Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Simplified first lede paragraph fixes problems with sentences in existing lede

Resolved

The first lede paragraph has some innaccuracies, ambiguities, uses not plain English unnecessarily, and has unnecessarily compound sentences. Some of the problems are large, some small. A few small changes listed below can fix these.

Here is the existing lede. The sentences of the first lede paragraph are numbered. Problems with the sentence are listed in parentheses after each sentence.

• (1) definition - Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly diluted preparations. (Very bad “definition; no one could read this and go away thinking they know the definition of homeopathy)
• (2) Homeopathy was first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. (It BEGAN to be proposed then, with the law of similars)
• (3) It is based on an ipse dixit[4] axiom[5] which he called the law of similars, which states that a substance which causes certain symptoms in healthy individuals can cure patients who already exhibit similar symptoms. (Uses not plain English “ipse dixit axiom"; other homeopathic principles are also ipse dixit axioms and this is can be stated in a cover all principles remark; Unnecessarily compound sentence; not ipse dixit at first, since no authority and reputation yet built)
• (4) Homeopathic “remedies” are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term succussion, after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect. (Contains not plain English “serial dilution"; Unnecessarily compound sentence)
• (5) Homeopaths call this process potentization. (Ambiguous pronoun "this" - "this process" could refer to entire previous sentence, or just to the dilution.)
• (6) Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.
• (7) Apart from the symptoms, homeopaths use aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state in recommending “remedies”.
• (8) Homeopathic reference books known as repertories are then consulted, and a “remedy” is selected based on the totality of symptoms.

This following slight modifications to the above fix the problems or improves the existing lede as listed in the parentheses after each sentence–

• (1) definition - Homeopathy is an alternative medicine which treats a patient with a “remedy” that, when undiluted and given to healthy people, causes symptoms similar to that of the patient's illness, with a belief that the "remedy" becomes more potent with each step in a ritual dilution process, even when diluted so much that no molecule of the original substance remains, which is often the case. (Good definition – Has term "remedy" as seen in stores: Has similars belief, potentization belief, and what homeopathy really is, 30% devoted to debunking per WP:consensus on how much for debunking)
• (2) 'In 1796, German physician Hahnemann stated the first of his principles of homeopathy. (accurately describes that the principles of homeopathy only began to be proposed in 1796)
• (3) The principles were not verified, but were to be accepted on Hahnemann’s word. (Replaces not plain English “ipse dixit axiom”, states all principles are ipse dixit, not just similars)
• (4) The first principle is “the law of similars” which says that if a substance causes a healthy person to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness, then the substance can be used as a cure for a person who already exhibits the symptoms. (more simple law of similars definition)
• (5) Hahnemann believed that at each step of the dilution, the “remedy” must be shaken by forcefully striking it on an elastic body, which he called “succussion”. (isolated definition of succussion)
• (6) 'The principle of “potentization” is that a remedy is made more potent with each step of the dilution process.' (very simple definition of potentization)
• (7) Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.
• (8) Apart from the symptoms, homeopaths use aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state, then counsult homeopathic reference books known as "repertories", and a “remedy” is selected. (slightly shortens two sentences into one)

HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(1) Once again, this introduces the mistaken idea that rmedies are made from someting that causes the symptoms - it is the remedy itself that is supposed to cause the symptoms. The second part of the sentence is also not quite right - remedies that cause similar symptoms are given "under the belief that" this will cure the patient. The dilutions involve a seperate principle, so this sentence conflates two concepts.

Changed above per recommendations. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(2) There was nothing wrong with the second sentence - it did not say that all the principles were stated in 1796, but that Hahnemann first proposed homoeopathy in 1796. The comment about molecules doesn't explain why the dilutions were proposed, it just gives an excuse for Hahnemann being wrong. The actual reason they were introducued was because Hahnemann realised that giving his patients large doses of substances that caused their symptoms tended to poison them. This comment also gives rise to potential misunderstanding as it conflated the day 1796 with the dilutions - they weren't introduced until much later (possible the early 1820s).

-Yes, nothing is wrong with second sentence, but it could be modified to ipse dixit all principles at once, then list the principle in sentences that follow. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I remove the "molecules" from (2) above (just like Hahnemann).HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Have I fixed the conflation above? HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(3) Using the word "proved" might be a problem because of the special meaning attached to the word "proving" by homoeopaths. And Hahnemann had very little reputation or authority when he proposed homoeopathy (he had given up practice of medicine, and was working as a translator), so this doesn't explain why the preinciples came to be accepted.

- Changed proved to verified, but maybe you could suggest another word or phrase? Maybe "not based on using a scientific method"?

If he did not yet have authority or reputation, then this is an incorrect use of "ipse dixit" (although it is in the source cited, which also then misuses the expression). Do you have a suggestion how to im"prove" it? Maybe "not based on the scientific method"? I fixed it above, but it still says "ipse dixit" in the article body (from the source), and the source can no longer be fixed as it is over a hundred years old. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(4) This isn't too bad, but "basic principle" is probably better than "first principle".

(5) Again, not too bad, but it is the succussion, not the dilution, that is said to make the remedies more potent, and the "water or alcohol" probably doesn't need to be specifically mentioned in the lead.

I will have to check into the succussion not dilution that makes it more potent. I got my info from various University lecture notes, and sites by skeptics who I trust, who seem to think that its all in (or out of) the dilution. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If the dilution is not important, just the shaking by forceful striking on an elastic body, then why not just strike forever? I avoided the question by stating the dilution process is important, including both dilution and forceful striking in the process. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(6) The "or it may not work" is probably unneccessary. Rather than "Hahnemann believed", it would be better just to describe in as neutral and factual terms as possible how the remedies are made - we're just trying to give a basic description of what homoeopathy is in this paragraph. This sentence could easily be merged with the previous one to say something like, "Homeopathic remedie” are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term succussion, after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect."

Modified above. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(7) No - the specific dilution is not significant enough to be worth mentioning in the lead, and "classical" homoeopaths (the most "traditional" of practitioners) don't observe this.

Modified above. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

(8) Homoeopaths don't really "examine" the patient's physical condition - the consultation involves a discussion of the patient's symptoms and feelings rather than a physical examination.

Anyway, I see that you have once again gone ahead and made major changes to the lead without waiting for comment here. I fear that they will need to be reverted again. Brunton (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The changes are minor as you can check by the comparison on the history page, and are all consistent with your comments. Originally, they wer just small modifications of what was there, but I changed these back consistent with your comments.HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your time here. I made the changes you suggested and commented on your edits under each. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What is so difficult about the concept of WP:CONSENSUS that it can't be followed? Phrase a new version, post it on the talk, then leave it untouched for a few days and let other editors comment on it/modify it. If everyone agrees on it, put it in the article. If not, go to the next round, incorporate suggestions from the comments, then leave this version for others to comment/modify. If there's a consensus to use the new wording, the majority of editors will agree that it is better and you can put it in the article, until then it stays out.
The way things are going here right now, there is no consensus and none can form because an unfinished proposal is put in the article and has to be modified again and again; I don't even know if what I comment on will still be on this page by the time I hit ‘safe’. This is not a productive way of working towards a consensus. --Six words (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this, here's why:
The first sentence is now long winded, doesn't explain what a remedy is and is less readable than the previous version. It cites no sources and again misstates the law of similars (that you don't name the law doesn't mean you don't use it – it's the basic principle of homeopathy) because homeopathy isn't centered on treating the illness/its symptoms but the “totality of symptoms” a customer describes.
Sentence number two is in no way better than the previous wording – if we were talking about any other kind of invention, we wouldn't hesitate to say something was invented in a specific year just because it was later improved/modified.
Number three speaks of „principles“ when the previous sentence only mentioned one, making it a lot more ambiguous than Homeopaths call this process potentization. is; the sources are simply taken from „ipse dixit“ and „axiom“. The second source explicitly states that Hahnemann based his axiom on „[a] small number of particular facts, badly observed and badly interpreted [...]“.
The rest is just the original sentences broken up into two sentences or combined into one, not really better than before. --Six words (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, as far as the first sentence is concerned, although it is desirable to have a single sentence definition, if this is difficult to achieve it is far better to have a couple of short sentences that give a clear explanation than a single long-winded one. I also agree with Six words's comment above about how to work towards consensus. Brunton (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

After reverting before on the grounds that "dilution not required", Sixwords then reverts now, inserting that homeopathy is defined by "highly diluted". That is hypoocricy. Arguing here is like arguing with a pseudoscientist, no matter what happens, you stick to wording you want, ture or fase. No excuse was given for reverting to not plain English from plain English. Homeopathy was not proposed in 1796, it was proposed at the time all of its axioms were complete, which is the meaning of axioms. A filed is proposed OVER the time of developmet of axioms, if it is so based. "Proposed" is not even the correct word for ipse dixit axioms, they are "stated". Homeopathy is not based on AN ipse dixit axiom, it is based on ipse dixit principles. I incorporated all of the extiensively nit picking suggestions of both Brunton and Six words, but apparently no matter what happnes, you want to stick to the original false, or ambiguous, or not plain English, etc. It is a waste of time discussing your "dilutions not requires" when you require dilutions. The "definition" just reverted to is false. I am not going to spend more time discussing with editors who will never change their mind no matter what happnens, which characterizes pseduoscience and religeous dogmatists. This is is characteristic of bad faith. All of my edits, and my extenisive modifications responding to nitpicking by the two of you is a waste of time when you are discussing in bad faith.

• arguing "Dilution is not required", and reverting to "uses highly dilute" is classic bad faith.
• reverting a sentence to a roughly equivalent one, based on the replaced sentence being "in no way any better", then arging to replace the third sentence based on what was just put in, and then serially arguning to replace the others like dominos, is a typical of the "bad faith" strategy of "setting up a straw man", as the expression "bad faith" is used in logic.
• Nit picking about something not being strictly true or clear, and making suggestions to make it strictly true or clear, then replacing one's own suggestions with overtly false or ambiguous assetions is bad faith.
• Stating that CONSENSUS is needed, then arguing that the CONSENSUS MOS is not required, inorder to revert plain English with not plain English expressions such as "ipse dixit axiom" at the outset of the lede, is bad faith.HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• This [1] is not a "major change" to the article requiring consensus when not controversial. Other than fixing the content of the first false lede sentence with a definition, it makes stylistic changes, and slight changes to make false sentences become true sentences.

Responding to bad faith positions is a waste of time. My edits were made in good faith, incorporating ALL of the extensive comments made on this page. Two editors here are not discussing and editing in good faith.

HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

HkFnsNGA, you should try to read more carefully. I said dilution is not needed to make something that causes symptoms in the healthy a “remedy” for the ill. I never disputed the fact that homeopaths mostly use higly diluted remedies, so I cannot detect any “hypocrisy” in my actions. Again you inserted your preferred version of the lede without getting consensus first (by the way - please point me to where I said consensus wasn't needed). --Six words (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You set up a bad faith straw man argument as I outliined above, which you in no way responded to, as with my other points. You also said dilution is not necessary, then inserted a false statement (which is not a definition) that ONLY contained "highly diluted". I did not see a consensus for your false non-definition sentence in the archives. There is consensus on MOS, which you have above written does not have to be followed. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the words "highly dilute" in the lead were discussed a little over six months ago. Consensus was very much with "highly dilute". You seem to be seriously misunderstanding Six words's argument here. There has been no suggestion that dilution is not characteristic of homoeopathy. Throwing around accusations of bad faith doesn't help your position.

I've removed the words "when diluted" from your opening sentence for now, since this wae once again a misstatement of the basic principle of homoeopathy, conflating two different concepts. Of course, this gave us another problem, so I had to add a couple more words. I've also removed some non NPOV material from the end of the first sentence. Unfortunately it still doesn't read too well. It also introduces unneccessary repetition into the lead. Brunton (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph of the lead

Resolved

The first paragraph of the lead has now been excessively expanded, contains material that is too detailed, and has become far more difficult to understand than the previous versions. It also contains a number of inaccuracies, for example the basic principle is "like cures like"; the "law of infinitesimals" came later and is not an essential principle. I would suggest reverting it to the version of 03:22, 20 January 2011, and then discussing changes before they are made. At the moment it is almost unreadable. Brunton (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's almost exactly what I was thinking when I just read the “improved” lede - not much of an improvement in my eyes. While I was the person argueing that things like what you dream of seem to be important to decide on what “remedy” is given, I never suggested to put this in the lede! I support reverting to the version Brunton suggests. --Six words (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've done it. Brunton (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not make the first paragraph "excessively expanded". The expansion was a mere 70 words or so, about .005 of the article. How can .005 be "excessive expansion"? I made basically stylistic changes to well define ambiguities, consistent with WP:MOS. This was done to begin to correct problems extensively discussed. I explained each "tiny" edit in its own section above. Brunton, you were the one who suggested "modifying" the existing lead, so I did what you said, in very small incremental steps, with detailed descriptions in both the edit summaries and on the talk page. This is the second time I have made very small, single step edits, with detailed edit summaries, and the second time you have massively deleted them without any comment on why. For example, compare the first sentence, which was extensively discussed in the talk page section on the lead, with the MP:MOS violating first sentence you just put back in. Please undo your revert and respond to each individual change before you revert that change. Most of the changes were purely stylistic, like breaking long sentences into parts for ease of reading by laypersons. WP:MOS requires the article topic to be defined in the first sentence if possible, and in the first paragraph, and I merely fixed ambiguities that did not well define homeopathy, but instead would apply to any medical practice. And Sixwords, who seems to object to any changes, said checking physical and psychological states was somehow unique to homeopathy, because homeopaths use dreams to diagnose remedies "for a cough", when that is far from true. As far as I can tell, dreams are only used to diagnose "psychic health", and are not interpreted, but categorized according to whatever mumb jumbo is in repertories, but that is a far cry from diagnosing how to remedy a cough. Please undo your revert, look at each small change, and discuss in the minutely detailed sections I creaeted, rather than ignoring them, and try to understand WP:Civility and other etiquettes, as your unreasoned reverts are bad for the article's psychic health, while I am go to take some Robitussin for my childhood dreams. Your revert is VERY uncivil, given that it appears you did not even bother to read each minute change you undid all in one sweep, and you in no way tried to discuss it in the reasoned sections provided, but rather made your own section without any specificity in it.HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not "excessively expanded" in the context of the whole article, but certainly in the context of the lead. Here's the first paragraph as it was:

"Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly[2][3] diluted preparations. Homeopathy was first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796, based on an ipse dixit[4] axiom,[5] which he formulated as the law of similars, preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals are given to patients who already exhibit similar symptoms. Homeopathic “remedies” are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term succussion, after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect. Homeopaths call this process potentization. Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.[6] Apart from the symptoms, homeopaths use aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state in recommending “remedies”.[7] Homeopathic reference books known as repertories are then consulted, and a “remedy” is selected based on the totality of symptoms."

Here it is after you edited it:

"Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly[2][3] diluted preparations based on two main principles: that a substance which causes symptoms similar to those of an illness can be used to make a “remedy” for the illness (called "the law of similars"); and that repeated dilution (typically with water or alcohol) of the substance increases its potency (called "potentization").[2][3] These and other principles of homeopathy were first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. He declared the principles, without basing them on any observations (ipse dixit [4] axioms[5]). Based on his “law of similars”, preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals were given to patients who already exhibit similar symptoms. Homeopathic “remedies” are "potentized" by repeatedly diluting the substance (i.e., serial dilution). They shake it by forcefully striking the container on the palm of the hand (or other elastic body), which homeopaths term succussion. Hahnemann believed that this method of striking the palm is important to the effectiveness of the preparation, which is inconsistent with modern ideas in chemistry, but Hahnemann made his proposal before the development of modern chemistry. Hahnneman recommended dilution to 1 part in 1060 (1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion), so no molecule of the original substance would remain, but Hahnemann made his proposal before it was proved in chemistry that molecules exist. In modern homeopathy, dilution still often continues until none of the original substance remains, but sometimes dilution levels are lower, and some of the original substance remains. [6] This has resulted in people being harmed from the toxic substances in “remedies”, and lawsuits against homeopathic companies. [7][8] Hahnemann advocated what he considered a proper diet, based on diets available in Germany in 1796, and required hygiene in his hospitals, which, given the filthy, horrific state of occult based western medicine at that time, made his hospitals more successful than many others in Europe, despite the fact that his “remedies” contained no molecules of the original substance.[9][10] Apart from the symptoms, homeopaths use aspects of the patient's physical and psychological state (e.g., childhood dreams) in recommending “remedies”.[11] Homeopathic reference books known as repertories are then consulted, which contain information on what “remedy” is selected based on the totality of symptoms, e.g., relating a childhood dream to a particular “remedy” (dreams are not supposed to be interpreted; the repertory lists “remedies” based on the topic of the dream). [12] Homeopaths may inquire as to the content of dreams to diagnose “psychic health” or the progress of treatment with “remedies”.[13]"

Surely you can see the difference? the excessive amount of material in parentheses makes it difficult to read (wikilinks can be used for the same purpose), and there is much there that is too specific for the lead (for example it doesn't need details of the striking method, and it isnt necessary to ram "1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion" down peoples' throats in the lead). You have yourself complained that the lead was too long and contained overly specific material - your recent edits do not look like a solution to this. Brunton (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and both are too long by my standards. I had planned to put everything in, then discuss what to cut out. E.g., either explain how the methods for examining physical and psychological health are different for homeopaths, or delete the subject. As it now stands, it in no way is informative, since almost all practices examine both.HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The difference between the two versions is 301 words (no, I didn't count them, I let open office do that for me), so these tiny edits expanded the lede by about 67%. While I don't object to any changes, yours simply don't seem to improve the article. You're still trying to make this article your interpretation of homeopathy it seems rather than summarising reliable sources. Perhaps you're unaware of WP:BRD: reverting someones edits in the way Brunton did isn't “incivil”, it just indicates that your suggested wording doesn't have consensus. Please assume good faith and don't accuse other editors of incivilty. --Six words (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Six, you are right. I must have made an error with my word counter. I subtracted the total old article from the total new one and somehow got 76. I did not subtract lede from lede, but it should not matter, so I must have made a counting error.

As for the claim that "most of the changes were purely stylistic", while some of them may have been, there was certainly a large amount of new material introduced to the paragraph, and once again the tone was changed as well - see the two versions I quoted above. These were by no means merely stylistic changes. Brunton (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought the tone was neutral, e.g., regarding dreams and "psychic health", which is no different than other pseudosciences like psychoanalysis.HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Issues regarding the first paragraph were extensively discussed below and resolved. I am marking this section as resolved. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why were "law of similars" and "potentization" deleted from the definition of homeopathy ?

Resolved

• WP:MOS says "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible".
• This was the definition of homeopathy in the lead –

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly[2][3] diluted preparations based on two main principles: that a substance which causes symptoms similar to those of an illness can be used to make a “remedy” for the illness (called "the law of similars"); and that repeated dilution (typically with water or alcohol) of the substance increases its potency (called "potentization").[2][3]

• This is the post-revert definition now in the article –

  Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly[2][3] diluted preparations.

• The second “definition” does not make homeopathy “well defined”, since it does not distinguish homeopathy from any other "practice using dilute solutions".

• Bobraynor’s elegant definition is clearly better. It captures the two central principles, which are typically the only ones discussed in academic, medical, and skeptical commentary on homeopathy, and by most homeopathists. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously two editors disagree with you. --Six words (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sixwords, you should not speak for two editors. You stated in these talk pages that WP:MOS does not have to be followed. WP:MOS says "the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible". You seem quite the contrarian, since the majority of editors agree with WP:MOS and in defining a topic in one sentence when possible. Brunton might have made the revert for other reasons, and he might agree with WP:MOS argument. Why do you disagree with well defining a topic in the first sentence when possible per WP:MOS? HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Brunton spoke for himself, he even made a new section before he reverted your edits - you must have seen it as you moved it to another section. While I did say that MOS is a guideline and as such gives us some leeway, I never said that one should generally ignore it. In my eyes homeopathy cannot be defined in one sentence properly, so we're actually following MOS as it says “where possible”. --Six words (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• These issues were continued in discussions below and resolved. I am marking this section as resolved. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

= Which definition is better, the FIRST or the SECOND?

