Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

"although there is no evidence that supports this mechanism or efficacy beyond placebo.[3][4][5]"

"Only two studies reported sufficient information to complete data extraction fully. There was no evidence that homeopathic treatment can prevent influenza-like syndrome (relative risk (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 1.43). Oscillococcinum treatment reduced the length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% CI 0.50 to 0.06). Oscillococcinum also increased the chances that a patient considered treatment to be effective (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.00)."

So there is evidence that oscillo is not just placebo according to the authors. it is not strong but it is there, Furthermore they call it promising,--67.197.103.27 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16855981

1. Note that this paper is labelled "WITHDRAWN" on PubMed. We really can't use "WITHDRAWN" papers as reliable sources on Wikipedia!
2. Let's first quote the conclusion of that study "Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes."...which I think means "It doesn't work".
3. "Increasing the chances that patients considered the treatment to be effective" without it being shown to be effective by more objective standards is precisely the kind of thing that the placebo effect does. Plus, it reduced the duration of the symptoms by a whole 0.28 days!?! Just a few hours on the average?! Real influenza treatments such as neuraminidase inhibitors cut at least a full day off of the disease.

I think you're grasping at straws here. SteveBaker (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The study found a small effect NOT due to placebo. They are clear. Oscillococcinum treatment reduced the length of influenza illness by 0.28 days (95% CI 0.50 to 0.06). It is not recommended because of the strength of the evidence. But weak evidence does not mean the effect is due only to placebo - always according to the authors. By the way the paper is cited on Wikipedia see the article about Oscillococcinum . --Doradora22 (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The study also said that more trials were needed to confirm that this small effect is real. Brunton (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There is evidence that it is not placebo - even small- It is positive but inconclusive (and promising according to them); this is not the same like the statement of the article that homeopathy's effects are due to placebo. The sentence is inaccurate and heavily biased. --Doradora22 (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not. You're using a paper that had a small discrepancy, and was withdrawn from publication, and trying to say "this proves homeopathy works." That's not going to fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) As I said the paper is marked "WITHDRAWN" - we can't use it to back up a controversial statement - no matter what spin you choose to apply to it's findings. That said, I love how you are so completely blind to their conclusion "Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes." - which is a completely clear statement of their findings. The "inconclusive" statement is not a part of their conclusion because that's what the "in-" prefix in inconclusive means. Inconclusive evidence is not evidence - and we cannot possibly report on it here...especially not in a paper that's been withdrawn and which does have such a clear conclusion. SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And the article doesn't say that there is no evidence that homoeopathy works better than placebo, but that the balance of evidence is that it works no better than placebo. Weak positive evidence does not change this position. Brunton (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link that is labeled "withdrawn". -- Brangifer (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. In the original document (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16855981) there is a section labelled "Update in Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD001957." - and when you click on that link, you see the updated document - which is clearly marked "WITHDRAWN". SteveBaker (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a "withdrawn" paper is not a reliable source. However, is there a WP:RS as to why it was withdrawn? For instance, did the paper's author realize his methodology was flawed? THAT might be interesting additional research to add to the artcicle. 06:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

See here. Brunton (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2012

Please change the text

Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations[1][2] believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated. Scientific evidence has found homeopathy no more effective than placebos.[1][2][3][4][5]

to

Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted and potentised preparations[1][2] believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated. Scientific evidence has found homeopathy no more effective than placebos.[1][2][3][4][5]

Because describing homeopathy as being highly diluted without in the same sentence saying that it is also potentised is a factual error and misleading. It is like saying that bread is made of flour. You cannot make bread from flour without adding other crucial ingredients and using the process of baking. Although you explain in the next paragraph that the solution is succussed you are giving people the impression that homeopathy is primarily about dilution. This is incorrect. If you had said that homeopathy is about shaking a solution without mentioning dilution the same error would have been made. Homeopathy is about the dilution and potentising of a substance.

Evidence for this:

§ 270 Organon of Medicine: Samuel Hahnemann: Sixth (Final) Edition

In order to best obtain this development of power, a small part of the substance to be dynamized, say one grain, is triturated for three hours with three times one hundred grains sugar of milk according to the method described below1 up to the one-millionth part in powder form. For reasons given below (b) one grain of this powder is dissolved in 500 drops of a mixture of one part of alcohol and four parts of distilled water, of which one drop is put in a vial. To this are added 100 drops of pure alcohol2 and given one hundred strong succussions with the hand against a hard but elastic body.3 This is the medicine in the first degree of dynamization with which small sugar globules4 may then be moistened5 and quickly spread on blotting paper to dry and kept in a well-corked vial with the sign of (I) degree of potency. Only one6 globule of this is taken for further dynamization, put in a second new vial (with a drop a water in order to dissolve it) and then with 100 powerful succussions.

With this alcoholic medicinal fluid globules are again moistened, spread upon blotting paper and dried quickly, put into a well-stoppered vial and protected from heat and sun light and given the sign (II) of the second potency. And in this way the process is continued until the twenty-ninth is reached. Then with 100 drops of alcohol by means of 100 succussions, an alcoholic medicinal fluid is formed with which the thirtieth dynamization degree is given to properly moistened and dried sugar globules.

Raznudin (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I need a source I can access to allow me to check it Mdann52 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is with access. The German sixth edition (1865) is Google ID K81LAAAAMAAJ. This has at least twice been translated to English, and is in the public domain. If you like you can read Hahnemann's manuscript markups against the printed fifth edition, see PMC 3016660. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Potentizing, or succussion, has a specific in-universe meaning in homeopathy. Confusing it with increasing the potency of a drug - the absolute opposite of dilution - gives undue weight to a fringe theory and is poor writing in general. I oppose this edit, regardless of whether or not an accessible version of Hahnemann is provided. Skinwalker (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"in-universe meaning" - nice! Hahahaha! SteveBaker (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I also choose to deny this edit request. We say that "Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations" - and that's undoubtedly a true statement...it might also be true that they "potentize" them - but that doesn't make what we said untrue, although it's arguably incomplete. The problem is that there is no single "official" description of what homeopathy is. Books and web sites disagree on this subject - descriptions of what homeopathy is are all over the map. As far as can be discerned, the only thing that's common to all of these descriptions is dilution. If we say that it's only homeopathy if it's also "potentized" or "succussed" then we're excluding a whole range of sources that only describe homeopathy as dilution. Now, I'm sure you're just going to say that those sources are incorrect...but because this is a pseudoscience, there is no single definition of correctness here. Sure, Samuel Hahnemann was the founder of this movement - but founders aren't always authoritative either because over time, opinions on what works best change. Take your description, above, of how alcohol is used - that's the third description I've seen about how alcohol is used in homeopathy - and those three descriptions are all wildly different.

There aren't peer-reviewed published works with secondary and tertiary sources on the subject to lend one version of homeopathy special credence as "The Truth". So we're necessarily going to have to be somewhat vague here. Your edit is overly (and unnecessarily) specific. SteveBaker (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Succussion and potentization are briefly explained in the following paragraph, and explained in more detail in the section Homeopathy#Preparation. The first paragraph of the lead is a summary, containing only the most salient facts that are covered later in the article in more detail. It would damage the article's clarity if the lead duplicated every fact that is explained later; it would lose its value as a summary. I invite you to review the Homeopathy#Preparation section and add or correct details if you think it doesn't fairly summarize the reliable sources you've found. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The dilution is an undisputed fact, and characteristic of homoeopathy. The existence of "potentization" is a poorly-evidenced claim made by homoeopaths. Hahnemann's assertions are not good evidence. Brunton (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.Yes, and potentised is the correct word to use. Some preparations are succussed, some are triturated - the collective term is "potentised", or with the z for the yanks. The fact is that all remedies are made with potentisation and not just dilution. Just diluting does not create a remedy that is used in homeopathy - it is misleading. As it is currently in the article, it is inaccurate. The suggested change is referenced, and widely available to everyone here.

The part on potentisation needs expanding anyway. But the lead as it stands is innacurarate. If we are to use one word, then potentised would be the one more than diluted. That potentised may be misunderstood can be explained in the appropriate section. As we have it diluted is equally liable for misunderstanding AND inaccurate. Cjwilky (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

But we can't use the word "potentizing" without explaining that this word has an entirely different meaning for homeopathists than it does for normal people and dictionaries of the English language. Since the lede is just a summary, we can't clutter it up with long asides about the nonstandard meaning of words. This has been widely discussed and is well agreed. So if we are to say anything beyond "dilution" (which has a solid definition), it needs to be in standard English and not in homeopathese. Hence "potentization" is completely out of the question. I also strongly disagree that "potentization" is preferable to "dilution" when the mainstream view and all of our reliable sources say that the only thing homeopathists are actually doing is dilution. There is no evidence whatever that the other mysterious shaking, jiggling or bumping does anything whatever to the mixture than mix it up a bit. "Potentization" carries strong connotations that this process is making the resulting stuff "more potent" - when nothing could be further from the truth (per reliable sources). Your proposal just perpetuates the lie that is homeopathy - and we can't do that (per WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS). SteveBaker (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with SteveBaker.Dustinlull (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

And your statement Steve perpetuates the fact that you are prejudiced here. To call homeopathy a lie is not scientific never mind NPOV. But even that isn't the main problem - to call it a lie is using a phrase that is not conducive to healthy discussion on this talk page.

I agree about the use of potentising in the lead, but diluting is inaccurate and misleading and is deliberately misleading the reader to your POV. The process of making up the remedy is significantly organised around other than diluting. This is what homeopathic pharmacies do. To not do it wouldn't result in a remedy they could sell or use. Cjwilky (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about the word "diluting." That's what homeopaths do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dilute and succuss, or triturate, is what the pharmacies do. Its like saying bread is made by mixing flour and water. Cjwilky (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What ripe bullshit. We're not going to use fairy-tale definitions of drug potency. At best we can describe the preparation process as dilution followed by vigorous agitation. Skinwalker (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that for the lead. Not the childish abusive comments though, yawn. Cjwilky (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeppers. That lead would be NPOV, whereas using the homeopath specific (in this context) term potentization would be POV. Just the mere fact that my spell checker does not like the word says volumes about its appropriateness in the lead, IMO.Snertking (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. What Raznudin and Cjwilky fail to understand is that the "Wikipedia view" on fringe materials is always the mainstream one. WP:FRINGE says: "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." - using the word "succuss" or "protentize" does exactly that. It is not "POV" to say that Homeopathy is nothing more than extreme dilution - that's undoubtedly the mainstream view. Exactly the opposite in fact...implying that anything other than dilution is going on here is to allow a fringe opinion to unbalance the mainstream POV - and that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. At this point in the lede, we are writing about what homeopathists actually do - not what they mistakenly believe that they are doing - not what they claim they are doing - and not what they'd like the general public to believe that they are doing. We are writing about what mainstream science has shown that they are doing, which is that they are doing things like carefully taking a tiny bit of duck liver (because they mistakenly think this has something to do with influenza) then carefully washing it away until there is none of it left (thank goodness for that - raw duck liver is yukky!!) then putting a drop of water onto a sugar pill which subsequently (and unsurprisingly) has absolutely no effect on the influenza sufferer beyond what an untreated sugar pill would have had. That is (like it or not) the clearly expressed, reliably sourced, mainstream view of homeopathy. WP:FRINGE tells us that this is what we must write about.

It doesn't matter what my view or your view is or who is or isn't "prejudiced". It does matter that whoever is doing the writing is following the guidelines that this web site requires us all to follow. As it happens, those guidelines strongly favor my (highly mainstream) "prejudice" and not your (pro-homeopathy) "prejudice"...but we both have to follow those guidelines. Sadly for you, that means that if you're going to write for this article, you have to write things that you don't believe in...well, bad luck...I'm sorry about that. It is always the mainstream, reliably-sourced view that matters here. Which is why the present language in the lede is the correct wording for Wikipedia. We do not write this article from the point of view that homeopathy works or is correct or is in any way a sensible idea - WP:FRINGE clearly doesn't allow us to do that. We follow the mainstream scientific evidence which is that it doesn't work and that "water memory" and all of the other rationalizations of the homeopathists are complete bunkum. Per mainstream, reliables sources, homeopathy is an outmoded, rather quaint idea, pushed around by people who are either charlatans or who don't understand how the universe works.

The mainstream view is that homeopathy is on a par with flat-earth theory or ptolomeic geocentricism - and that's what this article is going to say. I know you don't like it - but those are the rules here - tough luck, you have my sympathy.

Your bread-making analogy shows why your reasoning is flawed. When you make bread, the reliably sourced, mainstream view is that tiny organisms that make up the yeast metabolize the carbohydrates in the flour to produce CO₂ that forms bubbles that make the mixture rise - so it's definitely not just mixing flour and water. When you make a homeopathic "treatment", the mainstream view is that you put a small amount of some very bizarre substance into a load of water, mix it up a bit and repeat that process until none of the original stuff is left. The best English language word for that process is "dilution" - not "potentize" which means "make more potent" or "succuss" (which doesn't mean anything at all to most people and means nothing more than "shake up" in standard English). If you'd like us to change the language in the lede to say that homeopathy involves "dilution and shaking up" of the ingredients - then it's kinda redundant because to dilute something, you obviously have to shake it up. The problem is that "potentize" and "succuss" are not words that the layman will understand in the way that homeopathists do - and using them would be exceedingly misleading.

We must describe what the mainstream believes is actually happening here - and we must do it in standard English. That's because we're a mainstream encyclopedia and not an uncritical catalog of fringe theories.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say Steve, shame you debased it with the charlatan diatribe, but...

you say At this point in the lede, we are writing about what homeopathists actually do and as skinwalker suggested vigorous aggistation.

