic remedy or not? If it is accepted in the normal concentrations of ordinary medicine, then it forms an awkward counter-example to all the stuff about homeopathy being contrary to the laws of science. Do we have good independent reliable sources which establishes that Zicam is really homeopathic? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point CW. --JeanandJane (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the zinc gluconate I wouldn't say the treatment has been found to be efficacious for the common cold ("methodological flaws" "no beneficial effect") but that's beside the point really. The article does state that such a low dilution level is unusual for homeopathy. I do see your point but exactly who decides what is and isn't homeopathy? If a product is based on this "A central thesis of homeopathy is that an ill person can be treated using a substance that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the illness." and this "According to Hahnemann, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes the toxic effects of the substance, while the essential qualities are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol)" prinicipal I think we have to call it homeopathy otherwise we risk the no true Scotsman fallacy. JamesStewart7 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This all brings up some interesting things regarding the legal status and regulation of homeopathic potions in the USA. They are legally exempt from the normal marketing rules since they have no documented effects, and some shrewd manufacturers of "natural" products and dietary supplements advertise and class their products as "homeopathic" to avoid regulations that would otherwise place restrictions on their products. This creates a situation where some products are being sold which are not truly homeopathic. They may be blends with some measurable "active" ingredients, together with some homeopathically "inactive" ingredients. Be that as it may, some are sufficiently diluted that "homeopathic" is a close enough description that they can be mentioned and classified as such here. The fact that the manufacturer may be misusing the term could be noted, and the fact that the manufacturer claims it is homeopathic also means it can be included as a tangentially related topic, for want of a better place to put it. This article is about everything "homeopathic", including misuse of the term and false advertising using the term. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of view tag

The phrase "the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence.[4][5][6][7] " uses only one meta analyses. Sang Lancet 2005 (All the other sources) are clinical studies which state that they is no enough evidence to assess the possible role of homeopathy in these specific conditions) However, the Shang's meta analysis is criticized by another study (published in a very good mainstream source). This also should be included. This a is serious Neutral Point of View problem.

http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00190-X/abstract JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY Volume 61, Issue 12, Pages 1197-1204 (December 2008)

The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials R. Lüdtkea , A.L.B. Ruttenb Accepted 18 June 2008. published online 02 October 2008.

Abstract

Objective Shang's recently published meta-analysis on homeopathic remedies (Lancet) based its main conclusion on a subset of eight larger trials out of 21 high quality trials (out of 110 included trials). We performed a sensitivity analysis on various other meaningful trial subsets of all high quality trials. Study Design Subsets were defined according to sample size, type of homeopathy, type of publication, and treated disease/condition. For each subset, we estimated the overall odds ratios (ORs) from random effect meta-analyses.

Results All trials were highly heterogeneous (I2 = 62.2%). Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo (OR50.76; 95% CI: 0.59e0.99; p50.039). When the set of analyzed trials was successively restricted to larger patient numbers, the ORs varied moderately (median: 0.82, range: 0.71–1.02) and the P-values increased steadily (median: 0.16, range: 0.03–0.93), including Shang's results for the eight largest trials (OR = 0.88, CI: 0.66–1.18; P = 0.41). Shang's negative results were mainly influenced by one single trial on preventing muscle soreness in 400 long-distance runners. Conclusions

The meta-analysis results change sensitively to the chosen threshold defining large sample sizes. Because of the high heterogeneity between the trials, Shang's results and conclusions are less definite than had been presented. An administrator should restore the POV tag and lock it. I think it is fair. I could also restore it according to the rules here. Correct?--JeanandJane (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, per the multiple previous discussions. Please check the archive. Verbal chat 20:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please show us where exactly. --JeanandJane (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, an articlbne written by homeopaths in a low-impact journal? This is not a good source. Skinwalker (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry we cannot take serioulsy that. If you had read the article you would see that the journal is already used as as a reliable source.

If you seriously believe that you must prove your claim. --JeanandJane (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms are baseless. Shang explains quite adequately why the analysis was restricted to larger trials and the problems with publication bias and even provides things like funnel plots to illustrate the point. It's also quite obvious that low quality trials with thinks like inadequate randomisation are not going to provide reliable results. I don't see how anyone can claim that they are providing a more neutral POV and then say that there is a problem with exluding low quality trials. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I dont think that our opinion matters on the subject. We just have to report what good sources state about the effectiveness of Homeopathy which is a very controversial topic. I might not agree with them or with the Lancet review but I would not say that it should not be included. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Puppetry, Protection & POV tags