Resolved

• FIRST - The second "definition" does not distinguish homeopathy from any other practice that uses highly dilute preparations. In fact, it implies, as a definition, that if someone were to use a highly dilute solution of a substance that created the opposite symptom (law of opposites, e.g. ancient Greek medicne), then they are doing homeopathy. The second definition captures the two most cited principles, by doctors, scientists, skeptics, and homeopathists, and well defines homeopathy from other practices using highly dilute preparations.HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

We're to some extent caught between the need to avoid the sentences becoming too convoluted (which is, I think, the reason the start of the lead is structured the way it is) and your desire to get a complete definition of homoeopathy into the opening sentence. I don't think it can be done without sacrificing too much in the way of readability, but I think we can safely assume that anyone who wants to find out about homoeopathy will read beyond the first sentence. Brunton (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think bobraynor's sentence is convoluted. My first proposed lead was convoluted, but bobraynor fixed it. The reason to define in the first sentence is that there is an increasingly growing number of readers who are in the middle of a sentence and find a link to something that is unfamiliar or deep in memory. They follow the link, still being in the middle of a sentence and expect a definition in the first sentence, whence they can go back to the sentence in the article they are really reading. I did, since I had read about homeopathy years ago, but forgot what it was (since I basically dismissed it as irrelevant). I followed a link, while being in the middle of another sentence, read the first sentence, then found an unfamiliar term in the second, and plodded through a bit more, then gave up and went back to the sentence I was really reading. I think the essence of homeopathy is "potentization" and "zero molecules", which, if up front, is really all anyone needs to know who is not studying homeopathy in depth for some reason. Even the law of similars is secondary, in that "bunk" is the typical summary most reasoned persons go away with, and "bunk" is most based on "potentizing" and zero molecules. When I go to th grocery store and see the homeopathic remedies section, all I think of is "potentizing" and "zero molecules". I have a photographer friend who gave her daughter homeopathic pills for a cold. She had "read up" on what she was doing, as googled with Wiki as the first result, could not read the second sentence of this article, then read the second google result, which was a homeopathy website, and bought the pills. This article is not layperson friendly for no good reason.HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a THIRD nonconvoluted definition that is all most readers are likely to want to know about homeopathy -

"Homeopathy is an alternative medicine which claims that if a substance causes symptoms of an illness in a healthy person, then highly diluting the substance creates a remedy for the illness, and that with each dilution it becomes more potent, even after no molecule of the substance remains."

User:HkFnsNGA|HkFnsNGA]] (talk)

Compare this definition with the current one -

"Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly[2][3] diluted preparations."

That's not correct, it is claimed that if the substance causes symptoms in a healthy person it can cure the same symptoms in an ill person, which is what the current lede says (and I already explained in December). --Six words (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Substantive remark, so fixed above.HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The concept of the molecule is not part of the definition of homoeopathy, and the dilutions were not proposed in 1796. If you want to include the dilutions, it needs to be in a separate sentence to Hahnemann's original proposition. Brunton (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And I wasn't suggesting that any of the versions currently being suggested are particularly convoluted, just that attempts to get a reasonabe definition into a single sentence led to this. The current suggestions are less convoluted because they either use more than one sentence, or do not manage to include an adequate definition. What you suggest is the current definition is not complete - for better readability it continues in a second sentence. Brunton (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the 1796 problem per your remark. "No molecules" is part of a definition of what homeopathy really is, especially for science minded people. The last propsed clause could be dropped, but this would be a misleading definition as to what homeopathy really is, a pseudoscience based practice of giving only placebos.HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

""No molecules" is part of a definition of what homeopathy really is..." No it isn't - it is part of the criticism. Brunton (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, your current suggestion misstates the law of similars; as you have previously pointed out yourself, it does not require dilution. The basic principle is that a remedy that causes certain symptoms in healthy subjects will cure patients suffering similar symptoms. Brunton (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it would probably be better to post new versions of your suggestions rather than going back and amending the ones that people have already commented on - anyone coming into this discussion now would have a hard time figuring out what you, Six words and I have been discussing here. Brunton (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And I'm still not seeing anything that is an improvement on what we already has, which starts by defining homoeopathy as a therapy that involves dilute solutions (the main characteristic of modern homoeopathy) and then elaborates on this by introducing the rationale for the use of the remedies. Brunton (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted the new version of my suggestion.

The problem with the "nondefinition" is that it says that a highly diluted solution prepared under "the law of opposites" would be homeopathy, which is false.HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. While it could, if taken out of context, be interpreted as meaning that, it is clear from the immediately following sentence that this is not the case. We can assume that people reading the article have an attention span of more than five seconds, I think.

"I posted the new version of my suggestion." I meant here, not in the article. I've reverted because it was clearly not correct. See edit summary and what has already been said above. Brunton (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Brunton, here is a definition of homeopathy from another dictionary -

"Homeopathy (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy), from the Greek words homoios (similar) and pathos (suffering), is a controversial system of alternative medicine involving the use of remedies without chemically active ingredients."

It ONLY contains "no molecule" as the essential part of defining what homeopathy really is, with no mention of "similars" or "potentization". It uses the slightly different wording "without chemically active ingredients". It is the same as the definition your local MD will likely give you. So I think this shows that "no molecule" is considered by others to essentially define what homeopathy really is. (Note that I incorporated all of your and Six words' suggestions, except yours not to include "no molecule", which would be unnecessarily inconsistent with many other definitions and common medical usage.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to something like that, although I suspect that other editors might. In fact I suspect that something similar has been suggested before, and been removed because of this. I think we would be better treating the "no molecules" as criticism and including it in the appropriate part of the lead. Brunton (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

What dictionary is that definition from? In any case, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary but an encyclopedia, so we don't need to be so “economical” with words. The Encyclopedia Britannica article on homeopathy defines it through the law of similars - “homeopathy, also spelled Homoeopathy, a system of therapeutics, notably popular in the 19th century, which was founded on the stated principle that “like cures like,” similia similibus curantur, and which prescribed for patients drugs or other treatments that would produce in healthy persons symptoms of the diseases being treated.” [2]. --Six words (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted the above because I thought you just said to go ahead and post it, but then you reverted the post. Even the paper version of my paperback Websters says "without active ingredients", and my hard cover Websters overtly has “molecules”, with “molecules in each dose”. My own definition has for some time been "treatment with either water, or sugar with dehydrated water ", and no one has ever objected in any way (except an older and eccentric doctor friend who said yes, but the water has a memory). I can't imagine a serious definition that leaves out that homeopathy has no pharmacologically active molecules, in some way or another. Per your edit summary, “misstatement of the law of similars”, I took your own wording below and put it into this –

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine which claims that if a substance causes a healthy person to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness, then highly diluting the substance creates a remedy for the illness, and that with each dilution it becomes more potent, even after no molecule of the original substance remains

Incidientally, Brunton, I use WP:Bold, so expect frequent reverts, so always feel free to revert any of my edits on any article (as long as there is a meaningful edit summary).HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

However, that isn't a good definition because it misstates the law of similars, as already noted both here and in my edit summary (you have yourself stated that a similar statement in the lead was not correct becasue dilution is not part of the basic principle), and the article at present treats the "no molecules" thing as part of the criticism of homoeopathy rather than part of the definition. Brunton (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Note also that the definition from elsewhere that you are holding up as a good example is precious close to what the article currently has in its first sentence, merely substituting "remedies without chemically active ingredients" for "highly dilute". Brunton (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How does it misstate the law of similars? I used your own wording. HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It misstates the law of similars in exactly the same way that a former passage misstated the law of similars, as you yourself pointed out in a thread you started under the heading The Law of Similars is slightly misstated in the Lede. Here is what you posted there: "The law of similars (as defined in the article body twice) does not require dilution, but is put in as a part of the "axiom" as defined in the lede." That is precisely how the passage you are now proposing misstates the law of similars. Brunton (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Brunton, you misstated the law of similars, not me. I did not state the law of similars, so I could not misstate it. I defined homeopathy. You have misstated the law of similars in what you have written in the lead. The law of similars is “similia similibus curantur”, which translates as “similars cure similars”. That’s it, just three words. My source is the Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 22, page 238. You are the one who misstated the law of similars, which says nothing about a “preparation”, as you wrote. As per a now archived talk page section, I pointed out a gross misstattement of the law of similars in the lede by some previous editor, and you responded to my comment by changing the lede to what it is now, which was close enough that I did not object.
• I did not state the law of similars, but instead I defined “homeopathy”. Homeopathy is in FACT the practice of treating an illness with a solute containing down to zero molecules, and the practice that has the BELIEF that if a substance causes symptoms of an illness in a healthy person, then highly diluting the substance creates a remedy for the illness, and that with each dilution it becomes more potent, even after no molecule of the substance remains. What is it exactly that you are objecting to? HkFnsNGA (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word "preparations" does not make it a misstatement of the principle - something is administered to the patient, whatever word we use for it. However, since you object to the word "preparations", I'll change it to the term customarily used by homoeopaths. Brunton (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I reverted it stating in the edit summary “dilution is not required” - just to be reverted in turn because it seems my summary “made no sense”. Frankly, I'm starting to get annoyed here. All the material is on this talk page, and it has already been explained that WP:CONSENSUS is needed for changes that alter meaning. --Six words (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My definition does not state the law of similars, so it can not missstate it. My definistion described the essential BELIEF of homeopaths, and the essential REALITY of what homeopathy really is. I even took my exact wording about the BELIEFS from a sentence of Six words describing homeopathy, and put the end clause in as a REALITY because you said you "have no particular objection to something like that". Please take another look. I was combining the law of similars with the principle of potentizing as the essential BELIEF, in order to have a short sentence. You might have assumed I was stating them as separate, because bobrayner did. In incorrectly assuming that I was trying to define the law of similars separately from potantizing, you might have made a mistake, and said I misstated the law of similars, thinking that was what I was trying to state. But I was blending the two into the single belief of homeopaths. You may have made an error in assuming that I was trying to define the law of similars when I was trying to define the blended belief in homeopaths' heads. Please take another look. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What does "dilution is not required" mean? HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How does a definition in the lede "alter meaning"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by HkFnsNGA (talk • contribs)

Not required means not necessary. In homeopathy, “mother tinctures” (IOW undiluted remedies) can be used and are thought to produce the same symptoms as “high potencies”. Are you saying that “preparations which cause certain symptoms in healthy individuals can cure patients who already exhibit similar symptoms.” means exactly the same thing as “if a substance causes a healthy person to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness, then highly diluting the substance creates a remedy for the illness”? I think it means something different. --Six words (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"What does "dilution is not required" mean?" - Much the same as the expression " does not require dilution", which you used yourself here. Brunton (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::::::That's exactly what I thought, but when I wrote down my thought it sounded like sarcasm, so I simply asked the question. HkFnsNGA (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Brunton, after reading about homeopathy in depth, I think I have figured out what Six words meant. He can correct me if I am wrong. Apparently homeopaths believe that the substance causing similar symptoms in healhty people does not have to be diluted to be effective. Assuming this is what he meant, I have incorporated his remark, together with a nutshell statement of the similars and potentizing beliefs, and the all the way down to zero molecules fact of what homeopathy really is, into the following definition, which improves greatly upon my previous one. This definition also contains the word "remedies", which is commonly encountered on homeopathic packaging as commonly sold in stores, so that a lay person may only need to read the first sentence of the aritcle to understand what homeopathy is believed to be and what it really is. -

Homeopathy is an alternative medicine which treats an illness with a “remedy” that is made with a substance that causes symptoms similar to that of the illness in healthy people, under the belief that the “remedy” becomes more potent each time it is diluted, even when diluted so much that no molecule of the original substance remains.

Six words' suggestion that dilution is not required is accounted for in my corrected definition, but as you pointed out, is not accounted for in the current lede "definition" that incorrectly has a "highly dilute preparation" every time, and it correctly states the law of similars and the potentization beliefs, as well as reality. This discussion ended up being of value. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the basic principle is not that remedies are made from a substance that causes similar symptoms, it is that patients can be cured by giving them a remedy that causes similar symptoms. It is parhaps a subtle distinction, but it is illustrated by the fact that (as recommended by Hahnemann) "provings" are almost invariably carried out using the potentised remedies, not the undiluted substance. Brunton (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• These issues were discussed extensively in following sections and resolved. I am marking this section as resolved. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Which definition of homeopathy is better?

Resolved

MOS requires the first sentence to define the topic if possible. Homeopathy can easily be defined in a way that a layperson can understand.

I have incorporated all of the comments of other editors in the second definition below.

This is not a definition -

"Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly diluted preparations."

• It is not a definition of homeopathy. No one should read it and go away thinking that they know the definition of homeopathy.
• It is false since, as User:Six words said repeatedly, "dilution is NOT required".
• It misleads people who might only read the first sentence definition that homeopathic remedies is more than just selling people tiny bottles of water, so is POV.
• It does not incorporate 1/3 of its time to "debunking" in accordance with previous WP:Consensus on the talk page.
• It in no way defines how homeopathy is uniquely defined as a pseudoscience.

This IS a definition. -

Homeopathy is an alternative medicine which treats a patient with a “remedy” that, when undiluted and given to healthy people, causes symptoms similar to that of the patient's illness, with a belief that the "remedy" becomes more potent with each step in a ritual dilution process, even when diluted so much that no molecule of the original substance remains, which is often the case.

• It is simple to define homeopathy in one sentence for a layperson.
• A person can read it and nothing else, and have a good picture of homeopathy.
• Some editors might want to force laypersons to read their extensive work on the article by refusing to define it in one sentence.
• There is no reason to force readers to have to read beyond a first lede sentence definition if they do not want or need to do so.
• There was already CONSENSUS that a third should be devoted to debunking. 30% is devoted to debunking, which is about the 1/3 agreed upon by consensus in the previous talk page discussion per Brangifer. In the (non)definition above, nothing is devoted to debunking.
• This definition incorporates all of the extensive comments on this talk page about the first sentence, made by every other editor, except as to length.
• It defines how homeopathy is unique as a pseudoscience. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Which definition is better? HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, that definition is incorrect - it is the remedy itself, not whatever it is made from, that is supposed to mimic the symptoms. You have also, by only including the first sentence, failed to quote all of the definition previously used in the article. How about this definition:

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners use highly diluted preparations. Homeopathy was first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. It is based on an ipse dixit axiom which he called the law of similars, which states that a substance which causes certain symptoms in healthy individuals can cure patients who already exhibit similar symptoms.

I don't think there has ever been a consensus that a third of each sentence should be devoted to debunking. This has its place, both in the body of the article and in the lead, but that place is not in the basic definition. This has been discussed before, for example when an editor wanted to include the term "pseudoscience" in the first sentence (don't get any ideas - consensus was clearly against them). Brunton (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

An alternative

Resolved

OK, if we must have a single sentence definition, how about avoiding the false dilemma suggested above, and using this as an opening, to be followed by the rest of the lead as at present, starting "Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution...":

Homeopathy (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which patients are treated with highly[2][3] diluted preparations that are believed to cause, in healthy people, similar symptoms to those exhibited by the patient. The basic principle, known as the law of similars, was first proposed by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796.

This gives us a basic single sentence definition, retains the term "highly diluted" in the first sentence (for which there was certainly a previous consensus) and the references supporting this, and retains the date at which Hahnemann first proposed it. It also avoids the introduction of POV material to the basic definition (which I will oppose even if it does reflect my own POV). It also considerably shortens the first paragraph of the lead, and avoids repetition of points already appropriately made elsewhere in the opening paragraph, thus addressing the concerns HkFnsNGA has expressed about this. Brunton (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this represents a reasonable compromise between the proposals currently being made and the previous consensus (and it certainly addresses HkFnsNGA's insistence that a single sentence definition including the law of similars is required), so I've made the change. Brunton (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is an acceptable compromise. --Six words (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The edits Brunton made to make a more precise definition and use plain English are a big improvement on what I found when I first came to this article. More work could be done on the definition though. Here is another tweak -

Homeopathy is an alternative medicine that typically treats patients with a “remedy” made by ritually diluting a substance that causes healthy people to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness, with dilution levels that are often so high that no molecule of the original substance remains in the “remedy”.

Brunton's edit summary "let's call a spade a spade" is NPOV. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But once again, this is not correct - it is (as you have repeatedly been told; also, you have been told this repeatedly) the remedy itself, whether or not it is dilute, that is supposed to cause the same symptoms that the patient is exhibiting, not whatever it is made from. The word "ritually" seems to be being used in a pejorative sense that has no place here, and the stuff about the dilution levels and molecules is merely repeating material from elsewhere in the lead. Brunton (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I was using your "call a spade a spade" remark to define what homeopathy really is, not what homeopaths claim, in that the substance really causes healthy people to exhibit similar symptoms, whether or not a remedy is "supposed" to. Ritual is NPOV per FAQ at top of this page "Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.)". Let's call a spade a spade, what homeopaths do in succussion and potentization is a ritual, with no scientific validity. I liked your "Let's call a spade a spade." remark. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, homoeopaths often imply (although they tend not to state outright) that the symptoms are caused by the crude substance which is then diluted to make the remedy, possibly because this seems less ridiculous than the reality; they also use this misconception, with its implication that the dilution somehow reverses the effect, to justify attempts to link homoeopathy and hormesis. What you are proposing is in fact closer to the way homoeopaths often present their therapy than it is to reality. As I've said above, take a look at the section on "provings" - these are invariable carried out using the diluted remedies, not the crude substance. As for "ritually", if you want to include it you'll have to find RS to support it. And see also FAQ11. Brunton (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Per MOS and related articles, the first sentence is a definition of the subject, but the entire first paragraph also defines the subject. The first sentence definition is filled out in the first paragraph. The lead as a whole is an abstract of the article. This allows someone reading another article needing a definition, can link the article, quickly get a definition, then get back to the sentence. A person not wanting to much specificity, but a more complete definition, can read just the first paragraph. A person wanting an abstract of the article can read the entire lead. There may be slight repetition with more specficity of things in the first sentence in the first paragraph, and of things in the first paragraph filled out in the following lead paragraphs. An example is the "no molecule" in the first paragraph being more filled out in subsequent lead paragraphs, which I think is good.HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you read MOS:LEAD, in particular under "opening paragraph"..

You cannot cram the entire lead into a single sentence. The lead is structured so that it defines and describes homoeopathy in as neutral terms as possible, then discusses the (lack of) scientific evidence for it. This is the result of long-standing consensus on this page. Brunton (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I crammed it into three sentences, in the section below, with a very short "science based" definition. HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Another opinion

For the sake of an honest „democratic“ balance, another opinion than the official one needs to be stated.

No mentioned is made of the facts of the experience of millions of cases of successful curing with homeopathy throughout two centuries. Is this a kind of “placebo epidemic”? I experienced it myself 34 years ago, when my kidney infection was cured with homeopathy alone and repeatedly in my life for less serious conditions. How can the positive experience of homeopathy in veterinarian medicine be explained? Can placebo work for animals? There is a massive literature on clinical experience and experience of practitioners in homeopathic literature and magazines, which those advocating allopathic medicine simply refuse to study. We cannot prove that Benveniste was tricked by Randi, but who can really prove the opposite (it is merely stated…)? Is this a case of Futterneid (this desciptive German word cannot be well translated, “food envy” coming close, and the green-eyed monster of Shakespeare’s Othello is also referred to in certain dictionaries) on the side of an allopathic lobby that in homeopathy sees a severe competition? As concerns the theory of memory effects in water, see: http://www.is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com. about investigations that official scientists simply refuse to take notice of. (They only ridicule it as that article tends to do, without a real counter-proof.) Isn’t it, after all, that homeopathy is simply not wanted in our business society and neither are explanations of how it works, because it isn’t supposed to work…

Dr. Jan Erik Sigdell (Slovenia), January 25, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.5.149 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also the minor annoying fact that there hasn't been any cases of successful curing at least published in things called "reliable sources". Now Wikipedia doesn't operate to present a honest democratic balance. Wikipedia operates to present the sum of available knowledge based on reliable sources. If you find that you cannot get your info onto Wikipedia, then you need to ask yourself. Is my information sourced from verifiable and reliable sources? Or do I find myself looking at authors, blogs, commentators etc. The relevant policies on how Wikipedia operates are WP:RS and WP:V. Also have a read of WP:NOT. Shot info (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So called "reliable sources" refuse to publish such case reports! See the circus about Benveniste's paper in Nature... If massive homeopathic literature and journals are not called "reliable": Is this maybe biased politics? JES Jan.25/11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.122.207 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to take up your arguement with the people who have written WP:RS. The moral is, there is no such thing as "massive homeopathic journals". Literature - yes - all somewhat dubious with respect to it's medical knowledge. So rather than arguing with Wikipedia, why don't you get out there and argue with your industry to get their information published in real medical journal. You might call this biased politics but rather than whining about it here in Wikipedia, you can get out in the real world and affect real change - then come back here with the reliable sources. It's really that simple. Shot info (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood correctly, "massive" refers to literature. What does a massive (again...) experience during 200 years say to you? What is "science" when based on a specific yet widely accepted world concept that excludes other world concepts? Competition? Elitarian "scientific prejudice"? Subjective limitation of point of view? JE Sigdell, Jan.27,2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.7.130 (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy effectiveness and scientific literature

I think that it is wrong to project our point of view to an article which supposes to be informative by reporting in simple terms the scientific consensus or debate on Homeopathy. If you look at the scientific literature you will see that there is much debate and controversy on homeopathy's effectiveness and . It is easy to see that if you read not only the reviews but also the way different scientific organizations depict homeopathy's status. Most of them say that it is not proven and some studies are positive ( but not conclusive ) other studies are negative or inconclusive. Trying to summarize the scientific consensus in one sentence is dangerous and it does not depict the reality in research and observation.