Thats what is happening, not just dilution. It is repeated dilution followed by vigorous aggitation. Whether or not you or wiki "believes" anything is happening inside the remedy is not the point, as you yourself make clear, we are describing how remedies are made (and its by pharmacists not homeopaths). This is simple language, it should be in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Dilution always includes mixing - it's the only way to get a homogenous concentration. The wording you propose makes it sound like the “final” step after serial dilution is “agitation”. --Six words (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A brief initial description of homoeopathy as using dilute substances is entirely uncontroversial. It is a description that is even used by organisations promoting homoeopathy. See for example the "What is Homeopathy?" page on the [UK] Society of Homeopaths website, which starts, "Homeopathy is a system of medicine which involves treating the individual with highly diluted substances...". It makes no mention of potentisation, and doesn't mention succussion until the third section of the page. The article here actually introduces succussion earlier than this, in the second paragraph.

And frankly, complaints that succussion and potentisation "should be in the lead" look a bit pointless in view of the current second paragraph of the lead, which says, "Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking on an elastic body, which homeopaths term "succussion". Each dilution followed by succussion is assumed to increase the effectiveness. Homeopaths call this process "potentization"".

It is already there; why demand that it be added? Brunton (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted Brunton, was no one else looking at the article?! So we have repetition in the lead - I suggest changing the sentence in question from:

Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations[1][2] believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated.

to:

Practitioners treat patients using preparations believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals which are similar to the undesired symptoms of the patient being treated.

Its far simpler and more digestible for people to have one concept at a time, and I believe that sentence in itself is clearer. Cjwilky (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The lead needs to start with a brief description of homoeopathy. The use of highly dilute preparations is so characteristic of homoeopathy that it needs to be there. The lead then goes on to briefly describe how the remedies are prepared, so dilution needs to be mentioned again there. There is, as far as I'm aware, no rule against repetition in the lead. This is Wikipedia, not Just A Minute. Brunton (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

:) An issue that has been raised specifically with that sentence is its complexity with a third year medical student ed on here having trouble with it - too many late nights and chemicals no doubt - but it is a real problem. So I made it simpler.

The primary part of homeopathy is to treat like with like. Secondly is the issue of remedies, so put that in the second para. Following this route there is no need for repetition, even if you do have more than a minute. As the lead stands, its confusing... I refer you to what I wrote previously Cjwilky (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about descriptions of homeopathy vs. claims of homeopathy's effectiveness, in relation to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. That homeopathy involves more than just dilution is the mainstream view. That homeopathic remedies are effective is not the mainstream view. This article should provide a reader a good, clear summary of the available information on homeopathy: what the practices actually are, and what is known about their effectiveness. Writings by leading homeopaths are reliable sources for descriptions of the practices. Also, our two currently cited sources for the claim that mainstream science summarizes homeopathy as dilution actually do not do so. One makes "like cures like" the main principle of homeopathy, and summarizes the second principle in terms of "repeated dilution and sucussion [sic]". The other offers no summary of homeopathy. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't fine tooth combed, but after a couple of reads of the changes BenKovitz made, I am impressed with the edit. The article reads much easier, is accurate, and still says essentially the same things. Maybe we can apply similar clarity to the rest of the article? Cjwilky (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for double-checking the edits (whichever comb you had time to use), and thanks for letting me know you found the new version more readable! I only clicked on about half of the references. I tried to keep the refs next to the facts they're about, but I may well have scrambled something (indeed, it appeared that some scrambling of refs had already happened). The lead probably has too many references, actually. Piling up five in a row seems more like trying to argue the reader into a conclusion than summarizing the main findings. The details can go in the body of the article, and the lead can contain just a few truly outstanding refs. Which do you think are the most oustanding refs, which really belong in the lead? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (from extensive reading) like cures like is the central principle of homeopathy, based on the theory of humours. Serial dilution is a secondary theory, and Hahnemann's third principle, as far as I can tell, was to do with chronic disease being caused by one of three miasms, itch, syphilis and gonorrhoea.

I'm all for improving the clarity of the article as long as we do not obscure the three fundamental issues with homeopathy, namely that there is no reason to suppose it should work (similia is nonsense), no known way it can work (serial dilution is posited on a continuous deterministic model of matter, but matter is neither continuous nor deterministic), and no good evidence it does work, other than as a placebo. I always find it helpful to address homeopathy in those terms when discussing it with those who are unfamiliar with the evidence, it seems to help in making it clear. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Certainly improving the clarity should make those things more clear, not less. Your brief comments here on serial dilution and the three miasms are clearer than anything now in the article! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy - similia is not nonsense. Vaccinations work on the same principal.

How potencies work we don't know. Its certainly not dependent on old school molecules. To say its not explained by "current" science is more accurate.

There is good evidence that it does work, just not the Egger (shang) method of meta and the bias Ernzt ones. There is evidence out there - eg [www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=18112 the piglet e-coli experiment of 2012] - and many others. Better research and more of it is needed for sure. I know this isn't how wiki medicine works, but to make all your assumptions in the way you do is not giving the full picture as you were implying you wished to do. Cjwilky (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The "piglet e-coli experiment of 2012" linked to above as evidence for the efficacy of homoeopathy does not appear to say anything about homoeopathy; it is about inducing diahrroea in piglets. The only mention of homoeopathy in the full paper is in the title of a 2010 paper, cited to support a statement that a ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal nutrition in Europe "mak[es] it necessary to develop sustainable alternative strategies or tools to control diseases". The 2010 paper is the most recent pubmed indexed paper I could find about homoeopathic treatment of E. coli in piglets (there was an earlier one in 2008), and is discussed here. Brunton (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: Well, Raznudin, I hope you are pleased with the edits that your request triggered. The lead now introduces dilution and succussion together, in the same sentence, and the opening sentence now summarizes homeopathy in terms of the law of similars, not potentization. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem though - not all homeopathists believe in the "law of similars" - in fact many of them (including Hahnemann) believe in the "law of opposites" instead. There are many reports of "provings" where one might use something that causes some symptom in healthy individuals at normal dilutions to cure that same symptom at high dilutions. This is a classic example of how hard it is to summarize the belief system here. SteveBaker (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve, that's just the original method, where the proving was an undiluted substance that was capable of causing very real symptoms which could be recorded in the Homeopathic Materia Medica. This created the basis for making a remedy, which was made by diluting and succussing the original substance. This original method needs to be clearly stated in the article. The current wording ("At first Hahnemann used material doses for provings") is too muddy. "Material" doses? What the heck are our readers supposed to make of that? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand the confusion, though I'd be interested to hear which homeopaths base their work on a law of opposites. What I think you are refering to is the concept of primary and secondary actions. Eg opium and chamomile at first makes you drowsy, but prolonged use will make you more irritable. The potentised remedy will act on both states. Whether you agree with that or not, thats the theory and what's relevant in my point.Cjwilky (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Steve, where did you read about homeopaths subscribing to a "law of opposites"? That sounds like something important to include in the article, even if it's just an interesting countertrend that goes against the main trend of homeopaths. However, I understand the example you gave to be a clear and typical statement of the law of similars. Please see the reference I added this morning. It's Hahnemann's own statement of the law of similars, explaining why it's called "homeopathy". —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In the "original method", not only was the undiluted substance used in provings, but the undiluted substance was also used to treat the patient. The dilutions (and shaking) came later. Brunton (talk) 06:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Area that needs discussion.

There is a serious gap in the discussion of how homeopathy works.

Has anyone in the world of Homeopathy discussed the problem that the water that they use to start the dilution process must have "memory" from whatever source it came from? How is this water memory "reset" to get rid of any previous memory?

Without that explanation, this seems like a critical failure in the thought processes behind homeopathy - because if you accept the core tenets of homeopathy: "water memory", "principle-of-similars"/"principle-of-opposites" and "dilution increases potency" arguments then you now have to explain why a tiny particle of (let's say) a few hundred molecules of arsenic in the water you started from will be diluted and potentized along with the intended ingredient to the point where the treatment would be lethally dangerous. Since there is no possibility of obtaining 100% pure water, this would seem to be an inevitable problem that would kill any hope of homeopathy working even if you accept all of their claims for how it operates.

Are there any references on either the pro- or anti-homeopathy side that raise this point so that we can talk about it in the article? I've looked around but can find nothing on either side of the debate that addresses this issue - yet it seems to be a key one because it's a serious problem for the hypothesis even if you accept all of it's tenets.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good laugh! It always strikes me as funny when we (and we do) attempt to apply logic to homeopathy, yet there is a sort of internal logic seen at times. We'd need a source, but I suspect that some believers would argue that the act of succussion is the sympathetically magical, vitalistic, sacramental act of transubstantiation which imbues the remedy with the intention of the homeopathist, IOW, wishful thinking is translated into biochemical reality. Since many homeopathists realize (using logic) that such a statement from them would make them look ridiculous, I'd be surprised if we could find one of them actually going on record with such a statement.

A corollary exists in chiropractic. There is actually a church (created by a chiropractor for the purpose of providing exemptions from vaccination) in which he actually claims that the chiropractic spinal adjustment is such a sacramental act. That claim is consistent with the original intention, the unblocking of blockages of the free flow of Innate Intelligence from the great Universal Intelligence (god). -- Brangifer (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Some substances have been found to be relatively inert when it comes to potentising, one is alcohol,, another water, and another lactose. If 1 part of silica is mixed with 99 parts of lactose, then that 1 part of silica is going to far outweigh the impurities in the lactose. Cjwilky (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide verifiable evidence that there are any substances that aren't "relatively inert when it comes to potentising"? Since 'potentising' is an entirely unproven and nonsensical concept, your assertions regarding its relative effects on water and silica are meaningless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that whilst water might in itself be "inert", the things dissolved or floating in it are not. It's interesting that you mention that silica is so homeopathically active (this claim is backed up by, for example [1] - which points out that silica was "proved" by Hahnemann himself as a treatment for a whole laundry-list of conditions). You'd have to admit that even the purest water you can buy would contain traces of silica in it before you even started diluting something with it. Even distilled water at the highest purity that you can buy commercially comes into contact with glass containers - and glass contains silica. (Check out Purified water which says this exact thing - and points out that for laboratory work where silica is an issue, they have to re-distill the water into containers made of tin).

So it's impossible to believe that the distilled water used by homeopathists doesn't contain a measurable amount of silica. How does the water "know" to memorize the duck liver and "forget" - and subsequently "ignore" - the memory of the silica that's already in there? Worse still, where are they getting the duck livers from in the first place? The duck is sure to have all sorts of weird and wonderful chemicals in it's liver - which (if you buy into this claim) must also get potentized by the dilution.

Anyway - I'm really hoping that someone has written something about this because it seems to be a rather important question that ought to have been considered by homeopathists at some time during the development of all of the "water memory" claims.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone has taken some humorous potshots at the water memory idea. Definitely not a RS.... -- Brangifer (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Some homeopaths don't think water is so inert, they have 'proved' it here. Acleron (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Dose-response relationship

An editor is removing "Conventional medicine has found that higher doses usually cause stronger effects, whereas homeopathy claims the opposite." How could that possibly be misinterpreted? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. I mean, isn't the dilution process one of the key parts of homeopathy? And the act of diluting a substance to make it stronger does contradict conventional notions of dose-response relationship.Dustinlull (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a source? JoelWhy? talk 12:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Cjwilky said that I misunderstood the homeopathic notion of strength, and the sentence reflects that. I wrote that sentence as an attempt to summarize this paragraph from this section:

Practitioners of homeopathy contend that higher dilutions produce stronger medicinal effects. This idea is inconsistent with the observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs, where the effects are dependent on the concentration of the active ingredient in the body. This dose-response relationship has been confirmed in myriad experiments on organisms as diverse as nematodes, rats, and humans.

If something is wrong here, let's fix it first in the body, and then summarize it appropriately in the lead (if it still seems like one of the most salient facts), as suggested at WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Cjwilky, can you explain the error? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Do a Google search for "potentization" and "more powerful" - you'll find loads of homoeopaths saying that potentization makes the remedies more powerful. There must be a decent source there somewhere.

Hahnemann states in the Organon, aphorism 128, that "medicinal substances, when taken in their crude state by the experimenter for the purpose of testing their peculiar effects, do not exhibit nearly the full amount of the powers that lie hidden in them which they do when they are taken for the same object in high dilutions potentized by proper trituration and succussion, by which simple operations the powers which in their crude state lay hidden, and, as it were, dormant, are developed and roused into activity to an incredible extent". See also 269-270. Brunton (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks to Arthur Rubin for bringing it to the talk page :) I missed that.

In summary, I suggest leave it as I can't find suitable references at the minute, and as is said, most searching will find it written in the same way as is written here - so we'll have to go with mainstream homeopathy speak till I can find enough info to correct it.

For those interested, the reality is that the correct choice of potency and posology makes the remedy most effective, and therefore "stronger". Low potencies can be far stronger than high potencies. Indeed it is the case that a potency of say 30c may repeatedly help but symptom return, so the general process is to try a higher potency, generally a 200c, which can then do nothing. Likewise if a 1m, 10m, 50m, CM is used. In some cases going up a potency means a higher level of cure is obtained eg the symptom recede for longer or permanently. Sometimes it can be that by going down a potency, or even several potencies, a more permanent cure is achieved.