It is kind of an intestering intersection that the JeanandJane SPA shows up on the talk page minutes after it is semi-protected reviving dead arguments and insisting on POV tags. Does this account doing anything constructive or is it just someones left hand/right hand account for whining here? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree. The subject matter, style, and consistently deficient spelling and grammar are very reminiscent of a banned user who is notorious for using IP socks and username socks. It's also worth noting (in light of the tag at the top about "recruiting editors") that Colonel Warden, who hasn't been here since Jan. 22, has suddenly reappeared. There is indeed an odd convergence of attacks from banned users, socks, and supporters of their POV. This type of disruption and meatpuppetry needs to stop. It's time for the administrative sanctions to be used. ‎-- Fyslee (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. This apparently might have something to do with Dana Ullman's off site campaigning (another banned editor), but I feel the recent IPs and new editors may be closely related. I would add baiting and unsupported accusations, which are clearly not designed to improve the page, are forms of banned disruption here which warrant action. Verbal chat 08:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review status

I just now revisited my peer review of the lead of about six days ago. Around 25% of the review has been addressed. That's a good start, for an article that is obviously as contentious as this one. More please! (It will help encourage future reviewers. :-) Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that peer review. Very well done! It needs to be placed here and worked on, IF we can get some time to do useful things, instead of being diverted by disruptive elements and socks. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough to include from here; please see below. Eubulides (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, transclusion works nice, but it's not as easy for all editors, especially newbies, to work on it right here. This talk page is the official homeopathy talk page with far more viewers than the peer review page. I was actually thinking that it should be copied as a whole, rather than a transclusion. Then everyone could work on it here. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Previous peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Homeopathy has been a controverial subject, but has finally reached a reasonably stable, high-quality form. I think it's time that we begin - finally - to move it towards FA. Please review it in that light, with advice on moving forwards.

Thanks, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive3.

Ethical and safety issues - timeline on GMC case

In the GMC case mentioned, the timeline is a little off. According to the GMC fitness to practise panel's decision The quotation given ("She just cannot take ANY drugs – I have suggested some homeopathic remedies") was 8 days, not two months, before the patient's death. The earliest comment about medications mentioned in the decision was on 22nd June, with the patient dying 1st September. I'm not sure where the "four months" in the article comes from, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the sources cited. I'm hesitating to change this only because 1) it involves what is effectively biographical material about a living person (i.e. the doctor) and 2) the FTP panel's decision is no longer on the GMC site - is web.archive.org considered a reliable source for pages it's archived? Brunton (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Web.archive.org normally is, provided the sites the things come from are themselves reliable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll make an edit. Brunton (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone give me a tip about how to cite a page from the GMC retrieved from web.archive please? Brunton (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just like any other ref, only using the URL of web.archive. There is no requirement for a URL to be from the original source. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some more details from the original FTP panel decision to set out the timeline. Brunton (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting sources

Some of these might contain useful stuff for this article, but we need the original sources if possible:

• Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? From: American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education | Date: January 1, 2007| Author: Johnson, Teela; Boon, Heather [27]
• Homeopathy is worse than witchcraft - and the NHS must stop paying for it. From: The Daily Mail (London, England) | Date: May 1, 2007 [28]
• Is homeopathy really hogwash? From: The Spectator | Date: October 22, 2005| Author: Wakefield, Mary [29]
• Is homeopathy a natural fit for practising GPs? From: The Scotsman | Date: December 18, 2006| Author: Lyndsay Moss [30]
• Is homeopathy possible? From: The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health | Date: September 1, 2006| Author: Milgrom, Lionel R [31]
• Homeopathy makes no sense but science takes a look anyway From: The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) | Date: July 17, 1995| Author: Judy Foreman, Globe Staff [32]
• The great homeopathy debate From: Press and Journal, The Aberdeen (UK) | Date: October 27, 2007 [33]

-- Fyslee (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found the Spectator piece, but I'm not sure how useful it is, as it's a comment piece, and one that contains some unchallenged statements that appear to be inaccurate (for example "In the Lancet trials, for instance, they gave the same remedy to each patient" - while this is a common claim from homoeopaths, Shang et al included trials of individualised homoeopathy if they fitted the criteria), and a serious rash of anecdotes. Brunton (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Full text of Johnson & Boon: Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?

There's an abstract of the Milgrom article here; it seems to be pushing his appeal to quantum mechanics.

The rest look to be newspaper comment/lifestyle pieces. Again, not sure how useful these would be as sources. Brunton (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of them would be only useful to document opinions commonly held. Opinions aren't regulated by MEDRS and are often sourced from V & RS such as newspapers. Some may contain quotes of notable scientists and other persons, which could be used in other ways. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd throw out anything by the Daily Mail. That newspaper is known for manufacturing one controversy every day, with little concern as to whether they're right or wrong. I agree with the view expressed in the headline. But they are not something we should be using. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally I'd agree with you on that. In this case though, while for some reason the story carries a Mail reporter's byline, it appears to originate with Professor Michael Baum, so might be a useful source for mainstream medicine's attitudes. Brunton (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a letter full of his unsupported (within the letter) opinion though. I don't think it would qualify as an RS for anything other then a "Media coverage of homeopathy section". I'm also quite confident that people will be able to find several people with a Doctor of Medicine who are speaking in favour of homeopathy. We can't hold up any single opinion as representative of mainstream medicine. If we want the opinion's of medical doctors we should go to peer reviewed medical journals. JamesStewart7 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)