Why does not the article adopt a more careful approach like user sixwords suggested from this organization ?( National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine) http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#status

Controversies Regarding Homeopathy 'Homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics). Critics think it is implausible that a remedy containing a miniscule amount of an active ingredient (sometimes not a single molecule of the original compound) can have any biological effect—beneficial or otherwise. For these reasons, critics argue that continuing the scientific study of homeopathy is not worthwhile. Others point to observational and anecdotal evidence that homeopathy does work and argue that it should not be rejected just because science has not been able to explain it.

The Status of Homeopathy Research

Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed. However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies. --George1918 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Read Q4 at the top of this talk page. Consensus (both scientifical and between editors) is clear. --Cyclopia^talk 15:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I was only talking about NCCAM's description of what homeopathy is (section ‘overview’ of their page on homeopathy). Their conclusion that more research is needed is rubbish and takes away research money that I think could be much better spent, but it's understandable because otherwise they'd be out of work pretty quickly (I realise there are other ‘CAM’ modalities, but right now I can't think of even one that's actually promising). --Six words (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. I was not talking about our personal views but about the sources we are using state. Where is the scientific consensus (if we all agree that the above is from a usable and reliable source?) It seems to me that the above view departs significantly from the current article view.

Or not?--George1918 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The comment from NCCAM, while not published in a peer-reviewed source like the reviews and meta-analyses the article uses as sources, substantially agrees with the article's interpretation of those sources as stated in the lead:

NCCAM: "Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed. "; article: "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than placebo"; "most positive studies have not been replicated or show methodological problems that prevent them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy."

NCCAM: "However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies"; article: "While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to demonstrate efficacy."

NCCAM: "Homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science"; article: "Depending on the dilution, homeopathic “remedies” may not contain any pharmacologically active molecules, and for such “remedies” to have pharmacological effect would violate fundamental principles of science."

These are not inconsistent. In particular, the fact that there are some individual positive results that can be cherry-picked does not mean that the consensus, as presented in the article using peer-reviewed papers as sources, is not correctly presented. Brunton (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that George1918 still has problems indicates that either I did an inadequate job of briefly explaining p value, E value, meta analysis, and File drawer effect in the article body, or George1918 did not read this part of the article body. HkFnsNGA (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

George, consensus doesn't need to be unanimous. I agree with Brunton that our article and the NCCAM's are saying pretty much the same thing in different words, so it seems like the wikipedians writing it did a good job summarising the sources. --Six words (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Six words, if I am too long winded at talk, perhaps I am equally too terse in the article itself, esp. regarding explaing explaining p value, E value, publication bias, File drawer effect, meta analysis, and systematic review for readers like George1918. Improvements to my brief explanations in the article body should be made. ("Too terse" is an "awful alliteration".)HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it POV to define homeopathy a pseudoscience placebo treatment with ritually produced “remedies”? Defining homeopathy in first sentence and first paragraph

Resolved

• It is proposed that the following replace the current lead first paragraph. MOS requires defining the subject in the first paragraph, with a definition in the first sentence. The proposal is to use a “science based” definition, not the current whitewash of what homeopathy is in reality.

Homeopathy is an alternative medicine and pseudoscience that typically treats ill patients with a placebo, taking a pharmaceutically active substance that causes symptoms similar to those of the illness and repeatedly diluting it, usually so much that it no longer has any effect, then calling it a “remedy”. Homeopathy is based two principles that are inconsistent with established chemistry, physics, and biology, stated without using any scientific method by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796 ; that a preparation believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms similar to those of an illness can cure a patient, and that each dilution followed by striking on an elastic body increases effectiveness, with this method striking believed to be of importance. Hahnemann recommended dilution levels as low as 1 part in 10⁶⁰ (1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion), at which no molecule of the original substance remains, before the idea of the existence of molecules was widely accepted.

• That homeopathy is a PSEUDOSCIENCE should be indisputable, and it should be in the definition, whether or not a homeopath might object to calling it a pseudoscience.
• That homeopathy is simply treating with a PLACEBO should be indisputable, and it should be in the definition, whether or not a homeopath might object to calling homeopathy a placebo treatment.
• Repeatedly diluting then thumping the solution on an elastic body a specified number of times to make a “remedy” more effective is a RITUAL, NOT science, and this fact should be in the definition, whether or not a homeopath might object to calling a ritual a ritual.
• The current first lead paragraph is unnecessarily specific, and is written so POV that it effectively whitewashes what homeopathy really is.
• The current lead first sentence does NOT provide a “science based” definition of homeopathy.
• The above proposal has a “science based” definition of what homeopathy really is in the first sentence per POS. The current “definition does not define homeopathy in that it omits the ritual beliefs, and does not describe what is really going on… selling water as a remedy.
• The above is NPOV. The whitewash "definition" currently in the lead is POV in that it does not define what homeopathy is in reality. HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No. We've already been through all this. You didn't like that answers you got then, and consensus is unlikely to change simply because you repeat the same points. Your suggestion this time is even more blatantly not NPOV than your previous suggestions. Brunton (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow.... as much as I enjoy bashing homeopathy, this is over the top.

And looking at Scientific_method#History, I see that in 1796 there wasn't a proper scientific method that could be used by Hahnemann. Descartes had already stated his ideas, but there was no formal method to test medicines. Looking at Medicine#History, this was while medical research was being adopted, and before the discovery of germs. Looking at Placebo_in_history#.27Placebo_effect.27, the placebo effect wasn't taken into account until mid 20th century. Call me picky, but this lead is taking historical stuff of context. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In response to this sections title I would say yes, that is POV. An example of a non-POV explanation can be found on NCCAM's website. Even though I don't agree with them that more research is needed (nor with their suggestions for patients), their overview sums up ‘what homeopathy is’ in a good, NPOV way. --Six words (talk) 09:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Should definition first sentence define homeopathy as a psedudoscience placebo treatment?

Resolved

MOS says to define homeopathy in the first sentence.

This is the current definition -

(1) definition - Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause, in healthy people, symptoms similar to those exhibited by the patient.

This is the proposed "science based" definition -

(2) definition - Homeopathy is an alternative medicine and pseudoscience that typically treats ill patients with a placebo, taking a pharmaceutically active substance that causes symptoms similar to those of the illness and repeatedly diluting it, usually so much that it no longer has any effect, then calling it a “remedy”.

Which definition is better? HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hum, in the proposed replacement:

• Pseudoscience is the theories that try to explain it, not homeopathy itself.
• You were already told to find a source for dissolutions being done ritualistically (I think that Boiron uses mixing machines and shaking machines?).
• "usually so much that it no longer has any effect", hum, this explanation will be confusing to people not familiar with the discussions about amount of molecules.
• "then calling it a “remedy”": POVish tone and implying pejorative stuff.

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

* Homeopathy IS a pseudoscience.

• I removed word "ritual" from proposal as NRS.
• "repeated dulution, usually so much that it no longer has an effect" is not confusing. Dilution levels and molecules are also mentioned in more detail in my proposed third sentence. HkFnsNGA (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is called a "remedy", and scare quotes are used for each instance in the article body. So it has the same POV as the rest of the article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"no longer has an effect" does not explain why it doesn't have any effect (it really looks like you are cramming too much information in the first sentence, a proper explanation will make the sentence too long and break any flow it had). Just call it a preparation, like the current lead. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"no longer has an effect" is simply wrong as it has placebo effect plus any biochemical effect of the chosen dilutant.

"...to be no more effective than a placebo" would more simply read "to be a placebo" or "effectively to be a placebo".

"treats ill patients" is simply wrong, it "treats patients", ill or not. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I accounted for placebo effect by stating "treats ill patients with a placebo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HkFnsNGA (talk • contribs)

The phrase "...taking a pharmaceutically active substance that causes symptoms similar to those of the illness and repeatedly diluting it" is now being proposed. As you have been repeatedly told, this is a misstatement of the basic principle of homoeopathy. It is the remedy itself, not whatever it is made from, that is supposed to cause the symptoms (although, as I've noted above, the misconception inherent in your proposal often doesn't seem to be discouraged by proponents of homoeopathy). Brunton (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am not stating what homeopathy claims, but what it is. What it claims is in the second sentence. It typically dilutes a substance that is pharmaceutically active until it is not. That is a simple fact. That is a requirement in most developed countries, in order to sell these placebos, as they might otherwise be harmful. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many substances without pharmaceutical use (as active ingredient) that are made into homeopathic preparations - e.g. rock salt (‘natrum muriaticum’), chalk (‘calcium carbonicum’), flintstone (‘silicea’), just to name a few. I'm not saying homeopathic are never made made from pharmaceutically active substances, just that this isn't a requirement. You may think that doesn't matter, but in my eyes it does because it makes the statement in question (“[...] taking a pharmaceutically active substance [...]” wrong. --Six words (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So I've been drawn here after all I think that the first sentence is OK as it is. I would however just move this sentence: The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo. to be the second sentence. I think it is fair to give immediately to the reader what is the scientific consensus on the matter. This sounds also as a reasonable compromise with HkFnsNGA concerns, perhaps. --Cyclopia^talk 12:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brunton for accepting the suggestion in the text. --Cyclopia^talk 15:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer this sentence to be at the end of paragraph one - that should be soon enough even for those with a very short attention span and the text would read better, but I think it's a reasonable compromise. --Six words (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That would put it more or less back where it was (previously at the start of paragraph 2). Not that I'm particularly objecting to its being put back there, as it fits into the context of the second paragraph perhaps a little better than where it now is. Brunton (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The entire thing is not accurate. No on other encyclopedia describes homeopathy as only a placebo therapy . Besides that some the sources you are using to support that are really controversial and have been criticized by different authors -not always homeopaths. --George1918 (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has read every other encyclopedia (nor could anyone), and they're not much of our concern either. This sentence is (massively) sourced, so accuracy can be verified by readers. --Six words (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As a reader I see problems- the bottom line is that all these different views from different scientific bodies ( and peer reviews as well cannot be summarized in the sentence Homeopathy is a placebo only and only pseudoscience because they differ. Look at the example below. --George1918 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Brunton's many small edits to the lead first pragraph have resulted in a first paragraph that substantially improves the article. There is still some room for improvement, such as that a third lead paragraph sentence about "typical dilution levels are so high that "remedies" have no harmful or helpful effect, and homeopathy is inconsist with chemistry, physics, and biology". But, as it now stands, if I found the article the way it currently is, I would not have bothered to get involved editing here in the first place. I would have read the first couple of sentences and moved on. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides this general comment can you give reasons - why the different views of scientific bodies (and some reviews )on Homeopathy should be reduced to the current view ( Homeopathy only -Pseudoscience -Placebo ) Example is below.--George1918 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I am now happy enogh with the current lead, and withdraw my proposal. I would mark this as resolved, but it appears there are other issues that were opened by my proposal that are still under discussion. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think that, however, but as much I comprehend your view, the lead has become worse as at least one more editor stated.It could be useful if you were able to give rational answers to the above issues but if you don't wish - it is OK with me.

I m sure other people will give a reason as to why the different views of scientific bodies (and some reviews )on Homeopathy should be reduced to the current view ( Homeopathy only -Pseudoscience -Placebo )--George1918 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What reviews? And what views of scientific bodies? The NCCAM comment about the status of research you have quoted below is entirely consistent with the article, for example; we've been through this repeatedly - see for example the discussions under the heading "NCCAM and the Linde letter" in archive 43. Brunton (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So how you have included the statement "However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies."? You say the consensus is that it is all placebo and they report unique and physical proporties of homeopathic remedies. ? I will tell you about the reviews later.And the don't say "remedies" but remedies.

Do not forget that according to their website they are funding Homeopathy's research. Obviously they hold different views from wikipedia which says it is all placebo. Don't you think so? --George1918 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Individual studies do not make scientific consensus. Sorry but your particular POV has been discussed multiple times here -and rejected. Unless you have breaking new evidence of scientific consensus on the issue, there is no need to insist. --Cyclopia^talk 00:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not forget that according to the director of NCCAM "in the last two years (under her directorship) the NCCAM has not funded any studies of homeopathy". Brunton (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not my point of view but NCCAM' s point of view. Do you think that way NCCAM presents the status of research in Homeopathy and the fact that they report a unique and physical proporties of homeopathic remedies. are not neutral statements and biased in favor of homeopathy?--George1918 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out to you, the statement "However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects" is included in the lead in the sentence "While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to demonstrate efficacy." The bottom line is that article is not inconsistent with the NCCAM page. Brunton (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• With the addition of plain English scientific information as a second' sentence, which is immediately available to a reader of the first sentence, this compromise resolves my issue. I am marking this section as resolved. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I opened this section and find all issues I brought up have been resoved, and am so marking this section. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
• I will request a specific edit based on the issues I raised in this section. I wish I could get some rational responses on the specific questions I asked above besides "we talked about that or this is your point of view". Thanks for discussing the issues anyway ( everybody participates in the discussion the way s/he can afford in terms of arguments).--George1918 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to "request a specific edit", you will need RS to back it up. You have claimed that there are "different views of scientific bodies (and some reviews)", but you have failed to provide any sources to back up this statement. What reviews? What "scientific bodies"? Brunton (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

George1918, please read up on p value, E value, publication bias, File drawer effect, meta analysis, and systematic review, then try to answer Brunton's questions "'What reviews?' and 'What scientific bodies?'", then follow Brunton's "you will need RS to back it up" advice before you make such a request. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I marked this section as "resolved" after compromise to include scientific findings in second sentence. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why Hahnemann was CORRECT about dilution of similars; Most concise possible definition of homeopathy; More material for "repertories"

Further information: WP:Silly things, WP:Best of BJAODN, Wikipedia:More Best of BJAODN, Wikipedia:Even more Best of BJAODN, Wikipedia:Yet more Best of BJAODN, and Wikipedia:Still more Best of BJAODN

Hahnemann was CORRECT about dilution of similars (as long as there are still enough pharmacologically active molecules) in that “the more a remedy is diluted, the more positive will be the effect of the remedy”. Here is a proof.

• (1) A similar produces similar effects to an illness, so is harmful.
• (2) Harmful means it has a negative effect.
• (3) Diluting it once into a remedy it makes it less harmful, i.e., less negative effect.
• (4) Diluting this remedy once again makes it even less harmful.
• (5) Each dilution of a remedy makes it less harmful, i.e., less negative, until there are no longer any harmful pharmacologically active molecules, whence it stops becoming less negative.
• (6) Less negative means more positive.
• (7) Therefore, as long as there are enough pharmacologically active molecules, each dilution makes the effect of the remedy more positive than before. So potentization of similars has a grain of truth. Surprise! QED. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually - paraphrasing - even if the above qualifies as original research - there might be a scientific basis or it might be just speculations. Were you thinking of this maybe?--George1918 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was just a light-hearted joke. --Cyclopia^talk 09:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Allergen immuno therapy (also termed hyposensitization therapy, immunologic desensitization, hyposensibilization, or allergen-specific immunotherapy) is a form of immunotherapy for allergic disorders in which the patient is vaccinated with increasingly larger doses of an allergen (substances to which they are allergic) with the aim of inducing immunologic tolerance. --George1918 (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really anything to do with homoeopathy, though, because homoeopathy involves administering something that would cause the same symptoms that the patient is suffering, not necessarily the actual cause of those symptoms (indeed, because of the individualised nature of homoeopathic prescription which involves considering things other than the symptoms specific to the condition the patient is suffering from, almost never what actually caused the patient's symptoms - isopathy is a slightly different concept). Because the remedy doesn't carry the specific allergens it will not affect the immune system in the same way. And this is disregarding the fact that homoeopathy frequently uses remedies that do not even include the substance that they are allegedly made from. Brunton (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Newton or Leibnitz would have recognized the error, it's basic calculus

Lim_n->inf (-(1/x)ⁿ) = 0 for x>1

In English, repeated dilution makes it more positive than it was, but never more positive than zero.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Most concise defintition of homeopathy that is logically possible -

LOL. LeadSongDog, your formula could serve as the most concise defintition of homeopathy that is logically possible! HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the logic somewhat similar (or inverted?) to the fact that winning the lottery is nearly impossible, with the percentage chance of winning nearly the same as the percentage chance if one doesn't buy the Lottery ticket in the first place, but the chance of winning really IS zero if one doesn't buy that ticket? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't thought out your comment fully, but it did stimulate me to think of cecking if the anthropic principle makes an appearance (or should do so) in the scientific method article. Lottery ticket winners might think themselves to have some kind of "luck" that others do not under the anthropic principle. Homeopaths with isolated random positive test results might reason similarly in thinking there is an effect. (This does not respond to Brangifre's comment, so I am doubly indenting it.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Repertory addition -

Brangifer, please define "inverted logic". I will gladly take your definition and add it to my "repertory" of argumentation style.

Yes, Brangifer, it is similar. The chance of NOT losing is zero if you don't play, and approaches zero with each additional lottery player if you play. This is getting confusing. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You will indeed get confused if you take it seriously. It was partially a joke. See the smiley? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk page section got made the threshhold number of votes to be included in WP:Best of Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense here[3]. So you might as well keep your logic inverter turned on. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dehydrated water

This seems like the best section to put a drop of "dehydrated water" from homeopathic pills section.