So, using the word "stronger" is misleading. What is more accurate is that a higher potency is more refined, or has a greater clarity. The more similar it is to what is needing to be cured, the more effective a higher potency will be. Material doses of things are low potency and will work on most people eg opium will calm you. Higher doses need to be more spot on, so a 10m will only calm when the person is in a specific "opium state" of irritability.

Further excerpts from my advanced course in homeopathy are at.... ;)

Cjwilky (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Cjwilky. Does the word "potency" have a special meaning in homeopathy? This page has a (poorly written) definition that suggests that in mainstream medicine, a drug is more "potent" if a smaller dose is needed to get the therapeutic effect. The current version of the article doesn't define potency even though the word plays a prominent role. Can someone find a definition from a good source in the homeopathy literature? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias and inaccuracy

I think the article is kind of biased. I will give an example.

The article states "These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos,[13][14][15][4][16] although there have been a few positive results" If you read the sources which support the sentence, however, they write:

CONCLUSIONS:At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. or

The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. and

In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. These statements don't really support the sentence These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos,[13][14][15][4][16] although there have been a few positive results.[17][18][19]

They don't say that its effects are due to placebo. Please correct.--Alice1818 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No. How is writing that "studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos" biased, based on the sources cited? They aren't saying that 'effects are due to placebo', they are saying that homeopathy isn't any more effective than placebos. If you can't understand the difference between the two statements, I suggest you need to improve your comprehension skills. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(I m sorry I cannot detect that difference. Perhaps it cannot be perceived by the average editor who has limited skills but please, feel free to explain- I want to learn.)

Which part of the above cited sources support even this sentence: "homeopathy isn't any more effective than placebos"? --Alice1818 (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I also find this confusing. If the results of the studies were "that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" then I can see how we could say that "homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos" (though I think it would be clearer to say "the efficacy of homeopathic remedies is entirely due to their placebo effect"). However, the results were not compatible with that hypothesis which suggests there is some effect beyond placebo. Jojalozzo 13:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If something is an 'x', then it cannot do any better than an 'x'. I don't see the issue. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that last comment. Is this good enough?

Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

From here. TippyGoomba (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is correct. This is only one paper and it is not cited to support this sentence. Obviously the other sources cited above to support the sentence do not concur "with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. --Alice1818 (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What specific changes are you proposing should be made to the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the available sources cited in wikipedia :

Some studies have found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos; others have found that homeopathic remedies might perform better than placebos but there is "insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious. --Alice1818 (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I agree that the sentence could be better expressed. Stepping back a little, to see what lies behind the words...

Key statistical issues include:

1) the poor methodological quality of many of the original trials, especially those which generated "positive results" (see, for example, Linde et al 2001, pmid 11527508);

2) concerns related to publication bias, ie the greater likelihood of "positive results" reaching publication.

Overall, results of meta-analyses of existing studies do not provide support for efficacy (ie superiority over placebo). These findings also need to be set in a broader interpretive context: the biological implausibility of homeopathy demands particularly strong statistical evidence to advance any support for efficacy (see, for example, Vickers 2000, pmid 10706236). That is clearly not the case: the shaky statistical basis of the claimed "positive results" would scarcely allow supporters of homeopathy to invoke (per Bradford Hill [2]) the Sherlock Holmes maxim, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

So, on balance, I feel that the last part of the sentence is currently overgenerous to the claims of homeopathy.

According to a recent review by Ernst 2010, pmid 20402610, "the most reliable evidence — that produced by Cochrane reviews — fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo."

—MistyMorn (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Does efficacy mean superiority over placebo ? a less biased approach

1. Doesefficacy mean superiority over placebo ? No, always according to sources available.

2. There is a dichotomy about homeopathy . The skeptical scientists like Ernst believe "the most reliable evidence — that produced by Cochrane reviews — fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo." Others which are cited in the first paragraph do not agree with this point of view. --Alice1818 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. You are basing your arguments on a false premise - that there is a disagreement between 'skeptical scientists' and 'others' as to whether homeopathy has any efficacy that cannot be explained by the placebo effect, and therefore we should remove any 'bias' which might bee seen to support one view over the other. The facts are simple though, the overwhelming majority of scientists who have conducted research into the issue have found no convincing evidence to support claims regarding non-placebo 'efficacy' - most particularly when engaging in meta-studies which reduce the randomness in results. It is self-evident that if you do enough experiments on anything, you will get individual results that 'prove' the most implausible things - hence the need to engage in meta-studies, and to avoid cherry-picking primary sources for 'positive results'. As has been stated repeatedly, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary degrees of proof' - and such proof has not been coming. We present the scientific consensus in regard to scientific issues, we do not pick and chose the results we wish to cite in order to create a false 'balance'. This has been discussed repeatedly, both on this talk page and elsewhere, and Wikipedia isn't going to change a policy which has been arrived at by consensus (after much debate) in order to suit the promoters of an implausible 'science' that provides no mechanism to explain its claimed 'results', and which actually fails to provide any reliable method by which it could be independently verified that it works at all. If people wish Wikipedia to present homoeopathy as scientific, the homoeopaths will have to convince the scientific mainstream first - this is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You can only speak of a treatment having clinical efficacy if it shows demonstrable incremental benefits in comparison with placebo. That is not a "point of view". —MistyMorn (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no discussion to be had on this matter. It doesn't show bias to point out that homeopathy has no more of an effect than a placebo, because that's precisely what the overwhelming majority of the science has demonstrated. End of story. JoelWhy?(talk) 17:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The practical problem is this. Homeopathy works no better than placebo - this has been adequately demonstrated plenty of times - and that's totally unsurprising given what we know of extreme dilutions from mainstream science. So why use homeopathy rather than simpler placebos? Why go to all the trouble of diluting essence-of-duck-liver a bazillion times and placing a tiny drop of it onto a sugar pill - when a sugar pill works just as well? Sure there are arguments over whether doctors should be allowed to prescribe placebo - and whether you should require someone to have a medical license in order to do so - and whether it's ethical to lie to the patient - and legal (given informed consent laws). But regardless of that, homeopathic preparation of a placebo is just a colossal waste of time and money compared to just dispensing a placebo pill or a small bottle of plain water. If it's unethical to prescribe placebo - it's also unethical to prescribe homeopathy.

So it doesn't matter whether homeopathy does nothing at all - or is only as effective as a placebo. In fact, it would be an amazing and surprising thing if Homeopathy actually worked worse than placebo - because that would imply it was actually having an effect on the human body! There are just simpler/cheaper/safer ways to make a placebo.

Suppose I were to start up a new branch of fringe medicine in which I look at what's wrong with you and dispense either Orange, Mint or Cinnamon TicTacs (to match your "aura", I suppose!) - and tell my patients that these will cure their ills...that's going to be no better and no worse than homeopathy - and it's a lot cheaper and easier. So all efforts to justify homeopathy on grounds of it actually being "effective" (as in: "as effective as placebo") is still not a good or valid argument for it being a worthwhile activity. It's still just an elaborate scam.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is equally unethical( if we suppose that homeopaths give false hope to patients with serious conditions ) is to distort what the sources say on Homeopathy in order to advance a point of view. --Alice1818 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Clearly your suggested change, which contains homeopathic remedies might perform better than placebos, will not make it into the article. Do you have any further suggestions? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please give me two examples- which studies (from those I mentioned above and used to support the first paragraph) state that homeopathic remedies do not work better than placebos? --Alice1818 (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You already mentioned an example yourself, did you not? Ernst did an analysis of 6 systematic reviews, which supports this statement. Do we have a higher quality source than that which says the opposite?   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I also gave 3 examples in which the authors state that there is evidence that homeopathic remedies work better than placebos. I cannot see any majority of scientists who are publishing on Homeopathy to state that it is only placebo. Do you? If yes please give me your list to review.--Alice1818 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone mentioned WP:REDFLAG recently? The claim that a bottle of substance indistinguishable from water can cure illness is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Rather than seeking reasons to exclude such claims, Wikipedia's policies require that there should be very good evidence to include material like this as anything more than unsubstantiated claims. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires - I think- articles to be supported by sources. Not to distort the sources to support a preconceived point of view. I m asking you again since you seem to want to participate in the discussion: I gave 3 examples(cited in the article) in which the authors state that there is evidence that homeopathic remedies work better than placebos. I cannot see any majority of scientists who are publishing on Homeopathy to state that it is only placebo. Do you? If yes please give me your list to review.--Alice1818 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet we find hundreds of articles that do not. In all of medicine you can find the odd article that does support the fringe hypothesis. We cannot give undue weight to it. You do not get to use Argumentum ad ignorantium to your benefit. Bring evidence that moves the fringe theory that water does anything more than quench thirst, and we're all 100% behind it. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to be specific and back up the claim that the majority of the scientists who publish on homeopathy say that it is basically placebo. Do you have a list we can review? Anybody can say "hundred of articles show..... whatever I fantasize ....--Alice1818 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't play that game. You're making the silly assertion that homeopathy works. Bring evidence, but I won't hold my breath. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The studies cited did not conclude that homoeopathy works better than placebo. A statement that "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions", for example, means that the evidence was not enough to distinguish homoeopathy from placebo. Even the analysis that concluded that its results "are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" had this conclusion effectively retracted by the same team's later reanalysis of the same data (also cited above), which said that this conclusion was "at least" an overestimate of the efficacy of homoeopathy. It has also been further qualified by later comments of the lead author, for example, "Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein".

Asking for lists of studies that have concluded that homoeopathy is "only placebo" is trying to reverse the burden of proof. What we have (and what is likely to be found for an ineffective treatment) is a series of studies that have concluded that the efficacy of homoeopathy has not been demonstrated. That is the conclusion that the article reports. If a statement that homoeopathy works better than placebo is to be included in the article, it needs to be supported by references to published research that has actually concluded that. Brunton (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Change in lead

So the lead was changed about a month ago which discusses the summary of research being discussed above; this version shows a previous version of the lead, which I think was a better summary of the research on homeopathy. Any particular reason why it was changed? Should we change it back?

Although a few isolated studies have seen positive results from homeopathic treatments, systematic reviews of published trials have failed to demonstrate efficacy.[16][17][18][19][20] Higher quality trials tend to report results that are less positive,[18][21] and most positive studies have not been replicated. Many have methodological problems preventing them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[1][4][22][23] The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery,[25][26][27][28][29] and a "cruel deception".[30]

Yobol (talk) 01:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think one reason is that the sentence "Practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations[1][2] believed to cause symptoms in healthy individuals similar to the undesired symptoms of the person treated." is convoluted and unintelligible. Jojalozzo 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh but you're talking about a different paragraph. Sorry, I can't help you there. Jojalozzo 02:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here: Some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo. A few studies have seen positive results from homeopathic treatments; some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo. However,there is insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition;[16][17][18][19][20] Higher quality trials tend to report results that are less positive,[18][21] and most positive studies have not been replicated. Many have methodological problems preventing them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[1][4][22][23] The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery,[25][26][27][28][29] and a "cruel deception"--Alice1818 (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo

Oh yeah? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You got to laugh. And, as this section is entitled "Change in Lead" what do you reckon we change "..... based on the hypothesis that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people....." -- to -- "..... based on the hypothesis that disease cures a disease....."? That's basically what it's saying.

That's correct. Click here to verify. --Alice1818 (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I just report what the studies report. Nothing more.--Alice1818 (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The three studies are failures. Anything else? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain by giving examples?--Alice1818 (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you should read the three articles you linked to - here are quotes from their conclusions:

• Your first link says: "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias." - so it does not support the claim that homeopathy works because it says that the experiments had poor methodology.
• Your second link says: "...we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition." - so no conclusion that homeopathy actually works for any of the conditions that were tested.
• Your third link] says: "The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power." - so maybe if we did a large enough study, we'd get better results.

So only the third of those three articles concludes that homeopathy might work better than placebo - and it admits that the sample size is too small - so we cannot make sweeping conclusions (including that essentially all of physics and chemistry are utterly wrong and that water has memory and all of that nonsense) based on an inadequate statistical study...bottom line is that these results could be just luck.

Conclusion: Not one of those three studies actually says that there is definitive evidence that homeopathy is better than placebo...which is what our article says. SteveBaker (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I said, but you spent more time trying to convince her than I did. Good job Steve.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve.It would be a great job indeed if you were replying to a homeopath who argues that the above studies show that homeopathy clearly works. The evidence shows - according to the authors - that homeopathy;s effects are not completely placebo effects- the efficacy is a different concept. The article says that its effects are placebo effects while only one meta analysis states that. The 2 other papers state that it is not completely placebo but the evidence for its efficacy is not sufficient to draw definite conclusions.

Shang's study says it is definitely placebo. The others studies state it is not completely placebo but its efficacy has not been clearly shown.

By the way The 3rd one is really strong.

Conclusions : The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness. Even if they call for more research they find strong evidence for efficacy and grounds for recommendations besides the statement for the effect beyond placebo.--Alice1818 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

they find strong evidence for efficacy

Just not strong enough to refute the Null Hypothesis. Scientists call that having no evidence. Got anything else? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Alice wants to use the argument from ignorance trying to say that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, since she is making the assertion that homeopathy works, she needs to provide:

• Evidence published in peer reviewed, high impact journals.
• Secondary meta-reviews in peer reviewed, high impact journals.
• Repeated primary research published in peer-reviewed high impact journals
• Solid statistical evidence that there is a clinical effect beyond a placebo.

Alice brings us that, then we can talk. All she has brought us are weak studies that provide no evidence that do not refute the null hypothesis.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry this is your personal impression - at this point scientists conclude that

':The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.

They recommend homeopathy for a specific condition. This is from a high impact journal.