A perusal of the talk page archives indicates enough material for a good addition to WP:BJAODN. If anyone remembers anything really good (like some of the arguments put forth, rather than calling it bad faith, move it to this section) lets try to collect it all in one place here, before this whole section vanishes in a puff of Wikilogic ("Logical positivism vanished in a puff of logic" - from WP:BJAODN), and we can move the collection to BJAODN. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Extensive and repeated talk page comments by believers in random positve test results indicates improvement of article body is needed

Talk page archives with xtensive and repetitious comments citing random positive effect studies indicates that the brief description of p value, E value, publication bias, File drawer effect, meta analysis, systematic review, and confirmation bias (which are all extensively and repeatedly referred to, directly or indirectly, in the article body) indicates that they are either not well explained in the article body, or that they explanations are not well organized (or are being ignored ot not being read). Edits to improveme this is indicated (under the assumtoin of good faith in the commenting editors). HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, while in a world of perfect rational agents you'd be right, it also indicates simply that people have biases in the face of logic and evidence. It happens all the time -and even those of us (like myself) who like to think they're rational can fall prey of these biases. Now, the description on the article is OK in my opinion, but if anything it could suffer a bit of WP:SYNTHESIS - can references on how these effects directly relate to homeopathy be found? --Cyclopia^talk 23:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is a bit WP:synthesis (it is not in the form as I originally wrote it). I tried to very briefly define the concepts using only material in the corresponding WP articles. I think that understanding what the terms mean, witout having to read those long articles, outweighed any synthesis problems, making the homeopathy article much more readable for a layperson. Statistics is dry enough to be uncontroversial, so as not stimulate synthesis concerns. I guess oter editors agree, as my edits were modified, instead of being objected to. I think you said you were a molecular biologist or something like that, so you likely already understand the concepts. It would be best to have a newby to statistics read the material to see if they find it intelligable and helpful. Geroge1918 might be a good candidate. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am a molecular biologist and as such I am familiar with the concepts; also I agree that the reader utility of the paragraph outweighs the WP:SYNTH concerns, yet they should be addressed because you want the thing to be bulletproof from opposite pro-homeopathy POV pushing (again, nobody here's a perfect rational agent). I am quite positive such references exist. What I wanted to emphasize however is that the existence of pro-homeopathy editors does not mean they do not read the paragraph or that it is poorly written -it simply means that they have a bias and selectively perceive and weight evidence. --Cyclopia^talk 00:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

CyclOpedia (I got that from your user page), what I wrote (I have not compared it to its modification) was essentially "statistics for middle school". I find that the best way to learn (for me, and when I teach) is by examples first. I tried to use homeopathy as the example for teaching about these statistical concepts (which is synthesis, but with your opinion of the greater weight of reader utility). What is interesting is that the smart editors who read it and still wont change POV, are still acting in good faith by Wikipedian use of the expression, but in bad faith by a psychoanalytical, intentionality in phil of mind, ethicist, or existentialist perspective. That is why I started editing what was a terrible (law only, and even getting that wrong) article, which fails to show the two uses of the expression. There is much interesting stuff about this in philosphy, as to whether adhering to a clearly false (but possibly self benefiting) and self delusional belief (like supremacists thinking they are superior, even after losing all competitions) is intentional or not. (Is the single eye in your name a Zero or the capital of the letter after N. It looks like a parietal eye, some insects have these too, but I am not sure if they have parietal lobes. Its interesting that there is no common special character in any script I am familiar with that is a circle with a dot in it, which you might have found useful.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That the synthesis you put in the article is useful does not mean it is there to stay indefinitely; only that it is currently marginally better than having nothing -but reliable sources that directly apply to homeopathy these concepts are badly needed. It is anyway against policies to keep it indefinitely, no matter how much I like it. Also, please remember that calling editors in bad faith, even if in a "technical" meaning, can be interpreted as an attack (I know, my only stain on the block log was when I called an editor "ignorant" in the technical meaning of "not being aware of"), so please retract. As for the other comments... nice, but wouldn't they be better in my talk page? --Cyclopia^talk 17:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't use "bad faith" again, especially in the self delusion sense. I apologized to Six words and pointed out that "nit picking" can be a compliment, e.g., molecular biologists do nothing other than nit pick very small things. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we adopt a different point of view in the article

Of course I m not a pro homeopathy editor. I just have a natural aversion to bias. I think that the article reads like a polemic against homeopathy and it pretends that this is the consensus among scientists. It is not. It is only one view. Peer reviews and meta studies have been interpreted differently by different groups - and this is evident in the mainstream journals.I will give you examples if you want.

Proof: I m ready to accept the definition and description of homeopathy as it is presented by the American Medical Association or NACCAM - not changed though- the exact quotes. Do you accept that? Or you think that these mainstream organizations are biased in favor of Homeopathy? --George1918 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already asked you to give your examples. Your response was to say that you "will tell [us] about the reviews later". we have ample consensus for the definition the article uses, and as Clycl0pia has already pointed out, "your particular POV has been discussed multiple times here -and rejected", and "unless you have breaking new evidence of scientific consensus on the issue" there is nothing to discuss here. Provide your sources for your claim that there are scientific bodies and reviews that report that homoeopathy works better then placebo. Brunton (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I dont have any particular point of view Brunton. I say that in this article only the skeptical debunking point of view is presented ( by cherry picking the evidence ) and not other more neutral approaches. For instance :

• While most homeopathic remedies are not known to have harmed anyone (probably because of the extreme dilutions involved), the efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven. Some think it a placebo effect, augmented by the concern expressed by the healer; others propose new theories based on quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml

I think this is a neutral approach. Do you agree? --George1918 (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What you call the "skeptical debunking point of view" is the scientific consensus on the matter; that sporadic sources think otherwise does not change this fact. You continue to confuse consensus with unanimous agreement. --Cyclopia^talk 18:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your belief of course. But dont you think that the above is a neutral statement about Homeopathy? ( I suppose the American Medical Association must have something to do with the scientific consensus. ) --George1918 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1)No, it is not a belief: That the scientific community at large is consensual on homeopathy beign no better than any placebo is a fact. 2)No, it is not neutral: it gives undue weight to fringe hypotheses. --Cyclopia^talk 19:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The link you provide is from 1997. Most of the conclusive meta-studies are from the 00's. That scientific consensus could have been more nuanced in 1997, when less data were known, is not surprising. --Cyclopia^talk 19:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This, a 2009-2010 report from the UK Science and Technology Committee, is a good read. --Cyclopia^talk 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly: Lets be honest here. I do not provide the link myself but the current wikipedia article on Homeopathy which you defend - in the references. Did you read the article and the references they suppose to support its point of view ?

Secondly - This is evidence of the scientific consensus you keep arguing for. If they thought it is inaccurate they would have updated the website. Furthermore the wikipedia editors would have object its use if it misrepresents the scientific consensus including you. But you haven't so far.

Agree with the above. It is equally good source as the American Medical Association. --George1918 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not read every reference. If the reference is used, then it should be substituted with a more recent one, and thank you for pointing this out. I am not "defending" the article per se: the article has problems, but the changes you propose are even more problematic, giving undue weight to fringe theories. About your "they would have updated the website": this is tendentious nonsense. You cannot pick up a 1997 report and regard it as a source for 2011's consensus on a scientific matter. It's like taking a Nature article from 20 years a go and claiming "well, if Nature didn't pull it from its website, it must be right, isn't it?" - That's not how science works, and that's not a proper use of sources. --Cyclopia^talk 19:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at where is the reference used in the article and it is proper -it is not used to reference anything on the current consensus, but only used to reference that medical association "have issued statements of their conclusion that there is no convincing scientific evidence to support the use of homeopathic treatments in medicine." --Cyclopia^talk 19:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it good enough for cherry picking that but not neutral enough to be entirely included ? That 's strange. I thought an article is either reliable and usable or not and selecting parts to include in an article is the definition of cherry picking. You forget here that we do not do original research. We suppose to report the consensus if any or the views - based on what the sources say and not on what we think they should say if they were updated. Is this correct? --George1918 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not correct at all. Sources are not used like they're in a vacuum. They have a context and their context is important to decide how we use them. What you call "cherry picking" is called editorial judgement here (and it has nothing to do with WP:OR). Now, the source is a correct primary source to source the fact that a medical association has released a statement on the support of homeopathic treatments. The source is however a badly outdated secondary source on the scientific consensus around homeopathy. We don't have to to "think what they should say": we have lots of more recent reliable sources correctly assessing the current scientific consensus. --Cyclopia^talk 23:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above discussion, Cyclopia, welcome to this article. Be glad you are not making edits and having them reverted with reasoning like you are experiencing. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

George: any chance that you could provide your sources for your claim that there are scientific bodies and reviews that report that homoeopathy works better then placebo? What you have posted so far doesn't do this. Brunton (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

George1918, if you don't understand why you can't find sources Brunton is asking for, after you try to read the article with an open mind, and still don't understand that homeopathy was disproven by science that came after it was proposed, then there is something wrong with the article. You should understand why it doesn't work from just reading the first three paragraphs. If not, then there is something wrong with the paragraphs. It should be easy to explain what homeopathy is, and why it is false, in just one paragraph. Editors read and reread the same paragraphs over and over, so might not understand that the paragraphs are not really clear. They seem clear to me now, but maybe I have read them too many times. Do you understand that homeopathy's principles are contradicted by the theory of chemistry and physics regarding dilutions, and by biology regarding the causes of disease? (my last comment above was not helpful) HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an obvious fallacy in your reasoning, HkFnsNGA: that h. contradicts principles of current chemistry/physics/biology is not per se a logical reason for it not to work, in principle it could simply mean that those principles are somehow incomplete or wrong. The crucial problem is that there is no proof of its efficiency. That it is at odds with all the rest of known science is a further reason to be skeptical but it is not a proof per se. --Cyclopia^talk 00:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, cyclopia, all of science could be wrong and homeopathy right. But to check this, a proper systemaic review should then take into account every result in chemistry, physics, biology, etc., not just studies on homeopathy. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes and no. The point is, science is always an approximate description of reality. You are confounding two different, independent questions:

1. Is homeopathy consistent with our known description of reality?
2. Does homeopathy work?

There are four possible answers to this:

	Homeopathy cures patients	Homeopathy does not cure patients
Homeopathy is consistent with known physics	Homeopathy is a cure, consistently with our understanding of science	Homeopathy is not a cure despite its consistence with known science; more investigation is thus needed to solve the inconsistency
Homeopathy is not consistent with known physics	Homeopathy is a cure despite being inconsistent with known science; more investigation is thus needed to solve the inconsistency	Homeopathy does not work, consistently with our understanding of science

We're, so far, in the right-bottom situation, but nothing in theory prevents the situation to be changed and to go in every one of the other three squares (even if I personally think it's very unlikely). The two questions are independent, at the best the current knowledge of science can help you guess. --Cyclopia^talk 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The box you drew can be applied to cold fusion. Since it was inconsitent with well estabished physics, and there was an experiment showing it worked (beyond just being noise). The evidence that physics was complete in this area (physics is even more complete regaring the existence of molecules) was so overwhelming that results in conflict with physics as we know it were more an indicator of a flaw in the experiment contradicting known physics than supporting cold fusion. That turned out to be the case. There was no reason to be doing cold fusion research in the first place, because it was theoretically impossible. The same is true of homeopathy; there's no reason to fund research in the first place. HkFnsNGA (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There is almost nothing theoretically impossible (unless it is something mathematically impossible): there are only things contradicting our axioms and theories -especially hidden ones. Nonlocality was thought to be theoretically impossible: Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were pretty sure of that, but it turned out to be true. Protein-based inheritance was considered theoretically impossible: then we discovered prions. It is often very hard to see clearly what are our hidden assumptions. The hidden assumption that observers do not affect experiments' outcomes were taken for granted forever until quantum physics proved it wrong. I agree very much that often a result totally at odds with the rest of physics means simply that the experiment is flawed: that's why we say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Still, considering science as "established" is the very opposite of scientific reasoning: it is dogma, not enquiry. It has been correct and good to investigate if homeopathy was true or not: the chances were slim, but consistent data on it working would have changed our understanding of physics, biology,chemistry and medicine at once. Turned out it isn't the case, as it was pretty much expected, but we couldn't have ever been sure without trying. --Cyclopia^talk 17:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

George1918, you remind me to a remarkable degree of a banned editor, Dr.Jhingaadey, but an SPI seems to have noted that your IP isn't from Karnataka, which really doesn't prove anything.... Above you claim to not be a pro-homeopathy editor, but pretty much all you're saying proves the opposite to be the case. I'd like to see some evidence from you that your claim above is true, because you're wasting our time. Right now I really doubt you. I'm sure you mean well, but I'm not sure your intentions are in harmony with the purposes or policies of Wikipedia. This isn't a private website or free webhosting service for an article that writes articles from an in-universe or pro POV.

I suggest that you answer the reasonable request above from Brunton before you make any other comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI ? I don't know what is that exactly. Can you show me? I will start another thread about the studies - I m reading some of the archives in the talk page and doing some research to verify.

Let's decide about the American Medical Association first. It seems to me that the consensus is defined by the contend of the scientific bodies not the other way around. You don't assume that something is a given consensus and when you find an important organization which departs from the view you perceive as a consensus you say : yeah but it is not updated ....yet. This is not editorial judgment, it is bias. Different organizations might have different views and they are responsible to update them ; editors are responsible to report the verifiable views even if they differ. But if the problem is the "update" I will suggest another organization which again significantly departs from the wikipedia view. --George1918 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPI is a sock puppet investigation. In any case:

• If you don't understand why a 1997 report is not a reliable reference for the scientific consensus on the matter, especially when all conclusive assessments on peer-reviewed journals appear after 2000, then either you don't understand how science (and wikipedia) works or you're being tendentious in bad faith.
• If you have a recent reliable reference on consensus we're all interested in seeing it and decide on the matter.
• Remember that one swallow does not make a summer: multiple references are needed to assess the matter and their reliability has a weight. We have fairly recent assessments from several high profile peer-reviewed medicine journals and a governative commission as sources on one side so far -we need at least an equally significant amount of evidence to change the balance. --Cyclopia^talk 15:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Another organization"? You haven't even cited one yet. It has already been demonstrated to you that the NCCAM page does not significantly disagree with the consensus reported in the article, and the AMA page does not report a finding that homoepathy works better than placebo. Look at the sort of language it uses when talking about the purported evidence for homoeopathy; the only study it cites (as having "been touted as showing the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments") is described as having been "criticized for inconsistent/incorrect data analysis; use of different diagnostic and treatment categories but combining them in the conclusions of efficacy; and lack of chemical analysis of different treatments. The clinical significance of the results, given the self-limiting condition being studied, has been called into question." There is certainly no statement on that page that in their opinion homoeopathy works better than placebo. A page that does not state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo, and that feels the need to include a disclaimer to say that the article there is 14 years old, does not support your contention that the article does not accurately report the scientific consensus. Brunton (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first sentence of that AMA report you linked to says ‘Note: This report represents the medical/scientific literature on this subject as of June 1997.’, so it is out of date in 2011. --Six words (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources and Homeopathy's effectiveness

Linde and Jonas stating their objection to the Shang study ( Homeopathy is a placebo therapy) write the following: If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered.

They support their sentence using this study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&term=Ann%20Intern%20Med[Jour]+AND+138[Volume]+AND+393[page] "There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies."

This is quite different from the current point view. Please examine and decide if this is useful.--George1918 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Another paper saying, effectively, "some evidence, not conclusive, poor quality, more research needed." That sort of result is only considered positive by homoeopaths.Brunton (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for repeating myself:Linde and Jonas stating their objection to the Shang study ( Homeopathy is a placebo therapy) write the following: (They support their sentence using the above review.)

If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered.--George1918 (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at what the paper (a "critical overview" rather than a systematic review, incidentally) actually says. Its source for the statement about treatment of influenza is the Vickers et al Cochrane review, which was not in fact conclusive, saying that Oscillococcinum may be effective in treating influenza but that more research is needed to confirm this. The sources for allergies are an unreplicated series of small studies by a single team (the paper notes that "a larger study using a similar protocol did not reproduce this clinical effect"); the source for diarrhea is similarly a series of studies by a single team, with no independent replication (one of which is the same paper that the AMA said, in the link you helpfully supplied above, "has been criticized for inconsistent/incorrect data analysis; use of different diagnostic and treatment categories but combining them in the conclusions of efficacy; and lack of chemical analysis of different treatments. The clinical significance of the results, given the self-limiting condition being studied, has been called into question." While the abstract says that "homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of ... postoperative ileus", the article itself says "In several other conditions, most notably postoperative ileus, asthma, and arthritis, the evidence from controlled trials is inconclusive". Is this the best you've got? Brunton (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I might agree; your arguments against the paper are really strong and maybe your thoughts deserve some more attention -did you ever try to publish them?

I m not trying to argue against to what you are saying but Linde and Jonas in their objection letter they claim that 'If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4) they state that. This is a different point of view from yours and ( maybe mine) and the article's and it has to be reported. It is self evident; really strange you keep arguing against that.--George1918 (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You can only use the letter as a source for what it actually says - using another source to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by either is WP:SYN.

That there is some evidence that homoeopathy works better than placebo is not inconsistent with the consensus reported by the articlle, or statements in the article (and in fact in the lead), for example: "While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to demonstrate efficacy". Linde and Jonas's pubished work has not concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo - at best they have said that there is a need for more good quality research. This research does not appear to have been carried out. Brunton (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No Brunton. They have produce a paper stating that There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. The author's interpretation of this paper is that If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. This is already not consistent that all homeopathy is due to placebo like Shang and the article states.

They wrote the letter to the Lancet to object this assumption (Homeopathy is placebo).

• A scientific group concludes that a x therapy is placebo; another scientific group of equal importance ( even greater since they have published extensively ) objects citing another study which says that there is some evidence that the therapy might work for some conditions; and that ( the placebo hypothesis is a significant overstatement. They also blame Lancet which trumpets the end of homeopathy. And you are telling us that this is not evidence of a controversy.

Isn't that the definition of the perfect bias?--George1918 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the paper, not the abstract which your quotation comes from, and see my comments above about what the paper actually says and the sources it uses to support this statement. And, once again, the letter is not a peer-reviewed source, and does not state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo, merely that there is some evidence that it works for some conditions but not others. It doesn't state that homoeopathy works for some conditions but not others, merely that there is some evidence that it works for some conditions but not others, and note the word "if" in your above quotation from the letter. This is not a firm conclusion. You cannot use it as a source for something it doesn't actually say - see WP:SYN. See also the reviews cited above, which at best conclude that while there is some evidence for homoeopathy, that evidence is not convincing because of the study quality issues - ths is included in the consensus reported by the article.

If you want to include a statement implying that Linde et al have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, then you will need to cite published peer-reviewed reseach of theirs that has actually concluded this. Brunton (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to include the letter's comments about the Lancet editorial's conclusions, then we will need to include the editorial's conclusions in the article. It is not currently mentioned, because (like the letter) it is not the sort of peer-reviewed source that the article uses to establish the scientific consensus. Brunton (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing scientific consensus "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers. :It does not say - report only the skeptical point of view in order to be able to debunk a method or -whatever you want to debunk- easily. --George1918 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You have not provided any source that establishes that there are reviews or acientific organizations that have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo. The article cannot report this without sources. The scientific consensus reported in the article is supported by the sources. Brunton (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I did provided sources- you just pretend I didn't.--George1918 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you provided links to pages on the AMA and NCCAM websites, nether of which stated a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo. You have linked to a letter in the Lancet which does not state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo. You have cited the abstract of a critical overview that states a much more positive conclusion than does the paper itself (I have commented above on this, and the sources it uses). And you have linked to the recent paper from India, which says nothing whatsoever about whether homoeopathy works. These are the only sources you have cited, and they fail to indicate that the consensus reported in the article is wrong, or that there is any scientific controversy here. You have not, as far as I can see, provided a link or reference to a single aystematic review or meta-analysis which supports your contention. If you have provided sources that support your contention that there are scientific organizations and systematic reviews that have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, please either a) provide the diffs to show where you did this, or b) the simpler option, simply post them again. Brunton (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What's left of the original substance in "high potencies"?

It appears that my instincts, which said that due to some uncertainties it is not appropriate to put a lot of stress on calculations that appear to show that there are no original molecules left in "high potency" homeopathic remedies, were right. The latest issue of the Elsevier journal Homeopathy has an article and an editorial about the fact that in general this is just not true:

• Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective (research paper) [4]
• Do serial dilutions really dilute? (guest editorial) [5]

This is not the material to immediately rewrite the article, but it's something to keep in mind when editing it. I think it's also appropriate to mention this briefly in one or two places. Hans Adler 12:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe we've mentioned this source before, but I don't recall seeing the guest editorial. It is interesting in that it points to poor control of the dilution process with wide disparity between batches and between manufacturers, etc..

• "From this they hypothesize the formation of nanoparticle-nanobubble complexes that would rapidly rise to the surface of the mixture forming a monolayer, especially at high dilutions. In this way a non-equal distribution of starting material would result during any settling between dilutions. When the top 1% of the solution is used as starting material for the next dilution, as they observed at one plant, and this process is repeated for each ‘dilution’ step, no dilution in fact occurs."

I think we've been assuming that dilution was always done properly, but it obviously isn't. This renders all analysis of homeopathy problematic because in practice it isn't even internally consistent. The theoretical basis for the calculations is still correct, ie. if serial dilution is done properly (!), there will be no molecules left at high dilutions. I'm not sure if discussing this in the article will cause more confusion than light because we may be generally applying an exception, but it could be mentioned in connection with quality control, recognizing that "remedies" aren't all of equal quality or purity. We actually mention this matter in this section:

• "Only in rare cases are the original ingredients present at detectable levels. This may be due to improper preparation or intentional low dilution." - Homeopathy#Ethics and safety

In fact, just adding those two refs right after the word "prepation" would probably be sufficient.