Also, If you want to discuss something - Please drop this arrogant ( "got anything else" style ) it does not show intellectual superiority but naiveté.--Alice1818 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Cherry-picking primary research proves nothing. Unless and until mainstream science recognises homoeopathy as valid, Wikipedia won't. This isn't open to debate, end of story... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, it is a meta-analysis of just three studies by the same lead author. Brunton (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Statistically significant results! Very nice. This was published in 2003, was anyone able to replicate these results? TippyGoomba (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:ADVOCACY

Alice1818, you've clearly got nil consensus here. And you insist, refusing to, or perhaps simply unable to, verify the observations made patiently by other Wikipedians. This is wasting editors' time which could be far better spent elsewhere. So please do stop and verify. You asked, "Can you please give me two examples- which studies (from those I mentioned above and used to support the first paragraph) state that homeopathic remedies do not work better than placebos?" Just speaking for myself, I'd already done that, after spending an afternoon reviewing the literature in an unbiased way, according to my professional abilities, to address your concerns and check what I felt (and here I do agree with you) was a somewhat poorly expressed sentence. As I said, two sources not currently in the article which I think would be helpful here are Linde et al 2001 and Ernst 2010. Those two freely available sources would by themselves have answered your subsequent question. Please read them carefully without cherry picking sentences which might seemingly advance your POV when quoted out of context. Linde et al 2001 provides a convenient overview of systematic reviews (ie formally conducted studies of studies) on the subject until July 2000 (Methods reported here). Of the relatively few systematic reviews reported since then (and since a roughly contemporarary systematic review of the systematic reviews available at the time), Ernst 2010 is particularly relevant because it collates Cochrane reviews -- ie very rigorously conducted systematic reviews which are generally considered to provide the highest level of evidence on the efficacy of any treatment strategy.

Please also familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS, our sourcing guideline for medical content on Wikipedia, which is really relevant here. Thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Listen: stop the personal attacks and the misinformation- I would appreciate that. This is first part of my response. --108.27.196.221 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any personal attacks here.--McSly (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you McSly. I actually took considerable care with the wording so as not to risk offending a person who, presumably, is quite sincere in her own way, and may also be a new contributor. I wish to say I do not enjoy the conflictual aspects of Wikipedia editing and only get involved out of a sense of editorial duty. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Answers to Yobol's questions

I rewrote the lead a month or so ago to improve readability and to better summarize the body of the article. To the folks who are proposing changes to the lead: Would you be willing to try improving the coverage of homeopathy research in the body of the article for a while, and once that has settled down, return to the lead? In the body, it's easier to write about conflicting sources in more depth, because you have much more room to do it. For some more insight into how this process works, please see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for a more accurate and less biased lead

Hidden as there is clear and obvious consensus that there is no support for the changes proposed.

Based on what the used sources report I suggest this. I m using the authors words to avoid bias pro or against.

Some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo. A few studies have seen positive results from homeopathic treatments; some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo. However,they found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for most conditions;[16][17][18][19][20] Higher quality trials tend to report results that are less positive,[18][21] and most positive studies have not been replicated. Many have methodological problems preventing them from being considered unambiguous evidence of homeopathy's efficacy.[1][4][22][23] The lack of convincing and conclusive scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy[24] and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery,[25][26][27][28][29] and a "cruel deception". --Alice1818 (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, the addition of

some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo

However,they find insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.

Got any citations? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.--Alice1818 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good. But one publication in 15 years isn't going to cut it. See WP:Weight. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Several reanalyses of the dataset (by Linde and others) were subsequentlyreported in RS. See Ernst 2002, "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy":

Six re-analyses of Linde et al.'s original meta-analysis (3) were located (4–9). Table 1 summarizes key data from these publications. The results of these re-analyses demonstrate that the more rigorous trials are associated with smaller effect sizes which, in turn, render the overall effect insignificant (5, 6, 8). One re-analysis suggests that the initial positive meta-analytic result (3) was largely due to publication bias (9), a notion that had been considered by the original authors but was rejected by them. Most notably, perhaps, the authors of the original meta-analysis (3) concluded that their re-analysis ‘weakened the findings of their original meta-analysis’(6) . Collectively these re-analyses imply that the initial conclusions of Linde et al. (3) was not supported by critical evaluation of their data.

my emphasis -- these post publication reanalyses trump the conclusions of the 1997 analysis quoted above.

—MistyMorn (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes- I know I told you the scientists do not agree. Linde states that they reevaluated the evidence but still shows positive and over placebo. --Alice1818 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you know, but didn't think it worth mentioning that your citation had been specifically refuted? And now you think anyone is going to take anything else you say seriously? Wasting time indeed. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Different scientists hold different views. If you read the article "my citation" which is not mine is used for a long time now.--Alice1818 (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC) One more: The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power. Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.--Alice1818 (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

and also here: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.--Alice1818 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

And also Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. 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.--Alice1818 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This is some very dedicated research, Alice1818. Unfortunately, since there are so many scientific journal papers about homeopathy, the difficulty with this article is how to summarize the present state of research in a way that gives appropriate weight to the variety of different results. Assigning the appropriate weight to different studies is beyond our purview as Wikipedia editors. We certainly can't settle it in a debate on a talk page. Would you be willing to track down some secondary sources that cover homeopathy research as a whole neutrally and authoritatively? For more information about why scientific journal papers are generally not preferred on Wikipedia, please take a look at WP:PRIMARY. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice contained in WP:MEDRS (ie WP:MEDREV, WP:MEDSCI, WP:MEDASSESS, etc) is relevant here. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (the bulk of the sources under discussion in this thread) are actually considered secondary rather than primary sources, even though they are studies in their own right. WP:MEDRS also advises on how to avoid providing dated information, which is a relevant issue in this thread: Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews you examine 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.

—MistyMorn (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

OK - yes, yes, yes, we've all read those conclusions. Not one single editor here agrees with your assertions - and, trust me, we've all seen those three articles before and we've discussed them here in the past. The bottom line is that you don't have consensus for the kind of change you're demanding - and your repeated arguments are not new - and they aren't changing anyone's minds. With no consensus and no prospect of getting a consensus, you must understand that your proposed changes don't get into the article...period.

So now it's time for you to drop the stick and back away from the deceased equine.

Continuing to push POV in the face of overwhelming consensus is Failure or refusal to "get the point" - which is classified as disruptive editing. Also, when you edit using a three day old, single-purpose account and start to behave like this, everyone is going to suspect sock-puppetry and the like. This article is under an ArbCom ruling that specifically calls out disruptive editing for immediate admin action.

Give it up - it's over, you lost, the end.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You want to include the statement, "some systematic reviews of published trials have shown that the clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo." The only general systematic review that concluded this (Linde et al 1997) has had this conclusion heavily qualified by a subsequent reanalysis by the same team and further comments by the lead author (see above) and also refuted by several reanalyses by other authors. Use of this analysis over the half dozen that came to less positive conclusions smacks of cherry-picling. Another analysis that you are trying to use to support this statement is an analysis of only three studies by the same author. Reviews that say that the evidence is not good enough to come to a definitive conclusion, or that further studies are needed to conclude that homoeopathy works, do not show that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. Here's what the last-named author of the second paper (and lead author of the original publication of the same reasearch) you cite to support your atatement said about the review: "My review did not reach the conclusion 'that homeopathy differs from placebo'". The scientific consensus seems to be overwhelmingly that efficacy over placebo has not been demonstrated.

If you want to include this statement, you will need to provide sources for it. Brunton (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. It is surely not unreasonable to require this single-purpose account to address Brunton's key points directly and transparently. In other words, per WP:NPOV rather than WP:ADVOCACY, WP:DISRUPT, etc. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Object to proposal per WP:WEIGHT. As Brunton excellently points out, the sources that you have cited are not sufficient to substantiate the addition that you are proposing. Ankh.Morpork 21:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

first of all: Steve Baker you must be feeling very confident that adopting an abusive style will have no consequences for you in this talkpage ; most likely you assume that the admins , you refer to , concur with your views and they will forgive abusive comments like your last one as long as you hold a strong anti-homeopathy bias. And most likely you are right : I did not see anyone to give you any advice to be polite, non abusive, let alone to comment on your inappropriate editing style : I produced all my comments and suggestions for changes using and citing exceptional sources; you just reproduce your personal opinion on Homeopathy without citing even one study just adding some threats and abusive comments.--Alice1818 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your sources were terrible, yet you persisted. You deserve what you got Ms. SPA. This is not a location for you to be making a WP:POINT. Maybe you should check up on WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS before you return with more of your horrible sources for your lame excuses for what constitutes "exceptional sources." SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Another abusive comment, Are the lancet and the annals of the internal medicine terrible ? I did not know that.!--Alice1818 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. But if not used appropriately they may become so. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We have repeatedly told you that WP:MEDRS applies, and that the sources you provide are insufficient per that policy to justify the changes to the article you propose. If you want Wikipedia to assert that homoeopathy is more effective than a placebo, you will have to convince the medical mainstream first. They aren't convinced, and unless and until they are, the article will reflect the overwhelming consensus. This is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to be specific and cite reliable sources like I do. I suggested specific changes supported from reliable sources. --Alice1818 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

THE SOURCES YOU PROVIDE ARE INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE CHANGES YOU PROPOSE, PER WP:MEDRS POLICY. GO AWAY... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone from the admin intervene and persuade this user to calm down. and act appropriately  ?--Alice1818 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've hid the section. One editor things a change needs to be made. Many others disagree, state why, and the single editor continues to push the issue. We're done, there is obvious consensus to leave the page as is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Weight of systematic reviews on Homeopathy - only placebo or not ?

Closed per obvious consensus

It is not my opinion that 3 systematic review oh Homeopathy reported effect more than placebo. This is a review I cited beofre and clearly states the opinion of a scientific group published in an exceptional source. Ann Intern Med. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092

I know that this opinion is quite different form Ernst who argues all the time that all the systematic reviews show that homeopathy is only placebo.

However, you need to report all the opinions as long they appear in high impact journals per Neutral point of view. --Alice1818 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For the last time, please read WP:MEDRS. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." Do you mean that? Can you explain why the above is not reliable source? And please drop this style. Enough. --Alice1818 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

From WP:MEDRS (as also explicitly quoted above): Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews you examine 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. Jonas et al 2003 is almost ten years old. Again, stop this disruption. You have been warned. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Again drop this style and be polite. Do you mean that all reviews before 2007 should be excluded? Why Shang is still cited then? It is published in 2005--Alice1818 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TEND. And WP:NOTAFORUM. Someone should just hat these commentaries. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have been patient and polite towards you. It is our duty to inform you of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:DISRUPT and WP:MEDRS. You have aggressively chosen to ignore them. In answer to your question, the article contains a historical chronology regarding the development of the evidence of absence of efficacy through systematic reviews and metanalyses. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You have to answer my questions rationally stop the threats - if you cannot do that , you don't have to participate.Someone else will do. I m asking Do you mean that all reviews before 2007 should be excluded? Why Shang is still cited then? It is published in 2005--Alice1818 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just told you: a chronological perspective is provided, illustrating historical contributions of key studies. The conclusions about efficacy and plausibility are based on the most recent high quality evidence, per WP:MEDRS. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that we have aWikipedia:Disruptive editing behavioral guideline isn't a threat. Pointing out that several participants in this discussion (including myself) consider your behaviour to fall within the guideline parameters isn't a threat either. An neither will me stating that if your behaviour here doesn't change, I will ask that you be blocked or banned for your disruptive behaviour be a threat - it will be a promise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All the studies citied to support the placebo attribution are before 2007.--Alice1818 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Ernst 2010? "...the most reliable evidence – that produced by Cochrane reviews – fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo." —MistyMorn (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure I agree. However, if you look at article all the sentences which support the Placebo conclusion are before 2007. Should we removed them? --Alice1818 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC) (Don't forget that per Neutral point of view and wp med "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.") This is what I m suggesting --Alice1818 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by the expression "placebo conclusion"? Ernst 2010 concludes "...the most reliable evidence – that produced by Cochrane reviews – fails to demonstrate that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo." The House of Commons Science and Tecnology Committee, which took evidence from stakeholders on all sides, also concluded that that homeopathy is no more effective than placebo. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the meta analyses which are used to support the article summarized "consensus" which is false are before 2007. According to what you have said that only recent 5 year old studies should be used - the older ones should be removed. --Alice1818 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Homoeopathic 'medicine' is (according to current scientific knowledge) no more effective than a placebo. That is what our article is going to say. End of story... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also another recent report In 2011 the Swiss government completed an official examination of homeopathy, as part of its consideration of whether or not insurance companies should be made to cover homeopathic treatment. Their report, which concluded homeopathy is effective and should be covered, was published in English in February 2012. There is also a critical review for this report. --Alice1818 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read that...? [3] —MistyMorn (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL! From the article linked: "The Swiss report represents a biased review largely by homeopaths who changed the rules of evidence in order to declare that homeopathy works. Other homeopaths then present this review as unbiased and definitive. This is behavior that would make even the most unscrupulous pharmaceutical rep blush". Fails WP:MEDRS by a mile. Enough said... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it has the same weight to the one from the British government already cited in the article. You cannot of course, say that one goverment report is reliable and thus cited and the others is not. This could be absurd. I dont judge what the reports say - I might disagree myself - but the weight of the publication.

The question remains all opinions should be cited as long as they appear in reliable sources. per NPOV "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." --Alice1818 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Per SkepticalRaptor's suggestion, I've hid the section. Obviously there is no consensus to change the main page. Polite tendentious editing is still tendentious editing. The scientific consensus is that homeopathy shouldn't work, and the clinical trials show that, overall, it doesn't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can someone stop some users from deleting my contributions? How you allow such an abusive behavior? At least 2 editors have views similar to mine. The discussion is still going on - --Alice1818 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Contributions? Like what? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Is anyone else who is not abusive there?--Alice1818 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC) You seem to confuse a failure to garner consensus, and an unwillingness to provide you a platform for further soapboxing, with abuse. Consensus is against you, this has been explained repeatedly, consensus doesn't mean everyone is happy, so let it go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Any help ? can someone stop editors from deleting my comments?--Alice1818 (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC) My apologies, I deleted your most recent comment by accident. My reply above stands however. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC) I think this has gone on far too long, and have proposed that Alice1818 be blocked, to prevent further disruption: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Homoeopathy, and user:Alice1818 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 15:32, July 17, 2012‎ Fluffernutter's willingness to invoke arbcom's discretionary sanctions probably resolves or will resolve this for now at least. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Are you going to ban anyone who disagrees with you?--Alice1818 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Just the ones who edit tendentiously despite clear consensus. Homeopathy isn't a regular article, it's a fringe topic, so we don't have to pretend it's real science. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hi. I did not see any admin objecting to the abusive comments like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=502820191 someone screaming GO AWAY even if I asked for help. --Alice1818 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice1818 (talk • contribs) While you may find that comment offensive or hurtful, it's an accurate summary of the page's consensus from what I can tell. You're not being warned for incivility. Quite the contrary, you're being warned for civil POV-pushing. Despite being civil, it's still POV pushing and can still get you blocked. May I suggest you stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Alice: We did discuss it with you, politely and completely at the outset. Had you taken the hint that you have nobody else on your side (we call this "lack of consensus") and given up assaulting the moribund gee-gee - then it would all have been over and done with on the politest of terms. However, you did not...even after I warned you of the serious consequences in doing exactly what you're doing in a sensitive topic - you continued to push your position. So...the results are entirely as I predicted and you have nobody but yourself to blame. At this point, I definitely support at least a topic-ban on your account...and given the dubious nature of SPA's like yours, probably a permanent ban would be the correct action. SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A few good sources?

Can someone recommend one or two thorough, authoritative sources on the theory and practices of homeopathy, and one or two thorough, authoritative sources on the evidence regarding homeopathy's effectiveness? I looked a little at Google Books, and found a great many sources—way too many. I am not an expert on homeopathy, so it's hard for me to know where to begin. For example, I found Hahnemann's 1833 book easily enough, but I don't know if the first edition is the best one to summarize or if a later edition is better. (The consensus among Darwin historians is that the first edition of The Origin of Species is best, and the later editions mostly muddled things up.) I figure that to do some serious editing, I should read one book by Hahnemann, one comprehensive modern pro-homeopathy book for the lay reader, and one comprehensive modern critique. Which books do you recommend? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahnemann developed some of his ideas further after writing the earlier editions. The 5th (the last one published during his lifetime) and 6th editions seem to be the ones that homoeopaths generally cite. Brunton (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brunton. I'm about to do some traveling. Hahnemann's 5th edition might make some good airplane and hotel-room reading. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hahnemann continually developed his ideas and adapted his practice and also went back to using older techniques. As Brunton says the later editions are better. The 5th is the best to read as the 6th goes onto other methods of remedy preparation and can be confusing. The 5th edition translated by Herring is generally seen to be the best. However, I'd suggest reading a summary rather than the original - will look out for one. Meanwhile if you want to dip into the Organon - Herrings translation is here http://www.homeolibrary.com/NewHomeo_2011/NEW_KENT/ORGANON_Hering/index.htm

I think we can all agree homeopathy isn't straightforward! Hahnemanns ideas were developed by many people, and in general I'd say methods have become more versatile whilst not necessarily being methods Hahnemann might agree with. I guess the key thing is what is homeopathy currently. I'm not sure I can suggest the best NPOV intro to that, but I'll look and get back to you.

Cjwilky (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

See water.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thats an inane comment even by your standards. Cjwilky (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, comment standards for homeopathy are quite low, since it is just water. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ecch, I went to two conferences (including Wikimania 2012!) and never picked up the Hahnemann book from the library. Oh well, I wasn't up for doing much reading on the plane, anyway. Regarding a source for research, can someone recommend a good history of homeopathy? Searching through Google Books, The History of American Homeopathy: From Rational Medicine to Holistic Health Care by John S. Haller looks OK, and has gotten credible reviews, though I don't know if it tells much about the attempts to put homeopathy to experimental test. Is there a better history that I should read? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jay Shelton's Homeopathy: How it Really Works has some basic history stuff, but it's mostly good for explaining why it doesn't work and an excellent starting point for the skeptical position. A good starting book no matter what. Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh's Trick or Treatment is also a good starting point, and Snake Oil Science by R. Barker Bausell is a more general work on medical research but is worth reading. There's simply not much real science on homeopathy since its prior probability is so low. I found Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America by James Whorton at my library, but haven't read it yet. It does cover the history of homeopathy in America as one of its topics. The author adopts an agnostic position on effectiveness, solely examining it as historical phenomenon.

SkepticalRaptor, homeopathy isn't just water. Generally it's sugar pills that have had water splashed on them. Come on! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

About personal attacks, bias and reliable sources

1.I find your comment on my contributions really offensive - Please apologize.

2. I asked the editors the following question: The article states "These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos,[13][14][15][4][16] although there have been a few positive results" If you read the sources which support the sentence, however, they write:

CONCLUSIONS:At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. or The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. and

In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. These statements don't really support the sentence These studies have generally found that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebos,[13][14][15][4][16] although there have been a few positive results.[17][18][19] Which part of the above cited sources support even this sentence : "homeopathy isn't any more effective than placebos"? The above sources are used to support the sentence but they do not really say that. I got not answer. Another editor agreed with me.

3. Then I was told that the majority of the scientists find homeopathy to be a placebo therapy. I asked a list of the scientists who publish on homeopathy to verify. It was denied again.

4. I provided 2 reliable sources ( already cited ) which state that homeopathy has an effect over placebo but its efficacy is not established clearly which is a different thing.

5. I provided a meta analysis from a high impact journal where the authors state that there is an effect over placebo and also They recommend homeopathy for a specific condition.

6. I wrote also that only the Shang's paper states that homeopathy's effects are placebo effects - the other scientists the article quotes have expressed their disagreement citing their work which does not arrive to the same conclusion.

Finally, I provided reliable sources - see above - and suggested a more accurate summary for this really bad written and biased sentence.

The responses I got were rude and unhelpful ( "got anything else ?" or "wasted editors time" for pointing out an error which you see it yourslef and one more editor he agreed with me)  ?

And you have the nerve you and your friends - they came to support you -to tell me that I advocate for homeopathy?. --Alice1818 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC) --Alice1818 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologise for.

FWIW, I consider the accusation (by IP 108.27.196.221) of providing "misinformation" to be a serious, if risible, personal and professional attack, which however I chose to ignore in the interests of preventing drama.

At this point, I feel some sort of outside mediation is required. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to make the case that I advocate for homeopathy which is really misinformation defamation and thus unacceptable. I don't care to waste time with outside "mediation" - outside so to speak-- you mean your friends who do not "see" any personal attacks from your part accusing me that I advocate...Please --Alice1818 (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Defamation"? That's another big word. Again, I suggest you reconsider your words. And maybe do something else for a while to calm down. Good night (over here at least), —MistyMorn (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I have the homeopathy page on my watchlist like many other editors and I usually read the discussions happening here. It looked like there was a disagreement between you and MistyMorn and I wanted to give a third opinion on the matter. I am not MistyMorn's friend. I don't actually think I had any interaction with him prior to this discussion. Disagreeing on a subject or having other editors putting their 2 cents is not in any way a personal attack or "calling friends". I suggest that you take a step back, close the discussion here so we can all move back discussing the improvement of the article.--McSly (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone and don't care to continue on this - I just don't accept and i will not in the future - after all this hard work I did to contribute in a neutral way using reliable sources only and not personal opinions( like several editors here) someone to tell me that I advocate for anything. This is false and not a good faith thing to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice1818 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're telling us that you don't advocate for homeopathy? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If you try to create this impression about me -which you do- my response refers to you as well. Read it again. --Alice1818 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that answers my question. Moving on... do you have a proposed change? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the results of the studies.

1. "CONCLUSIONS:At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials." - This says the studies that show positive results used substandard methods. That would support us saying something like "Homeopathy only produces positive results in poor quality studies."
2. "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." - This says that while there is no evidence for homeopathy being due to placebo, there is no evidence for it being efficacious in any other way.
3. "In the cumulative meta-analyses, there was a trend for increasing effect sizes when more studies with lower-quality scores were added. However, there was no linear relationship between quality scores and study outcome. We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results." - This says the lower the quality of the study the more likely homeopathy is found to have positive results. This is pretty much the same as #1 but maybe more damning.

There's no support here for saying that some studies show positive results unless we give weight to studies with substandard methods. Reporting on poor quality studies doesn't merit Wikipedia readers' attention. Jojalozzo 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a review I cited beofre and clearly states the opinion of a scientific group published in an exceptional source. Ann Intern Med. Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092 Don't you thing that this view should be included ? It differs from what the article states. --Alice1818 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We already went over this. Got anything else? TippyGoomba (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bringing up another journal article does not address the points I raised about the articles you already brought into the discussion. Please give a hearing to my arguments, then I'd be happy to address new ground. Jojalozzo 21:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Jonas, Kaptchuk and Linde paper also says 'Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo.'. It becomes difficult to see what they are trying to say, if the results from their reviews (and there have been far more than four) can only say 'seem' then it is no information that could lead to a change in the statements of the article. Acleron (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that Alice1818 is currently blocked from editing. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We've been through the Annals of Internal Medicine paper and the statement about the "three independent systematic reviews" before, for example last December. Brunton (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Procedural query: Would it be ok to collapse all the sections on this page exclusively involving attempts to dialogue with this blocked user who refused to listen? Thanks. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably a waste of time since the advocate has been blocked, but there's no real harm. WP:BRD and all that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reframing the Evidence section

In the last few days I've started, very gradually, to reframe the Evidence section to try to provide a clearer exposition of the epidemiological evidence.

As I see it, there are at least four major areas:

• Biological (im)plausibility - currently the opening subsection and the High dilutions subsection; plus the brief discussion of plausibility improperly included at the moment under Efficacy.
• Efficacy - a summary of the best current evidence, with explanations aimed at the general reader of essential methodological issues, including statistical pitfalls such as publication bias, and the way those issues are addressed in the best quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In my view, these explanations should make it clear to the lay reader a) why many individual trials give positive results and b) why there is no overall evidence of efficacy. I would (tentatively) suggest simplifying the Meta-analyses subsection to bring it more in line with WP:MEDRS (ie focusing on evidence from the best ones in recent years), while retaining a succinct explanation of the historical development of the evidence since the 1990s (to answer legitimate questions regarding inconclusive findings).
• Explanations of perceived effects - at the moment this section is presented as a list of points, which I think can be transformed into a coherent explanation of the various reasons why homeopathy may appear to work at an individual level. (I think the last two items on the current list, regarding statistical testing and publication bias, really belong in the discussion of Efficacy rather than here.
• Ethics and Safety - haven't really got there yet, but perhaps amenable to some improvement.

I'm not sure right now where the Effects in other biological systems subsection best belongs. (Technically, perhaps under Plausibility??)
Any thoughts?
—MistyMorn (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Implausibility must include chemical implausibility. That is quantum physics (mechanics?) precludes the possibility of the H2O molecule retaining a memory of other molecules. This is as important as the dilution, because one of the fundamental principles of homeopathy is the water memory. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But the theoretical bottom line is always (not just for homeopathy) going to be the biological plausibility. Even if something curious is going on at a molecular, atomic or subatomic level it's not going to have a therapeutic impact unless it's capable of exerting a relevant biological effect. And if a proposed mechanism is chemically or physically implausible, it certainly isn't going to be biologically plausible. So that's all part of the overall reasoning, as far as plausibility considerations are concerned.

Then, in line with Bradford Hill's consideration that there might conceivably exist a biologically plausible mechanism which we don't know about yet (unlikely as that may seem for homeopathy), evidence-based medicine also investigates possible therapeutic efficacy. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ooops... I do agree that Plausibility is a more appropriate subheading for a section which discusses propositions that have been made at various levels. Changed - thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Update: I'm starting work on the Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (not just meta-analyses). In the absence of feedback, I intend to proceed conservatively, illustrating how interpretation have developed as more research has become available. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hypothesis in lead

In the strictest sense of the word, the original belief upon which homeopathy is based can rightly be called a hypothesis. It's a failed hypothesis, but a hypothesis none the less. If we google the definition we find:

1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Using either definition we can conclude the statement that "like causes like" is a hypothesis - it just didn't stand up to scientific testing. However, a hypothesis does not degrade into a "notion" after it has been falsified, it just becomes a failed hypothesis. Sædon^talk 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"hypothesis" is just substituting another point of view. Use "idea" for this unsupported notion. - Nunh-huh 00:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A hypothesis is by definition mostly unsupported. As I explained above, anytime one makes a statement such as "X causes Y" they are making a hypothesis. If it turns out that X doesn't cause Y it is still a hypothesis, it's just a failed one. Homeopathy is based on a failed hypothesis, but it wasn't simply on a "notion" or a whim, and "idea" is too general. Sædon^talk 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Using "hypothesis" suggests a scientific basis. "Idea" is perfectly appropriate and does not falsely suggest this basis. Please stop inserting it; it's misleading. - 00:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, in no way does it imply a scientific basis. A hypothesis doesn't imply anything; by definition it is a proposition that can be falsified - how can that possibly imply that it has a scientific basis when the whole point of it is that it lacks evidence? Sædon^talk 00:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Further, an "idea" can be anything: fictional, non fictional, surreal, what ever. I had an idea for a book I'm currently writing, but the idea was not "X causes Y," it was a story. A hypothesis is a very specific kind of idea phrased in a very specific way. "a substance causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people" is a hypothesis; it was wrong, and it was falsified, but that doesn't degrade it into a general idea. We don't call Lamarkian evolution a "notion" or an "idea" just because it turned out to be incorrect; in my biology textbooks it is still referred to very clearly as the "Lamarkian hypothesis." Sædon^talk 00:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are two reasons to favor calling the Law of Similars a "hypothesis" over vaguer synonyms like "belief" or "idea", and over pejorative synonyms like "notion":

(1) It's accurate and precise. The body of the article, which the lead summarizes, tells how Hahnemann arrived at it, as an explanation for why a malaria treatment was effective. At the time, this sort of thing was the state of the art in medical science. In science, we test hypotheses, and scientific testing has found the Law of Similars to fail. This couldn't be done if the Law of Similars were not a hypothesis.