This once again shows why deliberately taking large overdoses to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of homeopathy can be risky. It may not be a truly pure homeopathic product! Pure tap water may still be safer. Food for thought. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

While I don't see the point in those ‘overdose’ stunts, I think participants are not really risking a lot - unless I made some stupid mistake (entirely possible) Fig. 4 of the ‘nanoparticle’ paper tells us the estimated amount of ‘active’ ingredient in those high potency remedies is 40 ppm at most. --Six words (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking "in principle", not about this particular product mentioned above. It's the carelessness and lack of precision that should give one pause to think before acting.

It's true that skeptics aren't usually risking much, but since some preparations are high concentrations of alcohol (+35%), and drinking many small vials will give a dose large enough to cause dizziness so one cannot drive (this happened with one such overdosing demonstration by skeptics),[6] one can't be too careful. Also if the dilution hasn't been done properly, as above, then one could actually get enough of some only-slightly diluted poisonous substance to experience poisoning. Another factor is the fact that homeopathic and TCM dietary supplements are occasionally "tainted" (sure, it was "accidental", we really believe you....NOT!) with very real and powerful pharmaceuticals in normal doses, which gives a pharmacologic effect. If one should use such a preparation and overdose on it, the ER's thataway! --->>> -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are other issues, some mentioned in the editorial, for example that this is only applicable to remedies made from insoluble substnces, not the sort of salts and organic materials that most remedies are made from. Also, it doesn't seem to say what method was used to manufacture the remedies they used. The editorial points out that "If nanocomplexes rise to the top of a vial, many manufacturers discard this portion of the solution", so the paper's hypothesis is not applicable, for example, to remedies made using the Korsakov method, which is typically used in the manufacture of high potency remedies such as the 200C they used, and may also be used for lower potencies. The paper describes what appears to be a Hahnemanian method they were shown at an unnamed "reputed manufacturer" (see p. 240), but it doesn't say, as far as I can see, whether any remedies from this manufacturer were used in the study. Brunton (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If the authors of this paper made no experimental errors, then dilution creates a "something from nothing generating machine", since they conclude that concentration levels do not change with dilution. So one could generate molecules simply by diluting, and keeping the molecules in the solution of the previous step that gets thrown out. It is a really good "something from nothing generating machine", since it generates entire whole macroatomic particles. PPdd (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this paper published in any nonfringe RS? If not, shouldn't these talk page sections be marked as resolved using Cyclopia's citatoin of WP:PARITY? PPdd (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fringe:Stick to the sides

Re brangifer's "food for thought" - Care for a sip of 30C polonium 210, anyone? PPdd (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume that was my food for thought, and no, I don't care for a sip. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's your food. My mistake. PPdd (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Well suported content from Times Of India newpaper & IIT-Bombay

Resolved

Regarding the topic : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#.22Active.22_ingredients

This is a very recent study made, using state of art modern electron transmission microscopy they have proved that very highly diluted homoeopathic medicines retain nano-particles of original substance Study by India's most reputed Institute IIT-Bombay(Indian Institute Of Technology), this was published by times of india, indias largest distributed english news paper and was published by medical journal of Elsevier publication(a world known medical books publishers) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/IIT-B-team-shows-how-homeopathy-works/articleshow/7108579.cms

I am a new to wiki.., need your help in taking this fact forward, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shah.milan.p (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats'a report of the paper being discussed in the section above. The newspaper report says that "IIT scientists have said the sweet white pills work on the principle of nanotechnology." The paper itself says nothing of the sort - it says that they have found "nanoparticles" in the remedies. It says nothing whatsoever about any principles on which homoeopathy allegedly works. Brunton (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are several problems with this.
Firstly, copy&pasting a newspaper article into the homeopathy article is not allowed due to copyright reasons (unless you're the author of that TOI article, that is).
Secondly, the addition isn't worded neutrally (“[...] rubbished homeopathy as witchcraft with no scientific basis [...]”.
Thirdly, the description of what the IIT Bombay team did is inaccurate - the paper itself says they used liquid homeopathic preparations - the TOI article says they started with homeopathic pills.
Finally, this study does not “show that homeopathy works”, it only shows that commercially available homeopathic ‘high potencies’ of metallic materials may contain small amounts of their starting materials when from a statistical point of view they shouldn't. The thing is that these calculations only work if you have a homogeneous system, and these ethanolic ‘solutions’ of metals are in fact suspensions, so they aren't homogeneous. --Six words (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes for this reason we need to use the actual paper not a newspapers interpretation for these sorts of issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we cover this pretty well in the section above. It just shows that dilution methods aren't always reliable or consistent, and it certainly doesn't prove that homeopathy "works". Even if done properly, what on earth who diluted metals cure?

BTW, does anyong get a feeling of deja vu? Indeed, we have seen "exactly" this before: Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_45#Mumbai / 59.96.96.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This user isn't "new to wiki" and also has a one-edit account at Commons. It's also interesting to note that this is being pushed elsewhere by a familiar person. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent pointer. I think this is an occasion for an SPI. Hans Adler 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article : Anybody is curious enough to read the entire thing? It is I think about homeopathy. If one of the keys scientific arguments against homeopathy - as it is presented in the current article - is that high diluted solutions are indistinguishable from water how it is decided that the article is not relevant. Can anyone provide it? I have read only this:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXX-518T4YP-3&_user=10&_coverDate=10/31/2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3742c7a676d864d32688d36d6edd30a4&searchtype=a [http://'http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXX-518T4YP-3&_user=10&_coverDate=10/31/2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3742c7a676d864d32688d36d6edd30a4&searchtype=a

No hypothesis which predicts the retention of properties of starting materials has been proposed nor has any physical entity been shown to exist in these high potency medicines. Using market samples of metal-derived medicines from reputable manufacturers, we have demonstrated for the first time by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions, in the form of nanoparticles of the starting metals and their aggregates.] --George1918 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the comments in the section above this one, as we discuss this study. BTW, you don't need to capitalize everything. We can read. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

These researchers in the study should have added a conclusion that "This study supports that homopathic remedies are sold listing dilution levels, without proper dilution having been done." We can't include this because it would be WP:synth. A similar conclusion should have been made by the "discoverer" of cold fusion, "This experimental outcome supports that I made an error in my experiment, adding energy in error. (By stirring, it turned out.)"' PPdd 17:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. After this I don't even need to read what the paper concludes. Now seriously I did read the comments, does anyone have access to the full article? The article states that homeopathic remedies (high dilutions) are indistinguishable from water and the article disputes that. This a reliable source - correct? --George1918 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The study can at most be used to demonstrate that some remedies that claim to be "high dilution" actually aren't because of ineffective dilution methods. This in no way negates the basic principle stated in the article, that (high dilutions) are indistinguishable from water. It also cannot be used to state that homeopathy "works". -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. Consensus, not individual papers. --Cyclopia^talk 19:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the paper is from Homeopathy -hardly a reliable source on the subject. --Cyclopia^talk 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Above, Hans Adler linked to the full paper. It basically says ‘some did contain starting material, some didn't’ - IOW you may get a different result with every batch of remedy. ‘Homeopathy’ isn't a RS in my eyes because they publish studies like this one. --Six words (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Is all of this talk page discussion not already resolved in the archives somewhere, so editors do not have to keep responding to already resolved issues? (Suggestion to move to FAQ was a good one.) PPdd (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:PARITY makes it clear explicitly that Homeopathy is not a reliable source. Case closed. --Cyclopia^talk 20:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Marking "resolved" per Cyclopia's last comment. PPdd (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

• Sorry. I was confused by Hans Adler who made this paper available and - I think- he said that maybe it deserves a reference. (Hans please next time do not bring "unreliable" sources in the talk page:) It is interesting though Cycl0pia. You seem to investigate whether or not a source is defined as reliable or not by wiki standards , only if it claims something positive for Homeopathy. For instance, did you notice that the article uses this journal already as a reference? Are you going to object its inclusion? Let's see.

a b Milgrom LR (2007), "Conspicuous by its absence: the memory of water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy", Homeopathy 96 (3): 209–19, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.002, PMID 17678819. --George1918 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point -they should be removed and substituted with RS. --Cyclopia^talk 21:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they should do the same with NCCAM and remove its debunking quotes since it is also an unreliable source according to the editors of this page?--George1918 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

What are those many debunking qoutes? As far as I can see, it's used only once, and it's cited verbatim (source 115). --Six words (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So much for Cyclopia's dispositive citation of WP:PARITY, which demonstrates "case closed" for this "something from nothing generating machine" article, which was not peer reviewed by physicits, but by fringe fellow pseudoscientists. PPdd (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

REMARK: Want to read the whole thing? Find it here: http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/Homeopathy_and_Nanoparticle.pdf JE Sigdell (Slovenia), Febr. 2, 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.15.46 (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As already noted, Hans Adler has already linked to it in the thread above. See comments there. Brunton (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It was claimed above that the journal Homeopathy is a priori never a reliable source. I disagree. This is a peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier. It's not in the same league as the Creation Science Quarterly. We are talking about a research paper that has the potential to cause a lot of waves among homeopaths and that is already being taken up by the general press. This is not the kind of paper that you would expect to automatically get favourable reviews because it confirms homeopaths' beliefs. Quite the opposite.

I became aware of the paper because someone started the thread WT:Reliable sources#Homeopathy, claiming that the journal is "sometimes not supportive of the practice of homeopathy" and that it is "periodically cited by other peer-reviewed journals" (from outside alternative medicine??). While I have not looked closely enough to make up my mind about that, I do think that for this article the general principle for research papers applies: Use news reports about it and other secondary resources to establish its importance, but use the paper itself as a source for what it says because journalists notoriously get the details wrong. Hans Adler 09:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The takeaway message may be that we should all review what wp:MEDRS has to say on the subject of secondary sources. Clearly there are variant interpretations at work.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how you meant that comment, but in any case the question what is actually contained in homeopathic preparations is not necessarily one that should be subject to the higher standards of WP:MEDRS. I think it's a borderline case and as such should be treated with common sense. Hans Adler 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a peer-reviewed journal published by Elsevier.: Hans, you're not familiar with Elsevier, aren't you? Being published from them is not a guarantee. They have lots of serious, qualified, even excellent journals, but they also publish whole journals that are rubbish heaps. Look at Elsevier#Criticism_and_controversies. --Cyclopia^talk 15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Published by Elsevier on behalf of the Faculty of Homeopathy, apparently. Brunton (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I was actually aware that the journal is run by homeopaths. Everything else would have been quite surprising anyway. Of course there is no guarantee of quality just because it's published by Elsevier. I mentioned Elsevier to make a specific point which I think still stands.

I imagine that this paper is going to lead to numerous peer-reviewed papers examining the same question in mainstream journals, and examinations by various medical authorities. I doubt that we have to wait for them before reporting what the paper found as just that: Something that was published in a homeopathy journal. Hans Adler 17:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I support mentioning sources to watch here, taking advantage of the collaborative nature of this project. In this case, I would like to avoid the sin of recentism, and wait to see if it makes an actual splash or if it just gets ignored. My guess is the latter, but with enough chance of the former that it bears watching. On the topic of the journal Homeopathy, I would say it clears a first-pass examination of reliability, and should be used, but used with caution.

Somewhat off-topic - other than the fact that it is a "sexy" technique, does anybody have any idea why they would use TEM here? XRD or even optical absorption would allow a much greater volume of material to be tested rapidly, easily, and cheaply. Presumably they ran electron diffraction on their particles anyway for positive identification after they managed to find something in a scan. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, let's not be caught in the "looks reliable so it should be reliable" pitfall. There is a reason WP:PARITY says that Homeopathy is not a reliable source, even if published by a publisher who publishes serious journals as well. Homeopathy is a journal run by a homeopathic society, that publishes homeopaths' articles reviewed by homeopaths. It is therefore no more credible than the Journal of Creation -it is simply not independent and thus not reliable. --Cyclopia^talk 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, I tried to convey that by emphasizing first-pass examination. It is, however, a fairly significant step up the usability ladder from J. Random Website. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

An article about physics needs to be peer reviewed by physicists, not homeopaths (especially an article implying the creation of someting from nothing; the article indicates that concentration levels out after many dilutions, so each dilution produces 90% more molecules from nothing). PPdd (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What? 2/0, how DARE you cast doubt on the reliability of J. Random Website??!! It's an EXTREMELY reliable source for its own opinion (!!!), in fact it's just as reliable a source as Homeopathy is for its own opinion, but not much else.

Actually Homeopathy is a mixed bag. Some of its stuff is probably up to MEDRS quality, while other is only good for the opinions of homeopaths, and still other is so fringe that even our very lenient FRINGE guideline wouldn't allow it. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As to whether we should cite the article now or wait, I agree with 2/0 that it would be best to wait. Even without that consideration, it's a primary source with a fluke result and shouldn't be used unless very notable. That may well happen, so let's wait. Can we mark this as "resolved" yet? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please so mark it. (I alread did once.) PPdd (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I organize George1918's question into a vote for consensus on closing this matter below. I agree with Brunton's suggestoin to make a FAQ about the outcome so this is not brought up again and again on future talk pages. PPdd (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Homeopathy a reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions?

Note: The first two edits in this section were taken out of their original context by Ppdd. This poll was not created by George1918, and Jmh649 was not its first participant. "Reliable source" in George1918's post probably meant the absolute sense of the term (which could be put as: is Homeopathy reliable for what Homeopathy reports, or should it be treated like a self-published source?) rather than "reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions" or any of the other iterations the above heading went through. Hans Adler 23:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct. The context was this question by George1918 only about scientific conclusions -

"The article states that homeopathic remedies (high dilutions) are indistinguishable from water and the article disputes that. This a reliable source - correct? --George1918 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)"

Then I created a subsection to address this after his question following-

"Did you make up your minds yet? Is it "homeopathy" a reliable source or not? It cannot be both. --George1918 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)"

I did not modify his comment, or take it out of context. He asserts that Homeopathy cannot both be a realiable source and not be. But it can. I broke out the context of his question, when it can not, and I included a case he was not discussing, when it can. I was the first to suggest that Homeopathy might be RS for other contexts in my "not" vote below, in which I wrote-

*"Not Since it is peer reviewed by homeopaths, not scientists, it cannot be used as RS for scientific conclusoins, like the physics conclusion in the above discussion. It might sometimes be RS to desribe modern homeopathic beliefs. PPdd (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)"

Hans misstates the facts. PPdd (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you make up your minds yet? Is it "homeopathy" a reliable source or not? It cannot be both. --George1918 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not Since it is peer reviewed by homeopaths, not scientists, it cannot be used as RS for scientific conclusoins, like the physics conclusion in the above discussion. It might sometimes be RS to desribe modern homeopathic beliefs. PPdd (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not RS for assessing scientific consensus on homeopathy, even less for single scientific results on it. It might be a primary RS for the homeopathy community beliefs. --Cyclopia^talk 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Not, except as discussed above. A13ean (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not. Per my comments above it would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis for homeopathy, and sometimes only as an opinion. In fact it is by nature a pseudoscientific journal because it makes claims that homeopathy is scientific. In that regard it's similar to another pseudoscience journal, the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research. In the case above we're dealing with a fluke primary source and it's best to wait. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not I see no indication that this journal is peer reviewed by independent scientists --Guerillero | My Talk 02:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note that a request to "please vote" in this discussion has been placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative medicine#Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions. LadyofShalott 02:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think there may be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. A vote on a talk page cannot determine whether a source is 'reliable' in the abstract. It may be possible to reach a consensus on whether a source is reliable for a particular item, but this is still subject to general Wikipedia review policies. In any case, 'voting' on talk pages isn't the way decisions are made, surely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment...and that's what we're doing. Right there in the heading above: Is it a reliable source for "scientific or evidence based medical conclusions". I don't debate that it could be a reliable source (for example) for how homeopathists prepare their products...but that doesn't happen to be what we're being asked. SteveBaker (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• It may be a reliable source on homeopathy, but it certainly is not a reliable source on science, physics, medical matters or indeed anything much else. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment amended to Bduke: if the journal follows all procedures necessary to be evidence-based medicine with that one exception of assuming homeopathy is valid, then for this article only, it can likely be taken in comparison to reports from evidence-based medicine about subjects not about homeopathy itself... provided there is some verification that these researchers' procedures are actually done correctly. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not: Homeopathy is a pseudoscience (for which we have any number of impeccable reliable sources). As such, it does not (by definition) relate to or recognize mainstream scientific findings - and therefore a journal dedicated to it cannot possibly be a reliable source for anything whatever of a scientific nature...which would obviously include "evidence based medical conclusions". It could easily be a reliable source for "things homeopathists claim" or "things homeopathists do in the course of their work" or "how homeopathists view mainstream science"...but really, very little else. SteveBaker (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not - This journal declares this editorial board of just three homeopaths, all of whom it has also published in its pages.[7][8][9] Of course, even the best of journals are not wp:RS for all their content (as ATG alludes), but this conflict alone is sufficient to call even its supposed best content into question. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not I can't see how this journal could be considered generally reliable for mainstream medical issues, though I suppose it would be possible that a specific article might get published in it which might itself pass the test for reliability. have to assess that on a case by case basis (and I wouldn't hold my breath over the possibility).--Ludwigs2 05:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not for the reasons presented by SteveBaker above and others.JoelWhy (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Not This journal is an RS for homeopathy from the perspective of homeopaths, and not an RS for conventional science of any kind. That's because it's not reviewed by conventional scientists, and that's all we need to think about to determine for which areas of WP it's an RS. If this is even a question, this article is in deep trouble. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Objection to the nonsense poll above

There is absolutely no reason for the nonsense poll above, and it has been worded in a problematic way that makes it absolutely inappropriate to spam advertisements to half the project as has been done by PPdd. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

• If you want a useful answer, you must ask a reasonable question that editors have a chance to disagree about. Spamming a question that has an obvious, no-brainer answer to a dozen talk pages is disruptive.
• "Is Homeopathy a reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions?" is such a question that does not even need asking. Almost nobody other than a homeopath will reply "yes" to this question, and we have very few of them here. This is not a question that needs settling, because it is settled.
• As far as I can see, the real issue here is whether the article:
  1. Should be careful with the claims or implications that homeopathic preparations always contain only diluent. This is a common misconception that we have no business pushing. It is easily verified as false, since "potencies" of D4/4X, i.e. 1:10000, are rather common. Also, as far as I know in Russia the Korsakovian method of dilution is common, in which nominally "high" potencies are expected to contain at least trace amounts of the original substance because the same container is used in all steps. We must not falsely claim or imply that a homeopathically diluted poison or allergen is automatically harmless. Homeopathy's recent report that contrary to expectation high "potencies" in commercially available preparations do contain trace amounts of the original, harmful substance is just another argument for what should have been clear from the beginning.
  2. Should include a sentence to the effect, approximately, that "The journal Homeopathy has reported that contrary to expectation commercially available high potency preparations do contain trace amounts of the original substance." This is not a scientific or medical claim, it is a claim about manufacturing quality. No, it isn't even that. It is a claim that a publication has made a claim about manufacturing quality. (And the claim is of such a nature that it will be taken up not only by some homeopaths as an alternative to "water memory", but also by those regulatory authorities who so far exempted homeopathic preparations from efficacy tests on the grounds that they are only placebos anyway.)
• Conducting a poll merely in order to get a huge number of editors to speak on a settled issue at the same time that an actual reasonable question is under discussion, is an instance of begging the question and poisoning the well. Two unethical debating techniques combined into one and combined with spamming is a serious incident. Formally, it is a violation of WP:Canvassing#Campaigning: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages."

I will report this incident to ANI to discourage repetition. Hans Adler 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Its not a nonsense poll. The never-ending talk page discussion about the same thing over and over, citing homeopathy journals as sources, is nonsense.

• Before notifying relevant Wikiprojects (and I presume by the same reasoning, article talk pages related to the RS debate) I was explicitly told by an admin that it was appropriate to do so here[21]

"How do I "inform a Wikiproject"? I would have liked to do so in several articles, but is this not WP:Canvassing? HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! No it isn't, quite the opposite: wikiprojects exist exactly to provide help from editors who specialize or anyway care about a subject. You just go to the desired wikiproject talk page, open a new section and ask with a neutral message for help. --Cyclopia^talk 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)]".

• HkFnsNGA, I am not an admin; I doubt I would ever pass RFA. --Cyclopia^talk 14:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• After the notifications I was again told by an admin it was "reasonable" here[22],

"I put a notice to please vote at a Wikiproject to which the article belonged. I was told that this is the appropriate place to request votes, though I was told to be neutral and should not express a POV as to how to vote. Did I make a mistake? PPdd (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject; it is also good form to post a note at the discussion saying that you did so. (There might be an expectation that members of the project would tend vote in a block (true or not), and it's good to be completely open about how a discussion has been publicised.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)" PPdd (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that edit of yours in your contributions and was puzzled by it. May I ask what prompted the question? Hans Adler 14:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know which of three questions you are referring to. The question to Cyclopia was prompted by her suggesting I could get more opinion on edit disputes on a topic by "inform a Wikiproject". The question to LadyofShalott was prompted by her putting a notice inside the body of the vote that I had informed a WikiProject. The question to be voted on was prompted by what seemed to be neverending discussion about including Homeopathy material as RS, arguing that it was "peer reviewed". I posted on all pages I could think of in which the same, or very similar, issues come up, in hopes that anyone interested could voice an opinion at one place, rather than being spread out over multiple talk pages, which might be unaware of one another's discussions. I was getting tired of reading the same arguments all over the talk pages I posted to (or assumed they were occurring there), and I thought that if everyone was aware of one discussion, then the various editors at these pages could point to the same resolution at one place and avoid repeating the same arguments all over WP. I still think this is a good idea, and will lessen repeated debate aruments and questions. PPdd (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

All of the talk pages seemed to me to have editors (pro and con) who might be interested in an "peer reviewed" alternative medicine journal as RS for science and medicine conclusions, e.g., the first notice you cite above is to talk at WP:RS, and another was to a talk page of an article that cites homeopathy journals as the example of NRS. Your comment at the top of this section makes it look like I was posting the notices in POV pushing bad faith, when my questions to Cyclopia and LadyofShalott show the opposite was actually the case. I think I missed the pseudoscience talk page, but will not post notice there until I bring you on board with my reasons for doing so.

Which of the talk pages you cite above do you think should NOT have been notified, in order to unify related talk page ideas? PPdd (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You asked a question to LadyofShalott a mere 5 minutes after finishing your canvasing spree [23], and I wondered why. I see now that my question was not clear. Sorry for that, and thanks for answering it anyway. Now I understand the context of LadyofShalott's response better: That admin evidently assumed that you had only notified the alternative medicine project, which is arguably the most appropriate one. In important cases (and I maintain that this one wasn't important) it is often appropriate to notify the one or two projects that are most closely related. Occasionally there is no good project for the purpose and one may decide to abuse an article or guideline talk page instead, maybe two. But spamming something to 11 different places is not just annoying to those who see it 11 times on their watchlists, it also uses up more of our most valuable resource – editor attention – than is usually justified. And all of this is assuming that a discussion makes sense in the first place. This poll is poorly worded and had a totally predictable outcome from the start. Canvasing for such a poll has a cost but no benefit. And given that begging the question and well-poisoning can create a big advantage in a discussion, I find it extremely hard to assume good faith. Hans Adler 16:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I put foward the question about RS for science and medicine because I got sick of seeing on my wathclist such nonstop debates on talk pages I posted to (or assumed had gone on in the arfchives of. I assumed that editors on the multiple pages I posted to would either agree, or would be POV alternative medicine pushers who should be heard from, and know what consensus would be for further pushing this POV on the various pages. I was surprised that none of those arguing for including their journals as RS voted yet, after seeing my notification on pages they watch and argue on. I still think it is a good idea to resolve this for all such pages, so editors (like both me and you), don't have constant watchlist notifications about new debates on the same resolved topic. Why have the same debate about RS on talk pages of another alternative medicine if WP community consensus can be generally found based on the excessive talk page discussions about this here. The fact that my position is well reasoned, and would benifit you by stopping repeated watch list notifications on the same argument all over WP, should indicate whether it is in good faith, and the fact that I asked about doing this well before the issue came up here should also clearly show this. I still think another notice should be put on the [pseudoscience] talk page (and other talk pages you know of that you think might have opinions both ways on this). PPdd (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd - You're misunderstanding consensus. granting that wikipedia editors do not generally do consensus discussion well (consensus discussions here often have to deal with deeply entrenched POVs and unreasoned arguments), we cannot try to 'end discussions once and for all'. First, doing so would be against consensus, because consensus can always change; second, trying to do so only serves to piss off a bunch of people, which only makes the waters muddier. Don't magnify the problem by trying to solve it in a half-cocked way.

Let's be clear about this (intractable and stupid) debate: The whole '"There aint no molecules argument is perfectly valid scientifically (within the constraints of statistics, anyway), and almost completely irrelevant. Homeopaths for the most part admit it's true and don't really care, because homeopathy doesn't work on the standard medical model. As best I understand it (which isn't that well), homeopathy works of some kind of 'essence' ideal (where the essence of the plants they use somehow still persists despite the absence of physical molecules). The whole "there aint no molecules" thing is an argument made by skeptics trying to debunk homeopathy; it's drastically over-indulged in this article (for reasons of wikipedia history; this page was a focal point in the pseudoscience wars, along with chiropractic). So long as that argument is over-indulged we're going to have conflict on this page - that's what happens when there's perceived unfairness on a page - so rather than amplifying that conflict by getting random editors to fill the page with more polemics, you'd do better to try to figure how to make a fair and balanced presentation in the article. If you succeed, you'll still have a few people grumbling, but your watchpage will calm down significantly because the perception of unfairness (which motivates all the current conflicts) will be gone.

PPdd, you've got a 'bull in a china shop' thing going on, here and elsewhere. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't need to be finished today, or even tomorrow, so relax a bit, go slower; have some tea and crumpets... it will make everything nicer all around. --Ludwigs2 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually once knocked into a table full of china in an antique shop making a huge noise, which was followed by a general deafening silence. Fortunately no china was broken. But I think the "bull" here is the incessant and extensive comments that keep appearing on my watch list citing "peer reviewed" alternative medicine journals as RS for science and medicine conclusions. (I get my tea at traditional Chinese medicine stores, but they don't have crumpets.) PPdd (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, if your problem is the incessant and extensive comments from such people, you are better leave these articles (and Wikipedia) altogether. They are never going to stop. There will always be POV pushers for the weirdest and quackiest ideas. You are not going to see such a flow stopped, no matter how adamant could be both editorial and scientific consensus. Such is the world. All we can do is to resist the waves coming, but we can't tell the ocean to stop. --Cyclopia^talk 18:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

George1918's question about Homeopathy as RS for "reporting 'various' claims of homeopathy" has two parts. One is about claims about science and medicine. The second is about claims about its own beliefs and practices. George1918's extensive comments on this page are all about the first, not the seond. So I narrowed the consensus voting to the former topic only, since there already seemed to be consensus that it might be (on a case by case basis) RS for the second part.

Hans, my intent was to break out the part of George1918's question, which seemed to be in extensively discussed dispute, from that part of his general question that was not in dispute, to end what seemed to be never ending discussion based on ambiguities about which of the various claims in Homeopathy as a possible RS were being discussed.

Hans, (1) which of the various talk pages I noticed do you agree should have recieved notice, (2) which do you have no opinion on, and (3) which do you think should not have gotten notice? PPdd (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your message was totally off-topic on Talk:Junk science. Homeopathy is a world-wide phenomenon and probably much more significant in Europe, and certainly in India, than in the US. "Junk science" is a fighting term popularised by US advertising agencies that were paid to cause uncertainty and doubt in the general population about the link between cancer and smoking and that are now paid to do the same about the link between human activities and global climate change. There is no connection, unless you follow the logic of these advertising agencies and put legitimate cancer research, climate research and the journal Homeopathy in the same category. I would guess that you don't.

Each of the other messages would have been OK on its own. The problem was the number of such notifications. (Apart from the fact that there was no open question in the first place, so no need for any notifications at all.) Hans Adler 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed and pretty much settled at AN/I, so there's really no need to continue here, is there? I fear that we're just creating more heat than light, unless there are specific concerns unrelated to the poll. If that's the case, how about creating a new section so we can mark this one as resolved. Pretty much everyone has said their piece, and even if they don't fully agree, further discussion about the poll doesn't seem to be very constructive. The place for that discussion is at the AN/I thread. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hans, there was an "open question", discussed ad nauseum above. It was "Did you make up your minds yet? Is it "homeopathy" a reliable source or not? It cannot be both. George1918". I was trying to break out the open part of the question (about scince and medicine, not about beliefs and practices) to try to resolve it, for a FAQ as suggested by Brunton, and for reference for others who might be interested. I was just trying to help everyone and end such termitless talk page comments that show up on everyone's watched pages. When there are multiple relevant talk pages as you seem to agree there are, instead of accusing me of bad faith, you should answer; what specifically should I have done instead to best help out? PPdd (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still puzzled as to what to do regarding notification to projects and talk pages to end limitless questions about RS and alternative medicine and pseudoscience journals. The RS related talk pages are directly on point for notification, so are the three projects. I was told that this might create a "block voting" situation, so I thought (thinking there would be a swarm of reacting pseudoscience POV pushers voting) it best to post at talk on relevant article talk pages. (I thought junk science was synonymous with pseudoscience in the court and politics. I was once malisciously prosecuted using what a major national president of a scientific body described in his a keynote address at his body's annual national meeting as, alternatively, "junk physical science" then "pseudoscience".) If the situation arises again, I do not know what is proper. Selectively notifying relevant talk pages is a kind of canvassing. PPdd (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not if you select well. Assuming that any notifications would have been appropriate at all, it would have been fine to just notify WikiProject Alternative medicine (as the most relevant project for homeopathy) and WT:RS (where the discussion really started). Notifying WikiProject Medicine or WT:MEDRS would also have been acceptable, since part of the problem is to what extent MEDRS applies, and to that extent also how to apply it. (But note that the question was formulate so badly that this never played a role. It encouraged a polarisation through yes/no answers rather than detailed and nuanced reasoning. That's not appropriate because we don't live in a world made up only of black and white.) All the article talk pages were clearly inappropriate in this case. WikiProject Rational skepticism has a stake in this matter, so notifying this project was probably OK, although it might have been better not to do it. (In my mind that project is associated with the practice of trying to fight pseudoscience with pseudoscientific arguments.) Hans Adler 21:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this page is meant to discuss how to improve the article, all I'm going to say here is that I think Hans is right with this one. I have left a longer explanation at PPdd's talk page [24]. --Six words (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy ?

That was the meaning of my question not for conclusion for or against homeopathy. Editors who are at least trying to stop their bias interfering with the wikipedia editing mode will find strange enough to not use Homeopathy (in an article about Homeopathy )- not for conclusions for or against its efficacy but to accurately describe which ideas currently prevail among them. If you decide the journal is not reliable, all the references citing homeopathy should be removed, of course. --George1918 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that you could have phrased the question better. Homeopathy is of course a reliable source for claims about homeopathy. It isn't a reliable source for statements about the truth of those claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

George, you seem well intentioned, but the article is not about the claims of homeopathy. It is about the physics and chemistry of dilution. It concludes "we have shown that despite large differences in the degree of dilution from 6c to 200c (1012 to 10400), there were no major differences in the nature of the particles (shape and size) of the starting material and their absolute concentrations." That means that if you take 1/10 of a solution, and add 9/10 water, then the concentration stays the same. This means that you have created 9 particles for each particle out of nothing. That undermines all of physics and chemistry, an astonishing claim that is not about homeopathy. PPdd (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, it doesn't get ‘truer’ if you repeat it - they haven't been diluting a solution as those metals aren't soluble in ethanol/water. What they've been diluting is a suspension, so it is possible to carry considerable amounts of the starting material through multiple dilution steps. Also please keep in mind they didn't prepare the ‘remedies’, they only analysed them. Where they go wrong is trying to explain a phenomenon that's not consistently observed (concentrations did vary from batch to batch and sometimes no starting material could be detected) and thinking this might “help take the research in homeopathy a step forward in understanding these potentised medicines and also help to positively change the perception of the scientific community towards this mode of treatment.” instead of concluding that ‘trituration+potentisation’ is a faulty process that doesn't lead to consistent concentrations. I guess that might not even be limited to the ‘high potencies’ but could also happen at lower potencies (I only skimmed the paper, perhaps they have said something about that too). --Six words (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If they had you peer reviewing their conclusions, much meaningless discussion could have been avoided. I objected to using the word "solution" in this article as jargon and slightly incorrect for "suspension" in the talk pages here, but I dropped my point as unimportant. It is possible to carry materials from step to step (which sums up my stick to the sides polonium joke above. What I don't understand is how even a suspension could have similar concentration levels over various dilution levels, without either generating matter, a flaw in the researchers' methods, or the homeopathy company lying about having continued the dilution process beyond 6C). PPdd (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously possible that in a poorly mixed preparation (which indeed one starting with coarsely ground solids in suspension might be) would result in some of the final material containing measurable amounts of the substance in question. However, for each final "dose" the probability of it containing any actual starting material at all goes down just as fast as the quantity would go down in a well mixed situation. With these extremes of dilution, you might end up with a "homeopathic treatment" that had a 99.999999% chance of containing nothing but water and an 0.0000001% chance of a (possibly dangerous) dose of something 'active'. This doesn't in any way change the conclusion that homeopathists are selling $20 bottles of water...with a very small probability that a particular dose might contain way more of the material than the homeopathist intended - possibly more than could be legally sold that way. Conservation of mass however rules against the possibility that there can be a useful concentration of material in every dose. At the concentrations usually claimed, with good mixing, you get either one or zero molecules of the active ingredient - with poor mixing you get either zero molecules (or at a greatly reduced probability) a much-larger-than-claimed amount of the active ingredient - which could be either dangerous or illegal to sell depending on what it is and just how poor the mixing was. The result is that either way, almost everyone who uses the homeopathic "treatment" is getting scammed into buying nothing but water...it's only the one customer in a million (or a billion or whatever) who gets some kind of an active substance for their $20...but that one person is no longer buying a "safe" (because it does nothing whatever) homeopathic treatment - they have been randomly chosen to get a vastly larger dose that is nothing like as safe as was claimed and legally sanctioned. SteveBaker (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I was focusing on their conclusion that "from 6c to 200c..., there were no major differences in...their absolute concentrations". The absolute concentration level physically must change over this range. There is no physically possible way it could not. If the researchers did not make a mistake, the only physically possible conclusion is that manufacturers are lying about having done a dilution beyond 6c, not that they used the same container (or that matter is being generated in the suspension). PPdd (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not really what I was talking about. I was only referring to PPdd's suggestion that they were “creating something from nothing” - which is of course not possible but also not what that paper says. The article offers a logical theory for how these starting materials can end up in the high potencies (bubble/particle film on the surface, surface fraction is used for next dilution step) and thus does not “undermine all of physics and chemistry”. --Six words (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

But how could they end up with "no major differences in... their abosolute concentration levels" under any hypothesis as to that they may end up in some (diminishing) concentration level? Maybe the problem is with the word "major", as argued by SteveB. PPdd (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The easiest explanation is that at some point lazy staff in the factories simply stop diluting, thinking there is nothing left anyway. There are slightly more sophisticated explanation scientific explanations: (1) If the same container is used repeatedly, some of the stuff could be hiding in a "corner" somewhere. The amount of it that would be released each time could well be constant over a large number of further dilutions. (2) I think the article suggests that the dilutions may be done in such a way that all the remaining ingredients assemble at the surface of the liquide, and that that is where the tenth for the further dilutions is taken from, possibly in a way that ensures that almost all of it is included. In any case, once such inaccuracies have been detected, the expected result is that actual concentrations are more highly correlated with accidents in production than with nominal "potencies". Hans Adler 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have answered my question. PPdd (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

George1918, your question about "reporting various claims of homeopathy" has two parts. One is about claims about science and medicine. The second is about claims about its own beliefs and practices. Your extensive comments on this page are all about the first, not the seond, so I narrowed the consensus voting to that topic only, since there already seemed to be consensus that it is RS for the seond part.

Hans, my intent was to break out the part of George1918's question, which seemed to be in extensively discussed dispute, from that part of his general question that was not in dispute, to end what seemed to be never ending discussion based on ambiguities about which of the various claims in Homeopathy as a possible RS were being discussed. PPdd (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

I wanted to correct a grammatical error on the page, but it's locked, so I can't. Please could someone who does have permission make the following change? "Each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to this increases the effectiveness"-> "Each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to increase the effectiveness". Markshep (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Well spotted! bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.20.225.38, 6 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "It was first stated by German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796." to "Originally stated by Paracelsus (1493-1541) in his discussion on using poisons to cure illness. It was later adopted by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann in 1796." because the idea of like curing like or use of 'similaries' existed before Hahnemann. Applied to the humoral theory it directly contradicted the common medical practice of 'contraries' as described by Hippocrates and Galen.

Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

The Western medical tradition: 800 B.C.-1800 A.D., Volume 1 By Lawrence I. Conrad page 315 Google Books

24.20.225.38 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right about history, and what you say is in the article body. The exact woring of the "law of similars", which is homeopathy's founding law, however, was first stated by Hahneman. PPdd (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, supports homeopathy

I'm not well-versed on the topic of homeopathy, but I came across this article and he seems to make some interesting arguments about how there seems to be some promising experiments/studies that should be studied further, but are not due to a biased opinion about homeopathy among most scientists. The article is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/luc-montagnier-homeopathy-taken-seriously_b_814619.html

I didn't want to edit the main article since I'm not too familiar with it, but I wanted to add the article here for discussion, or in case someone wanted to insert his opinion. Some of the things mentioned in the article that seem to be worth mentioning in the article are:

"Most clinical research conducted on homeopathic medicines that has been published in peer-review journals have shown positive clinical results,(3, 4) especially in the treatment of respiratory allergies (5, 6), influenza, (7) fibromyalgia, (8, 9) rheumatoid arthritis, (10) childhood diarrhea, (11) post-surgical abdominal surgery recovery, (12) attention deficit disorder, (13) and reduction in the side effects of conventional cancer treatments. (14) In addition to clinical trials, several hundred basic science studies have confirmed the biological activity of homeopathic medicines. One type of basic science trials, called in vitro studies, found 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) and nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive. (15, 16)"

"What we have found is that DNA produces structural changes in water, which persist at very high dilutions, and which lead to resonant electromagnetic signals that we can measure. Not all DNA produces signals that we can detect with our device. The high-intensity signals come from bacterial and viral DNA."

Just a little bit of searching can uncover many high quality studies that have been published in highly respected medical and scientific journals, including the Lancet, BMJ, Pediatrics, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Chest and many others. Although some of these same journals have also published research with negative results to homeopathy, there is simply much more research that shows a positive rather than negative effect.

Skeptics of homeopathy also have long asserted that homeopathic medicines have "nothing" in them because they are diluted too much. However, new research conducted at the respected Indian Institutes of Technology has confirmed the presence of "nanoparticles" of the starting materials even at extremely high dilutions. Researchers have demonstrated by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these extreme dilutions. (24) In the light of this research, it can now be asserted that anyone who says or suggests that there is "nothing" in homeopathic medicines is either simply uninformed or is not being honest. Because the researchers received confirmation of the existence of nanoparticles at two different homeopathic high potencies (30C and 200C) and because they tested four different medicines (Zincum met./zinc; Aurum met. /gold; Stannum met./tin; and Cuprum met./copper), the researchers concluded that this study provides "concrete evidence."