(2) It's neutral. A pro-homeopathy slant would simply say that homeopathy is based on the Law of Similars; indeed, that's how homeopathy is usually defined. Disparaging it from the beginning announces an anti-homeopathy slant. By calling it a hypothesis, we announce that we are treating it by the same standards that we treat any topic on Wikipedia. We don't take a stand in the controversy, we summarize what the leading reliable sources say (which, a little further reading reveals, is that the hypothesis is false—indeed, "implausible").

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but if we wikilink to Hypothesis, we would state that homeopathy "is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon." That is absolutely POV, since it is in no way a proposed explanation for anything. A hypothesis is part of the scientific method. Homeopathy is invented, it's not real science. If we're going to be so loose with words, why don't we just call it a theory then. Right, the THEORY of Homeopathy, which is no better than the lame THEORY of Evolution. If you want to go with hypothesis it ought to be written as the "discredited or failed hypothesis of…..". Let's be NPOV and not indicate that this is somehow real science. Time to draw the line with this pseudoscience. Let's write like we editors have balls instead of being so worried that we might piss off some whiny editor. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The reasons for favoring "hypothesis" are not about cowing to whiny editors, they are about accuracy and neutrality. Regarding linking to Hypothesis, the definition there is poor. The Oxford English Dictionary agrees with Sædon's remarks above:

2a. A proposition or principle put forth or stated (without any reference to its correspondence with fact) merely as a basis for reasoning or argument, or as a premiss from which to draw a conclusion; a supposition. In Logic, the supposition or condition forming the antecedent or protasis of a conjunctive or conditional proposition (e.g. If A is B, C is D).

3. A supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts; esp. in the sciences, a provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at.

4a. a. A supposition in general; something supposed or assumed to be true without proof or conclusive evidence; an assumption.

4b. Hence spec. A groundless or insufficiently grounded supposition; a mere assumption or guess.

Regarding whether the Law of Similars was proposed to explain something, please re-read my remarks above. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea that "idea" isn't neutral is an interesting hypothesis, or rather would be if it were the explanation of an observable phenomenon rather than opinion. The more value-laden word here is "hypothesis", and that's why it's appropriate to avoid it, especially in the context of pseudoscience. Hahnemann made an assertion, not a hypothesis. Others, later, tested that assertion as though it were a scientific hypothesis, but that's not how it was promulgated: it was a creed, not a conditional hypothesis to be verified. -Nunh-huh 02:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Idea is about the most neutral word that's being considered here. I chose notion because my thesaurus put that as one of the best choices to hypothesis, but idea is better. Hypothesis implies much more than what Hanneman did which is made stuff up.SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The objection to "idea" isn't that it's not neutral, it's that it's unnecessarily vague. Please see above regarding the meaning of "hypothesis". Every hypothesis is an assertion; what distinguishes hypotheses from other assertions is their lack of conclusive basis and their use as a starting point for further reasoning and investigation. This agrees with the body of the article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, not every hypothesis is asserted to be true; they are sometimes made specifically so they can be demonstrated to be false. Hypotheses are made so that their truth can be tested, and they are proposed so they may be proved or disproved; Hahnemann on the other hand made an assertion, not a hypothetical for purposes of further scientific investigation. - Nunh-huh 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we want to write like this were a Law and Order episode, then let's go mess up the Evolution article and just say it's the hypothesis of Evolution. And call Creationism the Theory of Creationism. Once again, we want to be so politically correct, we forget that we should be scientifically accurate, and hypothesis is a scientific term, and in the context of this article, it has a scientific implication. Hypothesis is a POV word that makes it sound that Hanneman actually proposed something scientific. No, he didn't. He just invented this out of the blue. It was NOT a hypothesis. it was more like a hallucination, but maybe that's POV. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Inserting "hypothesis" is an unsustainable attempt to characterize homeopathy as something more than an idea. I will give Hahnemann full credit for observing that "the medicine of his time did as much harm as good", but an idea like homeopathy more than 70 years before Darwin's On the Origin of Species was stabbing in the dark, and nothing to do with science. The idea was certainly not a hypothesis as that word is understood today: an explanation proposed in order to conduct a test. Isn't this article under discretionary sanctions? Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the proposition is far too vague to be considered a genuine scientific hypothesis (broader dictionarly definitions aside). So, referring to the idea here as a hypothesis is, I think, willfully confusing to our readers. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please consider that ordinary dictionaries are most relevant, as we are describing homeopathy in ordinary language. From WP:MOS: "Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Regarding testability and giving homeopathy unmerited credibility, please see the discussion below. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Temp protection

I'm temporarily protecting this article in response to a request for page protection, due to the ongoing revert war. Talk it out, come to a consensus, and edit again in 36 hours. If another admin wants to unprotect in the meantime, I have no objections. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Hypothesis" and the other available choices

I gather that the editors who favor changing from "hypothesis" to "idea" are worried that "hypothesis" implies that the LoS has a level of scientific validity or prestige that it doesn't merit. I don't think the sources back up that worry. Consider that "untestable hypothesis" is a criticism rather than a self-contradiction, "the God hypothesis" is a common and accepted way to characterize religious beliefs among critics of religion, and that "Lamarck's hypothesis" came out around the same time as Hahnemann, and Lamarck also described what is now called his "hypothesis" as a law that was already empirically established, not something that needed further testing.

Regarding testability, consider that people have put the LoS to rigorous empirical test, in the indirect manner by which hypotheses are usually tested: by testing its logical consequences, which in this case are claims about the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. The article devotes considerable space to scientific testing of these remedies, and the first paragraph tersely summarizes the results. The first paragraph of the previous lead left no doubt where homeopathy stands in relation to contemporary scientific research and medical practice.

We have to refer to the LoS in the definition, since most definitions, both from homeopaths and critics, say that homeopathy is based on the "law" of similars. I think we all agree that we need some wording that distances the article from the implied truth or regularity of a "law", so that the article describes homeopathy rather than engages in the controversies that surround it.

I'm certainly open to alternative word-choices, though. Here are some other options:

"idea": Neutral, but unnecessarily vague, as Sædon has pointed out. The LoS is a proposition; "idea" covers a vast range of mental phenomena.

"proposition": Neutral and correct, but doesn't reflect the role that the LoS played in guiding Hahnemann's (and others') further reasoning and experimentation or the attempt to explain and generalize (quinine curing malaria).

"claim": Same omission as "proposition". Also slightly non-neutral, as pointed out at WP:CLAIM.

"belief": Similar to "proposition" + unnecessarily emphasizes the mental aspect. Scientists who did not believe in homeopathy were able to test it.

"assumption": Correct, maybe non-neutral, but doesn't reflect the fact that the LoS was an attempt to explain and generalize or its testability as well as "hypothesis" does.

"conjecture": Same omission as "assumption", and non-neutral in the eyes of people not familiar with the critical rationalist theory of science.

"premise": Neutral and correct, and almost as precise as "hypothesis". Same omission as "assumption".

"theory": Neutral and correct. However, "theory" suggests an interconnected body of hypotheses rather than a single proposition, and most sources say that "theory" implies having survived more testing than a mere "hypothesis". (Here I disagree with the sources but naturally I'll defer to them.)

"thesis": Neutral and correct, with same omission as "assumption".

"principle": Correct, but non-neutral. Like "law", I think this suggests that it's true unless we qualify it with yet more words.

"notion": Both vague and pejorative.

I'd consider "proposition", "premise", "theory", or "thesis" acceptable, and "claim" barely acceptable, but, notwithstanding other editors' suggestions or reasons, for now I think "hypothesis" is the most clear, accurate, precise, and neutral word. Perhaps there is a clear and graceful way to describe the law of similars without having to choose among any of these words, but I haven't found it yet.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I'd write something along the lines of:

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine first described by Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843), who proposed that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people. This became known as "the law of similars" or "like cures like".

That seems reasonably neutral to me. I look forward to the discussion. Watermelon mang (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the verb "propose". It's neutral and correct, though it has the same "loose fit" as "proposition". It might nicely sidestep any disagreement among editors about what the word "hypothesis" connotes. The definition should make clear that the, er, proposition is the main defining element of homeopathy. Hahnemann originated it, but the LoS is the distinguishing idea, which has endured past Hahnemann. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the OED definition will suggest a good idea:

A system of medical practice founded by Hahnemann of Leipsic about 1796, according to which diseases are treated by the administration (usually in very small doses) of drugs which would produce in a healthy person symptoms closely resembling those of the disease treated. The fundamental doctrine of homœopathy is expressed in the Latin adage ‘Similia similibus curantur’, ‘likes are cured by likes’.

I prefer our definition where the genus is "form of alternative medicine" and the main part of the differentia is the proposition/hypothesis/idea/whatever that it's based on, since that agrees best with the sources that we cite. However, I think "doctrine" is quite a good word. Another good choice: "tenet". —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It was this edit by BenKovitz at 12:18, 17 June 2012 that introduced "hypothesis" to the lead. As explained above, that word is typical of attempts to paint pseudoscience with a scientific glow, and it totally fails NPOV for this FRINGE topic. The edit may not have been intended in that manner, but that is the way it is. There is nothing vague about "idea", and that term is not unreasonable or POV in any way—after thinking about the matter within the restrictions of the widespread ignorance of the time, Hahnemann had an idea. I need to think some more about "proposed", but that is much better than "hypothesis". Johnuniq (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Doctrine"

The OED's definition of "doctrine":

2. That which is taught.

2b. esp. That which is taught or laid down as true concerning a particular subject or department of knowledge, as religion, politics, science, etc.; a belief, theoretical opinion; a dogma, tenet.

"Doctrine" is neutral, and while it doesn't reflect the LoS's origin as a conjectured explanation or generalization, it does reflect the way homeopathy regards the LoS as a premise leading to further reasoning and experimentation (one of the virtues of "hypothesis"), as well as Hahnemann's role as an authority (not reflected by "hypothesis") and the lack of doubt about it within homeopathy (missing this is the main flaw of "hypothesis", IMO). What do others think about "doctrine"? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like John, I honestly don't see what's wrong with "idea" to describe Hahnemann's original proposition in the lede. I also think "notion" is a suitable word to use, especially when referring to more recent times ("discredited notion"). I feel "doctrine" could be a useful word for marking the privileged status, among homeopaths, of the "Law of Similars" (though I'm not sure whether it's commonly referred to as such).--MistyMorn (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that we're stuck with something called "The Law of Similars" - which is not in any way a "Law of science". From our article: "Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, in that these are based on assumptions when a theory is first developed, in order to start from somewhere, before validation by experiment and observation. They are not considered laws (in themselves) since they are only assumptions, though they lead to the formulation of laws. A law is a more solidified and formal statement, distilled from repeated experiment, in such a way that postulates are contained within them.".

That is an incorrect use of the word "Law". What we have here is without doubt a "failed hypothesis". The trouble is that it is well sourced, even though it's being used incorrectly. If we're going to use the word "hypothesis" then it has to have the word "failed" in front of it because from a scientific perspective, it is no longer even a valid hypothesis. When we use the word "hypothesis" by itself, we tend mean something that could feasibly be true - which Homeopathy is not. So we need that qualifier: "failed".

It's tricky because homeopathy is a pseudo-science, they simply don't do proper experiments to test these crazy ideas - which means that they cannot (in a rigorous scientific sense) lay claim to words like "Theory" and "Law"...but because they are sloppy about their use of scientific terminology (as evidenced by their peculiar specialist meanings for a bunch of other fairly common words), they do indeed use those kinds of terms.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

the so-called "Law of Similars"? —MistyMorn (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the current This idea is known as "the law of similars" is fine: it skirts around the issue mentioned by Steve, and doesn't lay on the negativity with a trowel. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like we are all in agreement that we need a word to distance the article from "law". (See below for comments about "idea" in relation to other available choices.) I certainly agree that the lead should make perfectly clear that homeopathy has been soundly rejected by modern scientific research, without "laying on the negativity with a trowel" as you so aptly put it. Is there any disagreement about this? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Idea"

So far, we have unanimous agreement that "idea" is neutral. The objection to "idea" is that it's a strangely vague or broad word-choice when words that are both accurate and more precise are available.