Although skeptics of homeopathy may assume that homeopathic doses are still too small to have any biological action, such assumptions have also been proven wrong. The multi-disciplinary field of small dose effects is called "hormesis," and approximately 1,000 studies from a wide variety of scientific specialties have confirmed significant and sometimes substantial biological effects from extremely small doses of certain substances on certain biological systems. Error9900 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that some of these things have been discussed already, like the discovery of nanoparticles in extremely high dilutions. I'm not sure if the other things he mentioned have been discussed or included in the article, though. If it has, then feel free to just ignore this. Error9900 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how this story meets RS for this article - it is a an article reporting an interview. TFD (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what the publishing standards are at Huffington Post, but I am disappointed. The author describes himself as "widely recognized as the foremost spokesperson for homeopathic medicine in the U.S." He writes, "Montagnier's research (and other of many of his colleagues) has verified that electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects." Where did that come from? PPdd (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The subject has come up before here. See /Archive 41, /Archive 42, /Archive 44, /Archive 45 for the background. The present interview adds User:DanaUllman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to the mix, discussing a New Scientist article. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For recent arrivals, please be aware of [this] arbitration decision. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just read the whole "Controversies" section and you'll get a picture of what's going on. Even the patent examiner laughs. This is on a par with BDORT. We're talking about extremely shoddy, self-published, pseudoscience. There are some well-known pseudoscientists in this area: the discredited Jacques Benveniste, Dana Ullman (author of the blog post mentioned above), Wayne Jonas, and now Luc Montagnier is apparently trying to go down in history as one who makes the sound of a duck. I suspect he is very eligible to follow Andrew Wakefield as the subject of a Brian Deer investigation, and that won't be pretty. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know... calling someone "a qwacker" might get you called a racist. I prefer "a simple dry fruit with one seed (rarely two) in which the ovary wall becomes very hard (stony or woody) at maturity, and where the seed remains attached or fused with the ovary wall-er". PPdd (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good one! Note that New Scientist noted that "one blogger suggesting that "Montagnier should be awarded an IgNobel prize." -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What's weird is that he is smart enough in scientific thinking to get a Nobel, and at the same time has faith in his weirder scientific views at the same time. How is that possible? That's why I wrote the bad faith article, because this "a simple dry fruit with one seed (rarely two) in which the ovary wall becomes very hard (stony or woody) at maturity, and where the seed remains attached or fused with the ovary wall-er is not *consciously) trying to decieve anyone; his faith in his whacky dieas is based on his real belief. But there is something wrong somewhere, hence it is bad faith. PPdd (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a few "mitigating" and "explanatory" (but not excusing) factors involved here: (1) he's outside his area of specialty, which is what got Linus Pauling into trouble; (2) he likely has a very large ego, so he thinks that anything he believes is so much truer than what others think because he is "so much smarter"; (3) his age (78) might be catching up with him; (4) his alliance with those who worked with Jacques Benveniste probably gave him some false ideas; (5) justs like Andrew Wakefield he has plans on using his discovery to treat people and make lots of money and achieve more fame. It's really rather tragic to watch, and like I said above, this could be Brian Deer's next big story. If a patent examiner rolls his eyes at Luc's patent application (and he did!), think what an investigative journalist can turn up. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

When I was doing phil of data analysis at Stanford, Linus Pauling owned the building across the Street from Stanford, and I owned the building katty corner from it, and so across the street from Pauling's. I was dating a doctoral student working for him in his lab, so I frequently talked with his grad students, postdocs, and researchers about his methodological and reasoning flaws about Vitamin C. He ended up banning me from his building. Similarly, one of the smartest mathematicians I ever met was Charles Stein (statistician). But at the dinner table, Stien was insistent that Joseph Stalin got a bad rap and was really a nice guy. I read to seniors in their 90's as a volunteer who are losing their eyesight from macular degeneration, and hike up the mountain with some of them at sunrise. The age (78) is young. The second strongest member of my mountain cycling group is a 78 year old practicing science based MD (and was initially trained as a homeopath long ago!) PPdd (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Luc Montagnier and "Homeopathy" journal

• I think besides "Homeopathy" s study on high dilutions Montagnier's work -since it has appeared in a reliable source and also has been criticized by notable people- deserves a reference since it is a claim about homeopathy and high dilutions. Even Jimbo commented that

This interview is pretty interesting, on this front. He is quoted as saying "I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules." --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2011 Lets find a formula. --George1918 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

These 2 studies by Montagnier have not "appeared in a reliable source". It was only self-published by himself in his own brand new journal in China. It's too new to have established a reputation as a RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you'll read the link I provided above, you'll see that not only does Montagnier's work not support homeopathy, it actually is contrary to it. Read the refs, especially what Dr. Hall wrote: "...even assuming the results are valid, they tend to discredit homeopathy, not support it...Homeopathy is a system of clinical treatment that can only be validated by in vivo clinical trials. Homeopaths who believe Montagnier’s study supports homeopathy are only demonstrating their enormous capacity for self-deception." As to the little quote from all the Montagnier actually says, it doesn't exactly say anything positive about his state of mind. His research and the two papers he self-published are pretty shoddy work and prove nothing. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No one said that it supports homeopathy but he claims that about high dilutions which some of them are used in homeopathy. It does not have to be supportive for homeopathy to be notable. At this point I think that I concur with user Jimbo Wales who gave the quote and the title "views on homeopathy" to his comment probably having in mind the reaction which triggered in the mainstream press makes it notable enough to have a place in wikipedia. I m quite sure that most of the editors should agree with Jimbo's suggestion. --George1918 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to ban me because I concur with user Jimbo wales ? "Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy ?" that was my question. The other question was yours, accompanied with what Hans Adler called canvassing. If the consensus for Homeopathy journal is that it is a reliable source for reporting its claims then the study on homeopathic dilutions should have a reference in the article as user Cycl0 suggested; per Jimbo's comment Montagnier's work as well not for supporting homeopathy's claims but as a reference to the debate of high dilutions. Please try to respond rationally to my suggestions and stop all the tricks to try to ban editors you disagree with from the discussion. In other words request for some dignity and honesty. You can do it without canvassing ( as Adler said). Please.--George1918 (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

George1918, Jimbo Wales' comment is only that. It's neither a suggestion or recommendation, and even if it were part of a discussion about content (which it isn't), it would have no more weight than from any other editor. (If he were talking about how to interpret policy it would be another matter, because he has veto right.)

We actually do use that quote and more from the Science article in the Luc Montagnier article. Take a look at that section: Luc Montagnier#Research on electromagnetic signals from DNA. We cover Montagnier's oddball views, quote him, and provide what others say about the bizarre situation. Other scientists are incredulous and he's likely going to win himself an IgNobel prize.

Just because he happened to use the word "homeopathy" doesn't mean we have to include his quote anywhere, much less here. It should be something worthy of inclusion in THIS article, and it isn't. It's only interesting to use on his article and nowhere else. What he says is of very little relevance for this article, and it certainly wouldn't add anything new here. If his research should by some odd freak of nature (the laws of the universe would have to be revised!) turn out to be true, AND if it had relevance to homeopathy (not at all certain; it might actually debunk it...), THEN, if it's covered in MEDRS quality sources, we would likely mention the matter here. In fact, since it's primary research, we actually do have to wait until then. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

George, Jimbo posted this on the Montagnier article's talk, and while I sometimes see Jimbo making suggestions on talk pages I've never had the impression that he thinks they're more than that; he suggested this could be a source for Montagnier's article and was told it was already used there. Even if he thought this could be interesting here, too (he didn't say so), we wouldn't include the source “per Jimbo's comment” but still discuss if it is appropriate to use that source (or Montagnier's studies). What statement would we use it for? --Six words (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Since it triggered a reaction in the mainstream press and journals it deserves a reference to the debate of high dilutions. Montagnier supports Beneviste - I don't know why - and obviously the quote Jimbo provided is an evidence of his work related with high dilutions and partially homeopathy- he him self said that and also that was the assumption of the journalist who asked him the question about homeopathy.

I m sorry I have to repeat that I have nothing to do with homeopathy. I just object to strong bias and support an article which accurately reflects the development of the knowledge in the field and its acceptance or rejection by the scientific community. I suggest:

A reference of these studies, what they claim, and of course the repercussion and the criticism of the mainstream scientific press. Not a statement that homeopathy is correct or supported because of this study. (You could do it that as a claim of specific homeopaths, if course there is evidence for it). --George1918 (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(You never "threatened" the point of view of the article so nobody bothered to let you know about banning -this is for editors who disagree with the current view or homeopaths who want to include evidence they think it shows that homeopathy works).

• Now besides personal attacks, changing other editors comments and questions and canvassing please try to contribute to the discussion by providing reasons and reliable sources. You have ability ; I can tell. I will continue to assume good faith.--George1918 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)George, I didn't see much mainstream press coverage, nor did I see a lot of coverage in scientific journals - could you cite some of those reactions?

PPdd, please focus on discussing content. --Six words (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. Another editor who is telling you to focus on content.--George1918

Six words here. This the source you were looking for:^ a b Martin Enserink, "Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier. French Nobelist Escapes "Intellectual Terror" to Pursue Radical Ideas in China", Science 24 December 2010: 1732. DOI:10.1126/science.330.6012.1732 Full article mirror also read the Montagnier article in wikipedia.--George1918 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no. One source (an interview with Montagnier; its introduction even states that his papers were “little-noticed”) surely isn't much mainstream and scientific journals coverage. --Six words (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess the journal Science covering his recently published work, interviewing him about it, and noting his plans to continue that work is not "a lot of coverage" by the standards of these editors. We should probably wait for a real journal to have some interest in the information. Sixwords, it is extremely biased when editors will go to great lengths to research opposing opinions, but your "search" didn't even include the journal Science? Where did you start in your search of "coverage in scientific journals" or is the fact of the matter that you didn't look, you just wanted to try and make an invalid point.

The published study is significant and material. So material, that Science interviewed him about the recent work that he published and made it the "News of the Week" which would mean that Science felt it WAS very significant. Frankly, the editors at Science don't publish stuff unless they think it is significant. It doesn't matter what anyone here thinks as Science already determined whether or not is material and significant. Clearly, it is. It still may be fringe, but a Nobel Prize Winner, interviewed by Science, puts all the amateurs and their hard and fast biases on notice. The exact quote that is material, especially to the biased section on dilution currently in this wiki, "I can't say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures that mimic the original molecules." Nobel Prize Winner, published in the journal Science. However, we can be assured that the Nobel prize winner, and the information that the journal Science felt was relevant enough to be "News of the Week" in the biggest and most prestigious science journal in the world, won't be enough to get a mention in this wiki. It just goes to show that the zealots fighting to prove homeopathy is a nothing are just as bad as the zealots on this page that are trying to prove it isn't. Sad situation, as the exact people always have the same position and rarely if ever approach anything here with an open mind or desire to provide the wiki reader with access to all relevant, timely, and informative information.

Last quote from Nobel prize winner when the journal science states the obvious (without showing their bias - we could learn something) by asking, "Aren't you worried that your colleagues will think you have drifted into pseudo-science?" Answer, from the Nobel Prize Winner who discovered the AIDS virus, "No, because it's not pseudoscience. It's not quackery. These are real phenomena that deserve study." Of course, why would anyone reading this wiki be entitled to know what the Nobel Prize winner said in his Dec. 2010 interview published in Science about highly dilute substances? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.217.7 (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Our obviously very experienced editor (who now joins a couple other WP:SPA's, in contrast to the rest of us who edit many other articles) seems to totally misunderstand the situation here, revealed by, among other things, this statement: "Nobel Prize Winner, published in the journal Science." No, he has self-published this very sloppy pseudoscience in his own journal, and nowhere else. He was "interviewed" in Science. There's a huge difference. What is notable about it, and why they and New Scientist even bother to give him the time of day, is because a Nobel Prize winner has gone so far off the deep end. That's indeed very significant and deserves mention, sort of like something one would read on the cover of National Enquirer.

Also, it certainly does get mentioned here at Wikipedia, contrary to your other statement above ("... why would anyone reading this wiki be entitled to know what the Nobel Prize winner said in his Dec. 2010 interview ..."). We cover this matter very thoroughly in the Luc Montagnier article. That's where it belongs. Just because he used the word "homeopathy" once in an interview, and only when prodded IIRC, doesn't mean he automatically deserves mention here. It would also be rather odd if we were to link to the actual research (we're not allowed to since it's primary research), but still comment on it because he, in an interview, used the word "homeopathy" and mentioned "dilutions", which, BTW, ceased "working" when they got to be high dilution, IOW his "research" actually is counter to homeopathic theory. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason Jimbo gave the title views on homeopathy in his comment was not because the word homeopathy appeared once! But because his work was related to high dilutions and homeopathy ; the article has a subsection on this. --George1918 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear anon, of course I already know of the interview, I read it even before Brangifer linked to it yesterday! But George said that there was coverage in mainstream and in scientific journals - if there was he should be able to cite it. --Six words (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I hear what you are all saying. Brangifer, I appreciate that when it suits you, you throw Science, the New Scientist, and the National Enquirer in the same bucket. Brangifer, can you link that Montagnier owns the Interdiscp Sci Comput Life Sci journal? Do you get to make stuff up in all your posts, or is it only everyone else that needs to post their sources before making inflammatory comments? Also, was there another published peer-reviewed journal that called his work shotty and pseudo-science or was that another one of your unsubstantiated opinions? For having so much experience as you note, it seems odd you would make two strong statements that (1) Montagnier owns the journal that published his recent work, and (2) that it was shotty work and pseudo-science. Please link your valid and respectable sources for those statements - I am sure you have them with your deep experience.

When I used the word "published" you seemed to assign only a single definition related to a study as if other information in the journal isn't considered "published" in that journal. My purpose was NOT to say it was validated by Science as "published" research but the fact that the interview was "published" by Science makes it relevant and significant news. Science called it "News of the Week" and published the interview. Facts. All of your unsubstantiated bashing is weak and biased. The original research is CLEARLY relevant and significant as to warrant this attention by the pre-eminent journal. Sixwords, I still don't understand what you are saying. Science did an interview about the original research he published, how many other original research gets published that gets an interview of the scientist in the "News of the Week" section? That is serious coverage that is not afforded very often. There is no question it is relevant to Homeopathy. He specifically notes that he can't agree with everything in Homeopathy, but the part about high dilutions, is right. We have significant information in this wiki about dilutions for which this minority/fringe opinion is certainly relevant and has now been covered and discussed by Science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.217.7 (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I just removed your personal attacks directed at Bragnifer - this kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable. FYI, Luc Montagnier is the journal's editorial board chairman, and sources calling it pathological science (which is often used interchangeably with pseudoscience) have already been linked. I still think this information has its place in Montagnier's article rather than here, and it even has its own section there. There's no reliable secondary source linking this to homeopathy so Montagnier's work being relevant and significant for this article is only your opinion. --Six words (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Six, please don't touch my posts. You aren't an admin or arbiter here. Your definition of acceptable is hardly meaningful. I a well aware Montagnier is chairman, that is much different than what was stated. That is what should have been said as opposed to the negative bias that was shown. There are not "sources" calling it pathological science - there are two blog entries that have been linked. I guess when it is negative, it is OK to link blogs? There is a reliable secondary source linking it to Homeopathy - the interview in Science puts it point blank front and center. Montagnier even comments WHICH part of HOMEOPATHY he does think is right, the dilutions. Six - don't touch my comments, do your homework. You end calling for reliable secondary sources yet YOU QUOTE unreliable blogs in your initial sentence. As most editors here, when it suits you, you dive down, when it doesn't, you require up. Classic. Nothing has changed, it is relevant and should be integrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.217.7 (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Every editor is allowed to remove personal attacks, no special powers needed. I didn't link to the blogs, George did (and I wasn't aware that New Scientist is a blog). You seemed to be OK with those sources when they were linked as proof of the Montagnier papers' relevance, so they must also be OK to show their classification as pathological science. I'm not suggesting to use the blogs as a source here, but if they aren't good enough stating this is pathological science, they're probably not good enough to establish relevance. --Six words (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Six, don't touch my posts. I will just undo it. If the person who I am discussing thinks it is a personal attack they can remove it. Links to relevance as to whether it is significant news was my intention, which I listed Science as the primary source that it was significant. Actually, there is a substantial difference between establishing whether something is garnering attention, which this has garnered significant attention, first and foremost with the Science interview, even Popular Science has (is that mainstream enough?) has done a full write-up and explanation of the research. My only point is that it is a material news event that is significant. I am not using those sources to judge the credibility of the science, just that it has garnered significant attention. You used those non-source blogs to try and point out whether the research or the "science" itself was good or not. Which, is obviously ridiculous for you to even list or point out. You should leave the bashing to the pros on the page. 65.100.217.7 (talk) 17:40, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

If I see personal attacks, I will remove them (unless someone else gets to do so first). If you're seriously suggesting that two sources writing something about these papers is significant attention, you're the one being ridiculous, I'm afraid. --Six words (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks are noted. Six words is entirely justified by our policies in removing them. Refusal to remove them when warned or to allow others to remove them is also noted as even stronger evidence of the very deliberate and malicious nature of the attempts to attack other editors and treat this like a battleground. I see no need to lower myself by responding. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Ok. American Medical Association view as it stated is not neutral as you said since it is not "updated". Let's hope that they will update it soon enough so it can comply with wikipedia perception of Homeopathy's status.--George1918 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only is it out of date, but it doesn't say what you claim it says. There is no conclusion there that homoeopathy works better than placebo, so it already "compl[ies] with wikipedia perception of Homeopathy's status". Brunton (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brunton for for bringing up NACCAM. A major organization in the US. Now does NACCAM supports the current view ? lets see: they state:

The Status of Homeopathy Research Most analyses of the research on homeopathy have concluded that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition, and that many of the studies have been flawed. However, there are some individual observational studies, randomized placebo-controlled trials, and laboratory research that report positive effects or unique physical and chemical properties of homeopathic remedies. Of course this is not the same: however there are........... unique physical and chemical properties of remedies ( not "remedies") shows a major difference. They don't say that Homeopathy is placebo therapy only.

Furthermore they fund homeopathy research according to their updated website vs UK report which says - all placebo not further research is needed.

If you still think it reads the same with thte current article, I challenge you to replace the current wording with the above. If you really believe that it is the same view; and also report that they fund homeopathy research vs UK which they dont. What do you think ?--George1918 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It says fundamentally the same: nobody denies here that there are individual observations at odds with the consensus. You can find this for almost every part of science: after all, as HkFnsNGA explained, you can expect statistically about 1 study every 20 to report incorrect conclusions by definition, due to the 95% confidence level usually used as a significance threshold. That NCCAM is a reliable objective source is however very doubtful: this is a good read. --Cyclopia^talk 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They also don't say homeopathy is more than placebo, and, it seems, haven't funded any homeopathy studies recently. And yes, “While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to demonstrate efficacy.” is accurate even if there are ‘unique physical and chemical properties’ - those don't prove efficacy (how could they?). btw: It's NCCAM (and I think we had a similar conversation about a year ago). --Six words (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We did. The habit of repeatedly starting new threads about substantially the same issue (see my note at the start of that archived thread) is also familiar. Brunton (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No need to thank me for bringing up NCCAM - you brought it up yourself further up the page, but you seem to have failed to read the responses you got. The viewpoint on the NCCAM website (which doesn't state a conclusion that homoeopathy has been found to work better than placebo, BTW) is not inconsistent with the consensus presented in the article. The statement you highlighted above is consistent with the lead's comment that "while some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to demonstrate efficacy". And, according a statement made by the director of NCCAM, "in the last two years (under her directorship) the NCCAM has not funded any studies of homeopathy", so we can't really include a statement that they are funding research into homoeopathy.

This has all been pointed out to you already. We're going around in circles here. If you have sources to support your claim that there are scientific organizations and reviews that conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo. If you can't, or won't, do this, then there is nothing to discuss here. Brunton (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the AMA page you cite doesn't state a conclusion that homoeopathy works better than placebo, so it isn't inconclusive with the consensus reported in the article either. This was pointed out in the thread immediately above, which you subsequently seem to have abandoned. Brunton (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Brunton your source is a private website. According to their updated website they do fund Homeopathy research. (I could start an .org website and start making claims that I was told this and that. Please. ) They officially state they fund it.

How an organization which funds homeopathy research and reports unique physical and chemical properties of the remedies is the same with the position of the British who say it is all placebo and no research is needed.

(Please don't tell me that NACCAM is an unworthy source - again - it is widely used in the article and have't heard any objection from you so far - I just see quotes from NACCAM all over the article - suddenly it became unreliable?)

If it still reads the same to you though - then replace the current wording as a gesture of the your good faith and good will you purport to have. And don't forget that you readers have the right to know that NACCAM funds Homeopathy with federal money in the US. --George1918 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As already stated: chemical or physical properties are not the same as efficacy, and that is assuming there really are those properties and it's not just someone recording noise and misinterpreting it. --Six words (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to read the entire question above and give an good faith answer?--George1918 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If "NACCAM" [sic] supports research into homoeopathy, which has concluded that it works better than placebo, then you will be able to provide links to that research published in peer-reviewed journals. Can you? Let's have the results of the research, not the opinions of the funding body. The article reports the scientific consensus according to peer-reviewed secondary sources (systematic reviews and meta-analyses).

And while the blog I linked to is, perhaps, not a good enough source to support a statement in the article that they don't fund reasearch into homoeopathy, it is certainly enough to cast doubt on your claim that they do. And funding research into homoeopathy is not the same as funding homoeopathy, by the way. NCCAM does not "fund homeopathy". Brunton (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a good faith answer. The issue here is whether the current point view on homeopathy reported by wikipedia is shared by different major organizations not my or your claims. If you think NCAAM does not differ from the British point of view, then change the wording with the one you think it is the same. And please include the homeopathy research status according to the organization we are talking about( NCCAM ) . Readers have the right to know the different views of major bodies. Or not?

I see you avoid giving an answer and trying to change the subject.--George1918 (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The NCCAM viewpoint, as expressed on the page you have linked to, is not inconsistent with the consensus as reported in the article. It does not conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo. There is no need to change the way the article reports the consensus, which is supported by peer-reviewed secondary sources. The NCCAM page is not a peer-reviewed source. If they have funded research that has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, please cite the reports of this research. You say that "readers have the right to know the different views of major bodies", but you have failed to provide any evidence that there are "major bodies" with "different views".

You were supposed to be providing sources to support your contention that there are scientific organizations, and published reviews, that have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo. Please do so, otherwise it will start to look very much as if you are just here to make a point. Brunton (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No.You say that in order to change to subject. Please stop. I told you multiply times it is not the issue in this thread. If you think that the views are identical then replace the wording - I challenge you. But you don't believe that and you are right. They differ. My request is : please report the different views of major scientific bodies as they state them including their position in research which differs.

As you report the British report on homeopathy' status and research do the same with the Americans who hold a different view.

That's a reasonable and goof faith request.

Of course you have the option to no do it and keep the article biased and unreliable using scare quotes like "remedies" to imply how much wikipedia dislikes homeopathy. --George1918 (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. Provide a reference for a US inquiry that has examined the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion, and we might be able to include it. The opinion of a body set up to fund research into CAM is not the same thing, especially when that body hasn't come to any firm conclusions, and doesn't materially differ from the consensus reported by the article.

I don't like the "scare quotes" either, by the way (I'd prefer italics to indicate that it is a term of art), but consensus was against me. That's the way it is on Wikipedia sometimes - something that you need to understand. Brunton (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)George, nobody says the two sentences are saying the same thing. What everyone (except for you) is saying is that the viewpoint we're presenting is consistent with NCCAM's. That's neither biased nor unreliable - without proof of efficacy, ‘unique chemical and physical properties’ just don't change the conclusion that homeopathic remedies don't work better than placebo. In other words: No, we're not going to replace a sentence saying there's no proven efficacy with a sentence saying that there may be ‘unique chemical and physical properties’ in ultra-high dilutions. --Six words (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Brunton: you instead on something which is unrelated . The fact that they fund homeopathy'research has nothing to do with the evidence for or against it. It is notable and it qualifies for inclusion automatically - we shouldn't even arguing about it. It is the minimum that can be done at this point so the article does not read like a parody example on "Neutral" Point of view. Here you need the scare quote. Can we agree on that? We will talk about the degree of difference of 2 views (if any ) afterwards. --George1918 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Relation of WP:primary sources and secondary sources to publication bias?

Re Brunton's comment on George1918's and others here trying to make a point -

Regarding citing individual studies with random positive (non placebo) effects instead of systematic reviews, it seems to me that there is a relationship between this and the WP: primary vs. secondary sources. Many editors like George1918, trying to make a point in the homeopathy article might not understand (or be willing to understand) publication bias, but that they do understand what a primary vs. secondary source is. Does the WP distinction bear on a eliminate “publication bias”-like attitude so as not to include randomly occurring positive result studies in WP articles? If so, it might eliminate some of the never ending talk page discussions here. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a FAQ about this [retires to a safe distance]. Brunton (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

All this discussion is basically settled once one reads WP:MEDRS, which is our standard for medicine articles (and looks like sound advice for science topics in general). Relevant quotes from the guideline:

• The fact that a statement is published in a refereed journal does not make it true. Even a well-designed experiment or study can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud. (See the Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy and the Schön affair.)
• Knowing the quality of the evidence helps editors distinguish between minority and majority viewpoints, determine due weight, and identify information that will be accepted as evidence-based medicine. In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews,
• Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.

but there is more. --Cyclopia^talk 22:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting links. "More" on this would be good. HkFnsNGA (talk)

George1918, have your read WP:MEDRS that Cycl0pedia (sorry, you are the one vociferously put this on your user page; that done, it serves as a nice "term of endearment") just alluded to? HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

HkFnsNGA, my username is Cyclopia, not Cyclopedia -my userpage spells it pretty clearly -although I'll probably change it since everyone gets it consistently wrong. --Cyclopia^talk 23:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just kidding around, based on what you wrote up top on your user page. Don't change it, unless you can find an "0"-like character with a dot in the middle of it. HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with the above. The problem is though that the definition of high quality evidence varies among researchers. For instance, in the case of Homeopathy Linde and Jonas and others object to the Shangs findings in their "high quality" or high quality review on Homeopathy's efficacy. In their view, there is some evidence that homeopathy works for some conditions - as they say. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67878-6/fulltext

...........If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered. ...............

But besides that if a review is published in a high quality journal in general qualifies. The spirit and the editing practice according to wikipedia is to report the position and findings of researchers and scientific bodies; but not only these opinions which agree with the majority view of course as it happens now. Even the "majority" view varies from country to country and from organization to organization. Example : NCCAM vs British report. The difference is described above. --George1918 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Then we're back to Brunton's (and others') multiply repeated requests that you never responded to- specify the RS you base your statements on. HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The thread above summarizes my suggestions for improvements. I also added a source above regarding the disagreements opinion among researchers based on their peer reviewed (meta) analyses. I will add more in a while. Please take some time to think on the above. --George1918 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that there is "some evidence" that homoeopathy works does not mean that the consensus is not as reported in the article. Systematic reviews (at least all the ones I've seen - you said you could supply some which supported your contentions but have failed to do so) report, at best, that there is some evidence for homoeopathy but it is insufficient to conclude that homooepathy works because of its poor quality and because of publication bias (see, for example Kleijnen 1991 or Cucherat 2000), with the better quality research showing no effect for homoeopathy (see Linde 1998, Linde 1999, Cucherat 2000, Shang 2005). The letter to the Lancet, as previously noted, is not a a review and is not a peer-reviewed source, and does not state a conclusion that homoeopathy works - it is a comment on the methodology of a particular review, and whether this completely supports the reviews conclusions (for example it starts by congratulating the authors, and stating that "homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust"} They also complain that their "1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". Linde has since commented, with regard to the 1997 analysis, "We can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated, since the positive results could be due to errors in the studies", and that individual studies with positive results alone didn't "amount to convincing evidence for homeopathy" (see Hans Adler's translation here). If Linde and Jonas have carried out a review that has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo and have published this in a peer-reviewed form, you will be able to cite it.

We've been through all this before, and within the last year. If you want your contentions to stand, you will need to provide some sources that haven't already been considered.

And, once again you are claiming that "the "majority" view varies from country to country and from organization to organization" (a majority view is not quite the same thing as a consensus, by the way) but without supplying supporting evidence (NCCAM has not concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo), and once again imply ("if a review is published in a high quality journal in general qualifies") that there are reviews that support your claims. Please provide some sources to support your claims. Brunton (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Brunton: You just misinterpret the studies themselves and you keep changing my words, suggestions - I cannot really explain why you are doing that.

In the studies you are citing it is obvious to any good faith editor that Linde' conclusions differ significantly from Shang's.

Proof: If they were the same they would have not object so strongly against Shangs meta analysis - saying that there is some evidence that homeopathy works for some conditions - Shangs says it is all placebo. ( citing their peer review paper to support this.

You still object to report that NCCAM funds homeopathy report which again significally departs from the british report. ( By saying that you would support it only if it were results showing that homeopathy works better than -placebo which is really unrelated. )

Per "Summarize scientific consensus"

Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.

Does the article do that? The answer is obviously NO. Accept and improve it. Please.

I mean if you want to - otherwise its value will be always low and people will keep underlining these facts in the talk page. --George1918 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, but as of 2011 there is no real controversy in the scientific community on the value of homeopathy. I agree that perhaps there could be more discussion in the History section on the recent studies on homeopathy and on how consensus was built, but we need sources on this very subject (recent history of homeopathy) to do that. --Cyclopia^talk 19:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think those studies support a claim that homoeopathy works better than placebo then you "just misinterpret the studies".

Linde and Jonas's comments about the methodology of the Shang paper are no more or less than that. They cannot be used to support a statement that some researchers have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, because the letter doesn't say that (once again: the fact that there is "some evidence" to support a position does not mean that that position is proven - see the comments above about the quality of that evidence). See WP:SYN and WP:OR.

You say that you are "citing their peer review paper to support this", but you don't cite one. Why is this?

The UK report is notable because it is a published report of a parliamentary inquiry. Has NCCAM carried out and published a comparable inquiry with different conclusions? If it has, please cite it. Brunton (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly: Scientific community differs from scientific groups who do research; wikipedia supposes to summarize the consensus - if any and controversies of the experts on a field. If one wants to include the entire scientific community position - s/he has to differentiate and define exactly the bodies who support its position. Secondly the summary of the scientific consensus in this article is supported only by the above sources - reviews which are some years old and misinterpreted. (Of course you can take a look at the archives to see how many high quality articles have been excluded since they don't support the usual debunking.)

There is no new meta analysis ( I have seen some on different conditions and homeopathy positive and negative). Hence, the consensus presented here is profoundly biased and incaccurate in its description on Homeopathy's effectiveness - People do not want even to report simple facts like the differentiation of the British and NCCAM views ( funding homeopathy ) which is so important. Isn't that something ? I challenge you as a scientist to start caring about accuracy and truth if you take this thing seriously and object to that. It is optional of course. Squaring the evidence to our own beliefs does not promote the neutrality,clarity, and the ability to make distinctions - we purport to defend.--George1918 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to provide any sources that support your claim of a scientific controversy. You haven't cited a single peer-reviewed paper to support your contention, or a statement from a single "scientific organisation" that has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo. Above, you say "I also added a source above regarding the disagreements opinion among researchers based on their peer reviewed (meta) analyses", but all I see is a link to a letter commenting on the methodology of an analysis carried out by another group of researchers. The only thing it says about the authors' own anayses is "[o]ur 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven." You keep saying things like "I will add more in a while", but you never seem to get around to actually doing it.

The fact that there is no new research you can cite does not indicate that there is a controversy, or that the article is biased. Quite the opposite, in fact. If "there is no new meta analysis" you can cite, there is nothing to discuss here, because you cannot introduce material to the article without adequate sources. If you want the article to include a statement indicating that some "scientific groups who do research" have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, then you must provide RS (i.e. the published and peer-reviewed results of their research) where they have stated this.

Do you really think that the fact that an organization for which the entire raison d'etre is to fund research into impluasible and unproven therapies says that it (in principle if not in fact) funds research into an implausible and unproven therapy is particularly noteworthy? IF NCCAM has carried out and published a comparable inquiry into homoeopathy which differs in its conclusions from the House of Commons committee's, please provide a citation or link for it.

As for "I challenge you as a scientist to start caring about accuracy and truth...", see WP:SOURCE, WP:SOAP, and (especially) WP:RGW. Cite your sources, if you have any. The purpose of this page is to discuss the content of the article, which must be supported by adequate sources. If you can't cite sources, then you have nothing to discuss here. Brunton (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Brunton. The fact that you object to report how different organizations stand on Homeopathy's research and you want reference only to the British report which is debunking speaks for itself regarding bias. It is really amazing you keep changing my suggestions about NCAAM.( it does not have to reach a different conclusion to qualify for inclusion).

We use almost the same sources; the difference is that you mis-present them while I believe and report what the authors themselves state about their work in the Lancet: Objection to the methodology and conclusion that Homeopathy is only a placebo therapy - that there is some evidence for homeopathy in specific conditions.( I might disagree with them but I cannot deny that they state what they state.)

(Maybe if we change the meaning of the word controversy then the objection letter to the Lancet regarding Homeopathy can be renamed. How about complementary thoughts ? Maybe so you don't have to report anything)

I made specific suggestions above everybody can see that.

Regarding Soap - sorry I thought that encouraging precision, clarity and neutrality are good things. Maybe they are not though - I m thinking of retracting the statement. --George1918 (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We cannot report opinions of scientific organizations that have come to a conclusion that is different to the consensus reported in the article because you have failed to provide sources for them.

The letter is not a peer-reviewed source, and it doesn't conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo. The only general comment about homoeopathy in the letter is in the first paragraph: "homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." The criticism of Shang is specific to that paper, and relevant only in a discussion of that paper. The statement that "there is some evidence" is not inconclusive with the consensus as reported in the lead of the article: "While some individual studies have positive results, systematic reviews of published trials fail to demonstrate efficacy."

What specific suggestions are you making?

Encouraging addition of material wthout providing RS for it is not a good thing. Brunton (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How many times you need to see it in order to believe it?http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#research

NCCAM-Funded Research

'NCCAM-supported exploratory grants have sought to understand patient and provider perspectives on homeopathic treatment, and have explored the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies with various succussions (vigorous shaking) and dilutions.'Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by George1918 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That isn't a finding that they work, merely a statement that NCCAM (an organization that has been accused of "fund[ing] proposals of dubious merit" and of having a research agenda "shaped more by politics than by science", and which has been criticized by a senator who was instrumental in setting it up because it has "fallen short" in its purpose "to investigate and validate" CAM) funds research into homoeopathy. This is not a particularly noteworthy finding because that is precisely what NCCAM was set up to do, and what it relies on in its bids for government funding. If the research they fund has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, you will be able to provide references to it. Brunton (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! After using all sorts of quotes from NCCAM in the article, now suddenly it became unreliable ? How strange!!Things change so fast!--George1918 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the point I'm making. A statement that NCCAM funds research into something cannot be use as a source for a statement about the possible results of that research. Brunton (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that there is no excuse to not report that NCCAM funds homeopathy research besides bias. ( Since you report the british position to stop funding it.)--George1918 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with George. The article has a significant bias. Just because two or three editors that do nothing but patrol this page and make hundreds of posts does not mean that your interpretation of the scientific consensus' interpretation by the editors here is the same. For those of you in academia you can read this peer reviewed study for free here - shows initial data that something remains in water long after all "material" is gone. No matter what your thoughts, unless you think the Nobel prize winner is just lying, this is pretty intriguing stuff. He filters out all know bacteria, even to 1/5th of the size, and then takes the water and regrows the original bacteria? With many types of bacteria? He even notes that it must be succussed? Whether or not it has anything to do with homeopathy doesn't change the marvel of what this first look into this new type of data holds as it is very interesting. I chuckle to see the anonymous "layperson" editors immediately discrediting nobel prize winners research because they must be a quack. You are writing in wikipedia. Lastly, Brunton. You are not consensus and in general I disagree with almost all of your points. You need to take a rest and let other people post. We have all heard MORE than enough from you and we clearly understand your position. A consensus is multiple editors and you have used all of your turns and then some. I would like to hear from multiple other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.217.7 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

At the point at which you posted the above, I haadn't edited this page for over 48 hours, a period during which over 100 edits had been made. All I've done in this thread is to respond to the points that George has made. If my posts have been a little repetetive, it is simply because George has repeatedly been making the same points, without adequately responding to mine (which rather suggests that my position is not well understood, at least by George).

This thread has not been discussing Montagnier, so your comments about his work are not relevant to this discussion. Nevertheless, do you have any evidence to support your claims that Montagnier's work shows that "something remains in water long after all "material" is gone", or that Montagnier has regrown bacteria from water from which all bacteria had been filtered, or that he has noted that the water must be succussed (rather than vortexed)? There doesn't seem to be any in the article you cite. Brunton (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So, your rebuttal is that you had taken a 48 hour break and that was significant? Wow, that gives me even more pause. I linked the published study by Montagnier above (do you need more evidence than the exact link?), if you are not in academia, you will have to buy it. Everything I said is correct. He noted that he "strongly agitated on a vortex apparatus" the solution which I interpreted as a similar function to succussion. The only thing of interest with that is that he notes it, "has been found critical for the generation of signals" which seems very similar to the succussion principle.

My only point, which you are right, should not have talked about Montagnier as it is in the wrong place, is that you continually say the same thing. The fact that you type it again and again doesn't make it more right. George has an excellent point in putting forward that a major, if not the biggest, government organization that would have the scope/primary option to fund research based on homeopathic principles, can be included in the wiki. If we are quoting the British government's simple political inquiry, which was completed and published by mostly non-scientists, as relevant and qualified to be in the wiki when the people who issued the opinion are about as qualified to give an opinion as the average anonymous Wiki editor then we should keep the standard for everything we evaluate. We shouldn't have extremely low barriers to entry for statements that are negative, and put up a completely different standard for other government bodies that provide other relevant information as to whether they think further research is warranted. Frankly, NCAAM is far more relevant to giving an "opinion" as to whether or not any more research should be done than a group of UK politicians. We should either remove the British politician's random opinion that was not peer reviewed or validated by any outside entity or be willing to also put up the fact that NCCAM is still looking at funding research based on homeopathic principles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.217.7 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agitation in a vortex apparatus is not the same as succussion, which homoeopaths insist is an essential part of the preparation of remedies (to the extent that there's even a succussing machine somewhere that is designed to mimic the arm movements of a human succusser).

I already have the article. It does not say that "something remains in water long after all "material" is gone", the signals were detected at dilutions equivalent to between 8X and 13X, with a single experiment reporting detection at up to 18X. The reference to regeneration is not in the experiments reported by the paper itself, but a reference to unpublished personal communications from Montagnier and Lavallee (themselves two of the authors of the paper). And the paper says nothing about homoeopathy.

If George, or even you, can cite an enquiry carried out or funded by NCCAM that has come to the conclusions that George wishes to include, then it can be included. You describe the British enquiry as "political", but it was politicians in the US who were responsible for setting up NCCAM and giving it the job of funding research into CAM. The fact that an organisation set up to fund research into CAM funds research into CAM is not particularly notable, and this decision was taken at a political level. If you can find an enquiry into the evidence for homoeopathy, carried out to support the work of NCCAM, the results of which concluded that the evidence was good enough to be worth further funding, then cite it. Brunton (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You think he just out of the blue decided that "agitation" was required? He also agitated for 15 seconds, which is the standard succussion time. Seems an odd coincidence, but OK. The difference between the brits and the NCCAM is that the british politicians were the actual ones doing the analysis and reporting. US politicians funded NCCAM, but the house sub-committees aren't issuing reports on what they think should be funded or not funded. That would be ridiculous, as was the British politicians nonsensical opinion. Lastly, funding CAM is an extremely broad category. If specific parts of CAM are being funded, I think that is noteworthy as opposed to areas of CAM that have received no funding. There is a material difference here. Nobody is trying to say there is evidence proving Homeopathy works, only that some funds, that are vigorously competed for, have been directed to researching potential uses of Homeopathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.217.7 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"If specific parts of CAM are being funded, I think that is noteworthy as opposed to areas of CAM that have received no funding." Do you have any sources that state that NCCAM gives homoeopathy funding in preference to ther forms of CAM? Here is the list of NCCAM-funded research for 2009 (the last year for which information is currently available); Does it indicate that homoeopathy is being given priority? Brunton (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why it was decided that agitation was needed. However, whenever I have made up solutions I have made sure that they were adequately mixed. There certainly isn't any statement in the paper that the agitation was decided upon because of anything to do with homoeopathy though. We can't use the paper as a source for information that it doesn't actually contain.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that 15 seconds is "the standard succussion time"? There doesn't seem to be any standard amount of succussion agreed on by homoeopaths; for example, when Peter Fisher (who as editor of Homeopathy might be expected to be familiar with the literature) was asked about this in the course of the evidence he gave to the House of Commons select committee he responded to the question "how much do you have to shake it" as follows: "That has not been fully investigated" (see Q157 in the link). Brunton (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)