From the OED's definition of "idea", section III, on "Senses relating to the mind without necessarily implying an external manifestation":

10. The mental image or notion of something previously seen or known, recalled by the memory.

11a. Usually with of: a picture or notion of something formed in the mind independently of direct memory; a conception.

11b. depreciative. A conception to which no reality corresponds; something merely imagined or fancied. Usually with modifying word, as mere.

12a. More widely: any product of mental apprehension or activity, existing in the mind as an object of knowledge or thought; an item of knowledge or belief; a thought, a theory; a way of thinking.

12c. A notion or thought that is more or less implausible, indefinite, or fanciful; a vague belief, opinion, or estimate; a supposition, impression, fancy.

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms:

idea, concept, conception, thought, notion, impression mean what exists in the mind as a representation of something that it apprehends or comprehends or as a formulation of an opinion, a plan, or a design. Idea is the most comprehensive and widely applicable of these terms: it may be used of an image of something at one time or another actually perceived through the senses, or of something never perceived but visualized from bits of information [examples] or of something that is the clearly or vaguely defined product of fancy, imagination, or inventive power [examples]. It may denote a mere supposition [examples] or a good or practical solution or suggestion [examples] or a ridiculous or preposterous suggestion [examples].

If any editors are still of the opinion that "idea" is not more vague than "doctrine", "tenet", "hypothesis", "proposition", or "premise", would you kindly direct us to an appropriate source? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, you can be specific, or you can follow our NPOV policy. Sometimes vagueness is our friend here. Specifically, the Law of Similars is "illogical unsupported dogma". Neutrally stated, it's an "idea". "Doctrine" is your personal choice, but we should be describing the Law of Similars in the way most secondary sources describe it, as long as that description is not misleading. I don't think "doctrine" is a common description. There's no need for three pages of debate and marshaling sources over this; "idea" is perfectly fine. - Nunh-huh 16:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Currently we have objections to "hypothesis" and "idea", but no objections to "doctrine". Proposal: replace the current first two sentences with the following:

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine originated by Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843), based on the doctrine, known as the "law of similars" or "like cures like", that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure that disease in sick people.

Is this acceptable? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I happen to like it, but if you thought notion was POV, my guess is that doctrine is going to sound worse. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sign of objection to "wikt:doctrine". It's a very apt word, with no value loading. It simply refers to the body of teachings within formal schools, in this instance of homeopathy. What's to object to? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm on board, since doctrine does not imply science, but I've always thought it had a religious connotation. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been chewing this over. At first it didn't look right, and I'm sure there will be arguments about it in the future (because "doctrine" might suggest an established system of beliefs, rather than a new idea). However, consulting a dictionary and allowing a couple of hours to pass before looking again makes me support the proposed text. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My one real concern is that we might be introducing an unusual label (try googling search strings like "law of similars doctrine" OR "doctrine of the law of similars"). —MistyMorn (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Googling those terms does not provide any insight. The same could be done to test the text in many sentences in many articles, and a failure to find hits would not demonstrate anything. We are just trying to work out what plain English words to use in the lead that will present a summary without any suggestion that homeopathy is part of science, and without hitting the reader over the head about how silly it is. Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the negativity: I take what I read as an implied and undeserved criticism badly. My concern about possibly foisting a possibly unusual label on a subject in Wikipedia is, I believe, a legitimate one. After my rapid post about this concern yesterday (to try to help us move on!), I checked this morning and found that I needn't have worried. When, following BenKovitz's sound suggestion to build the lede from the main article, I suggested a simple alternative in "Axiom" (in a way similar to previous suggestions, such as "Doctrine") my suggestion was practically practically ridiculed. I've been working hard on this article in an NPOV spirit. What's wrong? —MistyMorn (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Axiom

Per the main article:

Hahnemann's law of similars is an ipse dixit axiom, in other words an unproven assertion made by Hahnemann, and not a true law of nature.

—MistyMorn (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being said in the above. What text are you proposing for the lead? Clearly terms like ipse dixit are not helpful there, and neither is "axiom". Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The text I quoted from the main article is clear and supported by a 19th century history of medicine. My suggestion is to substitute one of the instances (the second?) of "idea" in the lede with "axiom". "Axiom" is a term that is used in recent RS [5] [6].
Now that I've had time to explore some Google Scholar search strings I see that "doctrine" (like "idea") is also commonly used. So I think that solution would be fine too. However, I still feel that "idea" is preferable when talking about the original intuition.
—MistyMorn (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I think "axiom", a basic, untested assumption, is a good word to use here. Jojalozzo 23:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I hardly think we're voting, since we can't even get to a consensus as to what we even want to try. We're on our 10th word I'd guess. I'd support anything but hypothesis, but no one wants to put a line in the sand and try to form a consensus. I feel like we're just taking out a damn thesaurus and seeing which word sticks, but I'm going to be bold soon and remove hypothesis, since the consensus is that word is inappropriate. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Quack medicine

Lacking any proof of efficacy, this "field" should be regarded as quack medicine, and an encyclopedic article should resist promoting such nonsense. 75.225.168.167 (talk) 08:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find most editors here agree with that statement, however what do you see as promotional? I think the article makes the lack of efficacy pretty clear. Sædon^talk 08:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Quackery is used in the first paragraph. Not sure we can get much clearer than that. We do spend an inordinate amount of time trying to explain this nonsense, but mostly so that people know what it is. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia represents pseudo-science and fringe theories such as this with clear statements as to what they are (ie "false"). However, we cannot apply censorship to these ideas and simply not discuss them because that would do no favors to anyone. Our mission here is to describe as best we can what homeopathists believe - and also to present the mainstream scientific view, which is clearly that it doesn't work and cannot possibly work for the most basic of reasons. If you have specific places where you think we are "promoting" the ideas behind homeopathy, I'm sure we'd be happy to discuss cleaning that up - but you do need to be much more specific about precisely where in the text you see those problems. SteveBaker (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the others. We're not promoting this nonsense, but presenting it in an NPOV manner, which means explaining it clearly and including all significant aspects about it, including its pseudoscientific nature, which is pretty clearly stated. If you have any concrete suggestions for improvement, please help us. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving on?

Personally I'd be curious to move on to consider whether the so-called "Law of Similars" constitutes the sole main tenet / doctrine / axiom / principle, or whatever, of homeopathy or whether it is one of several key aspects. My limited understanding suggests that "potentization" (the ‘less is more’ axiom) and other specific concepts such as "miasm" may also be relevant here. In brief, homeopathy is not just based on treating like with like.

Btw, this is just something that struck me in passing. My own focus is on the Evidence section to try to make this part of the article more direct and easily digestible, perhaps eventually adopting summary style depending on consensus here. —MistyMorn (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The "law" (snicker!) seems to be a basis on which more is built. It's very fundamental (determining choice of substance to be used), and what follows (dilution and potentization) is "what to do" with that substance before it becomes a "remedy". There are thus several basic ideas which must be understood before one can really understand homeopathy. It's fairly common to encounter writings and mention in the press that reveal that such knowledge is lacking. Don't we deal with this adequately? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Like cures like" is certainly the basic principle. The dilutions etc. are secondary to this. Hahnemann originally treated patients with undiluted remedies, and we've been assured on this page that there are still homoeopaths who do not use highly dilute remedies (although I don't recall ever having seen a RS that says that this is anything other than a small minority even within homoeopathy). Brunton (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction. He used UNdiluted "provings" which caused real symptoms to be recorded for future use, but there are some modern homeopaths who claim to use highly diluted provings, which of course makes no sense at all, since one cannot cause any real symptoms to record by using highly diluted provings that are identical to the highly diluted final remedies. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, he initially used undiluted remedies to treat patients (see for example the book on homoeopathic pharmacy that is currently reference 67 in the article at pages 52-3, which says that he abandoned this practice when he found it caused "aggravations that amounted, in some cases, to dangerous toxic reactions"). And far from it being "some modern homoeopaths" claiming to use highly dilute remedies in "provings", Hahnemann himself prescribed using 30C remedies at least by the time of the publication of the 5th edition of the Organon in 1833 (see aphorism 128, 5th or 6th edition). It appears that pretty much all modern provings (certainly all the ones I've seen reports of) use ultradilute remedies. OK, this "makes no sense at all", but it's the way it is. Remember also that the basic "like cures like" principle is that disease can be treated using a remedy that would cause similar symptoms in a healthy subject; "proving" using the same diluted remedies as are used to treat is at least consistent with this. The objection that "one cannot cause any real symptoms to record by using highly diluted provings" applies just as much to using highly diluted remedies to treat disease, and homoeopaths don't seem to have any problem with that. Brunton (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Whew! Now I'm really dizzy. You're mixing "remedy" and "proving" all together in a confusing manner. Better to keep them clearly separate. I've forgotten a bit of the history here, so please help me.

Let's start with your statement - "he initially used undiluted remedies to treat patients". (1) Was this before or after he started "provings" to determine which remedy to use? (2) When did he start using highly diluted "remedies"? According to your statement above ("...undiluted remedies at least by ... 1833") it was by 1833. (3) Do you really mean "remedies" here, or "provings"?

We know that he originally used undiluted "provings" (not the same thing as "remedies") to determine what to use for treatment using "remedies" (diluted or not). As you mention, in some cases this proved dangerous. (4) At what point did he start using highly diluted "provings" because of this problem? Your (confusing to me) comment ("using 30C remedies") isn't about "provings".

This statement is also confusing to me: "using a remedy that would cause similar symptoms in a healthy subject". (5) Ummmm...shouldn't that read "using a remedy "proving" that would cause similar symptoms in a healthy subject"? A "remedy", unlike a "proving", isn't expected to cause symptoms, but to relieve them, i.e. cure the disease.

You mention "aggravations". I'm sure you will find this of interest.

Applying logic to homeopathy is indeed a futile endeavor, but at least at the very beginning (the idea of provings, and recording the results) there was some logic to it. Where it jumped off the scientific track was the leap of faith required to assume that, for example, using a remedy to treat a fever-causing disease (a remedy based on a proving using an undiluted substance that actually caused a fever in a healthy person), would have a favorable impact on the disease. This is purely sympathetic magical thinking and scientific nonsense without evidence. Homeopaths are oblivious to normal logic in this regard, so this is no problem for them. They hold to their metaphysical beliefs. Brangifer (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There does seem to be a little confusion here. A "remedy" is whatever substance (or lack of it) that a homoeopath uses to treat their patients, or gives to the subjects in a "proving". a "proving" is the procedure that homoeopaths use to decide what symptoms are characteristic to a particular remedy.

Hahnemann's original observation was that Cinchona bark caused symptoms, in him, that were similar to the symptoms of malaria; he then jumped to the conclusion that Cinchona bark was an effective treatment for malaria because it caused similar symptoms to malaria. It would certainly, at that time, have been used in undiluted form, and I imagine the use of undiluted remedies both in "provings" and for treating patients would have arisen at this point.

The book I mentioned above certainly said that Hahnemann initially used undiluted doses to treat patients before giving them up in favour of diluted ones, but (as far as I remember - the text no longer seems to be available on Google Books) didn't give any actual timeline for the change to diluted remedies. I think I may have seen (or heard - it may have been in a BBC radio programme) something that suggested that he started using diluted remedies around 1820, but I can't find a source for this, or be sure that it is correct.

"A "remedy", unlike a "proving", isn't expected to cause symptoms, but to relieve them, i.e. cure the disease." - The remedy is expected (in homeoopathic terms) to cure the disease, not to "suppress" the symptoms (homoeopaths consider "suppressing" symptoms to be a bad thing - see the comment about "suppression" in the "Ethics and safety" section of the article). I've seen it suggested that the symptoms are part of the healing process, so that intensifying them aids healing. I've also seen it suggested that a patient can only have one set of symptoms at a time (in the context of incorrectedly prescribed remedies not causing "proving symptoms"), and that the temporary symptoms induced by the remedy displace those of the disease, so that when the remedy's symptoms recede that patient is left cured. Note also that "aggravations", in which the patients symptoms worsen after a remedy is given, are regarded as an indication that the remedy was the correct one.

"According to your statement above ("...undiluted remedies at least by ... 1833") it was by 1833. (3) Do you really mean "remedies" here, or "provings"?" - Sorry, that was my fault; I should have said "prescribed using 30C remedies for "provings" at least by the time of the publication of the 5th edition of the Organon in 1833".

"Where it jumped off the scientific track was the leap of faith required to assume that, for example, using a remedy to treat a fever-causing disease (a remedy based on a proving using an undiluted substance that actually caused a fever in a healthy person), would have a favorable impact on the disease." - It jumped the shark pretty early on, then, because this is precisely what Hahnemann decided his original observation of the effects of Cinchona bark meant - that it cured malaria because it caused the similar symptoms of fever etc. This is the fundamental principle of homoeopathy. Brunton (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Still a bit confusing, but thanks for the good explanations. Since I don't believe much of the homeopathetic BS, I won't suffer from cognitive dissonance.... BTW, you might enjoy this little website made by a physician, in which he describes how Hahnemann's allergy to quinine got homeopathy off to a false start, and it's been false ever since. No surprise there. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found this, which states that Hahnemann "began the systematic serial dilution and succussion of his medicines around 1814", citing an 1816 publication by Hahnemann as a source. Brunton (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - that answers my question, I think. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Homeopathy Page

What a sham. I have long felt that there is incredible bias on this site and it's really just a forum for people advocating their point of view. Having tried to delete the glaring bias in the first paragraph that says the medical profession widely views homeopathy as quackery-I am realising that I was right all along! I then looked at your other alternative therapies. Such bias! Have you never heard of the religion of Scientism-it's what is being practiced here. Science is God and there is no room for any other gods. Shameful. I'd like to say don't give up your day job but erm.....have any of you got one? Keep taking the modern medicine guys-remember medicine as approved by science is good for you-and if you 'feel' somewhere in the dark recesses of your minds that maybe it's a bit toxic and could kill you in the end-ignore that feeling and just rush to Wikipedia for the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB667 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

First, read WP:NPOV. Then WP:MEDRS. Followed by WP:FRINGE. In other words, your opinion is irrelevant. What can be shown with evidence supported with reliable sources counts. In fact, homeopathic potions are merely water. And Natural News is the laughing stock of science. ONe more suggestion. You better read WP:3RR. You've far exceeded that. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Naturalnews" isn't a reliable source - neither by our standards for sources making medical claims, nor by the less strict general standards. If you feel that "naturalnews" is more trustworthy than medical journals then Wikipedia probably isn't the right place for you. --Six words (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, this wasn't exactly what I had in mind when I suggested that you go to the article's talk page to participate in consensus building. Good luck to you though! MrX 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Allan N. Spreen, M.D.: "The biggest objectivity problem with Wikipedia is that by its very concept, nothing can be trusted in any of the information. Bias is implicit. If they see something they don't like, they can remove it, without reference to qualifications. That's why I never use Wikipedia."

Just one quote from hundreds I have just looked at. As for the person who said Homeopathic potions are just water-you write for this site don't you... Yep-that's exactly my point. Total bias. I for one will follow suit and won't be using wikipedia again...it's the real pseudoscience-unqualified and uneducated people who don't have a clue what they are talking about but by virtue of having plenty of time on their hands...have hijacked the complimentary therapies pages to advocate their own point of view-with a few cherry picked references from medical journals...follow the money as they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JB667 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle. Well, don't let the door hit in you in the tush as you leave. Homeopathic potions are water, and this article is filled with about 50 citations published in peer reviewed scientific journals that support that, and the fact that those potions do nothing. You have squat. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Provings

I'm wondering how we can use these sources as references for provings. They should at least be listed:

• Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy - Science and Technology Committee - HOMEOPATHIC PROVINGS

• ECCH Guidelines for Homeopathic Provings, Second Edition April 2009 - European Central Council of Homeopaths (ECCH)

Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that the second one indicates that provinges are carried out using diluted remedies, saying under "Preparation" that "An exact description of the pharmaceutical preparation procedure (mode of dilution or trituration) should be provided." It also refers to "remedy taking" in the section about conducting the proving. Brunton (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. The first one, which was based on submissions of the best modern and current information and evidence from both pro- and anti-homeopathy supporters and organizations, described provings: "A proving records the effects of substances, either at concentrated doses or in ultra-dilutions, when given to healthy individuals." -- Brangifer (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Something to think about

I have no intention of editing this article, but having come across an interesting page (yes, written by a reliable source, lol!) I thought I could bring it to people's attention just in case anyone wanted to do anything with it.

Here's the page. Written by Nancy Trautmann, Ph.D., ("lead author of the Cornell Science Inquiry Series [...]Assessing Toxic Risk, one of the titles in this series, provides directions for assessing chemical toxicity using bioassay protocols similar to those used by professional scientists. Trautmann received her M.S. in 1980 and her Ph.D. in 2006 from Cornell.")

From the page: "The picture becomes even more complicated when you consider that for a few contaminants, extremely low doses have been seen to cause beneficial rather than detrimental effects in test organisms. This is thought to be caused by the organisms’ adaptive response to stress. Even though higher doses cause harm, the low-level stress caused by extremely low doses appears to trigger cellular repair and maintenance, leading to beneficial outcomes such as reduced risk of certain types of cancer in laboratory animals."

Happy thinking! Pesky (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What the author is referring to, presumably, is hormesis. This is a well established dose/response relationship that does not involve the nonexistent active ingredients used in homeopathy. Skinwalker (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK! I'm neither virulently pro- nor anti-homeopathy, but having just blundered across that article I thought it might be worth mentioning over here. Pesky (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a low dose and a zero dose. At typical homeopathic dilutions, it is statistically unlikely that even one molecule of the "active ingredient" remains in the dose...so it isn't the kind of "low" dose that the author is talking about here. There are no end of substances that can be fatal at high doses and beneficial at low levels...take caffeine for example - if you take two grams of caffeine, you'll wind up in hospital and if you take 20 grams of the stuff, it'll probably kill you. But if you take just 50 milligrams - you'll get a mild stimulant effect. On the other hand, if you put one drop of diet coke into a swimming pool, stir it up and drink a couple of drops of the stuff - it's not going to have any effect whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Note also that the source says that this applies only "for a few contaminants". Homoeopathy would need it to be a universal rule. Brunton (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

SteveBaker: "if you put one drop of diet coke into a swimming pool, stir it up and drink a couple of drops of the stuff....."? Is that actually what homeopaths do, then? There's venerable rebuttal - reputably by Hahnemann himself - that says you would have to knock it hard a few times. (The swimming pool, that is, not the homeopathy.) One is one and one is one (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Brunton: No, I think the article says that beneficial effect has only been "seen" for a few contaminants, not that it only applies for a few. One should not confuse the two. Perhaps the only branch of human endeavour that has been looking into this as therapy, in any depth for any length of time, would be the homeopaths. They seem convinced that Hahnemann's "Aphorisms" 26 onward (only very roughly paraphrased by "like cures like") have merit, by dint of long experience of actual clinical outcomes. One would have carefully to examine the basis upon which others might disagree. One is one and one is one (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting changes to the article? TippyGoomba (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In general, homeopathy is only for uninformed people.

I removed this: "In general, homeopathy is only for uninformed people" from the caption of the 'Ledum Palustre' photo. It is a strong NPOV statement, albeit accurate (although I might have said, uninformed or willfully ignorant).

In any case, it really doesn't relate to the image and needs proper context. It would be better to make such an assertion in the article with supporting detail. In it's context with the image, it stands out as the encyclopedia dispensing advice and also appealing to reader's vanity. — MrX 21:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, Thanks. The IP's addition wasn't really vandalism, but wasn't exactly a helpful edit either. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How this article's excerpt shown in Google results fits the neutral point of view policy?

I understand what is not mainstream wont be spoken as "fact", but rather a "definition", in which case this article's would be something like "Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine originated by… based on the idea that…"

… but how did the description of this article in google became a quack-shout (excuse my english) instead? … even with "neutral point of view policy" in place?

Does such a policy applies to the article's content but some entity is allowed to influence its SEO different? (for the ones who don't know it: SEO is the tool to bury an article, even when it's public, using the same search engine's algorithm to "hide" it from its known target audience)

Making things accessible to the target audience, e.g. tagging it with "healthy living" or "natural healing" because those are probable keywords people looking for this article statistically use, is probably not the intention of wikipedia, but making inaccessible, like with the current description, is not a "neutral point of view" either.

I think it's fair all the controversial info to be there, as well as the the claims, but NONE should be on the search engine excerpt.

Under what label are the search engine excerpts get "biased optimization"?

Sergiozambrano (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Google. We have no control over their bots. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, there's nothing wrong about that excerpt. It's pretty accurate, if incomplete. Google's excerpt can't include the whole article, or even the whole lede. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors do not have control over how Google or other search engines index or summarize articles, although theoretically, manipulation is possible. The content in the lead is a concise summary of the relevant points in the article (see WP:LEAD). This may not address your specific questions, but should provide some perspective WP:SEO.

Yes, that could be the text in question. Can you get me a sample of the text in there? I can't edit (nor see) section=0 Sergiozambrano (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sample of the text? Just click on the convenient hyperlinks. (I'm not sure what you mean by section=0) – MrX 00:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The link posted above (see WP:LEAD) says not everyone sees section cero, which is the lede (lead), and I certainly can't see it, nor even editing privileges, so I need somebody check that out for me. As BullRangifer said, that lede is accurate, but yet that's NOT a description of Homeopathy. Not a neutral one, at least. I just want to check no human hand is messing with that (and so, every article in wikipedia that even editors can't see) which would indicate biasing at a higher level. I'm ok if google's algorithm is the culprit, and will certainly find out how that works. Sergiozambrano (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have thoughts on how to improve the article, this is the place to do it. Please be specific and make sure that any content that you wish to add meets Wikipedia guidelines. (WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, etc.)

Of course, you can also be bold and make edits directly to the article. – MrX 17:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be bold. I already explained my opinion above. All the info deserves to be published, but why a non-descriptive paragraph is shown in search engine results? That's not "neutral". I'm waiting for my partner, who is an SEO expert to get back to me how that's possible without a human hand and I'll get back to you something more than my opinion… or an explanation of how Wikipedia articles get buried somehow. – Sergiozambrano 17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality is the concern of Wikipedia, not of Google. Google's bots couldn't care less. They don't think. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We have zero control over Google. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this (old already) information be next to every…

I can read on the the homeopathy page about a hundred times "…no molecule is present…" type of statements.

It seems every person who edited this kept his little piece of glory with the heaviest argument of pharmacological scientists, and I've seen less repeated sentences in other articles to get an acronym, or at least referenced somehow in a unique place, to stop the repetition.

Also, shouldn't this new (old already) discovery be somewhere close to the repeated mentions of that sentence? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1532-bizarre-chemical-discovery-gives-homeopathic-hint.html since the statement of the lack of memory of solvents come from its known behavior… but being proofs of a new counterintuitive behavior like this…

I'm not a doctor but the publication where it appears seem to be serious enough. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/b105399j

Is that what is usually called "published scientific journal"… like when some claims without one of those publications are held until that happens? …or is that a minor publication not related to the scientific community?

Excuse my english. My spanish is way better.

Thanks.

Sergiozambrano (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The material you link is from 2001. If there was anything to this, presumably further research would have been published by now. In any case, per WP:MEDRS, a single study of the apparently odd-seeming behaviour of a particular substance in vitro is of no relevance to article content. We do not cherry-pick sources to 'prove' things that even the sources themselves don't say. The study wasn't about homoeopathy, it didn't test homoeopathic 'medicines' and it drew no conclusions as to whether homoeopathy 'works'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I was just looking for some balance to the hundred times I read the above sentence. There are even coments inside the table of dilutions, as if the sole purpose of the page was to laugh about the idea of the dilution, (which the linked article shown some proved counterintuitive behavior about). I'm no doctor buy I'm sure no homeopathic table of dilutions in the world have those kind of comments. We don't write next to a chart of bra cup sizes a note like "these are like fried eggs" do we?

So as per your words, if it doesn't completely "prove" it works it shouldn't be included… so should we remove the many reasons of implausibility too? Since those doesn't prove it either by themselves. It was enough with mentioning the universities the pharmacological scientists concluded it in, the results, and that's it. If those other explanations of implausibility are required as a "points of view" or "controversy", shouldn't this one fall into that category too?

It's not in wikipedia's interest to teach people about long numbers. There are math pages for that. If those repetitive mentions were removed (and kept in a single place, of course) the article would be more "informative" than… whatever mocking adjective is now.Sergiozambrano (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have explained why the material you provided isn't suitable for the article. As for the rest, read WP:FRINGE - we don't 'balance' fringe claims in the way you seem to be proposing. Articles on medically-related topics are based on the scientific consensus. That is absolutely clear - not only does homoeopathy not work, but claims that it does work are based on a complete rejection of basic scientific principles. Homoeopaths will need to convince the scientific establishment, not Wikipedia contributors, to get this article to suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing the analogies and examples of how dilute the remedies actually are would make the article less informative, not more. It is apparent that many people don't appreciate the implications of the serial diution involved in preparing homoeopathic remedies. The use of analogies to explain the nature of the dilutions is almost as old as homoeopathy itself - the article even includes one from Hahnemann himself. Brunton (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"It is apparent that many people don't appreciate the implications of the serial diution involved in preparing homoeopathic remedies" So you feel people with little education who reads this needs some godfather-ship? Sometimes I feel the same, but that not neutrality in the way the information is presented.

I'll give you two examples:

The first, the page for Nitroglycerin. That's certainly a substance that would kill you and is as long as the article for Homeopathy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin

although it doesn't say 18 times "unestable" as Homeopathy says "molecule", and where it's said it belongs to the heading it's in.

The second example is: "You are elocuent". Read this way is my opinion and a compliment for some. Now, if I write it in every paragraph (about the frequency in this article) you'll feel insulted.

Can I have other opinions, please? I definitely want to lower the "mocking" tone of the article. When something is not FDA approved, it has a BIG sign at the top. Homeopathy IS, and it's mentioned at the very bottom of the article. Why? Because people who wants to believe in that ACCEPTS it was found useless by pharmacologic science and accepts some mocking, but that acceptance doesn't imply we can disrespect researches around the globe looking for something to cure tomorrow without drugs. "Homeopathy nowadays" should be the topic at the top, or the statement saying IT'S LEGAL, but believers ACCEPT it so. Just don't push it, and help me to lower the mocking tone of this article, please?

The description in google IS the lede http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&action=edit&section=0.

Raise your hand if you thought there was someone else's fault. Aren't any of you, editors, concerned about just-a-few knowing that and the power of search engines to hide things?

Now that you know the wrong description is generated here, you CAN take a look at the lede, and decide wether it's "neutra" and descriptive . For that I request permission to edit it.

Please inform yourselves about search engine power to hide and promote articles (a biasing tool which can be managed from inside wikipedia) and give me your opinion about controversy text being the main description for an article in search engines. Don't you see it biased? (I'll ask in non-alternative-medicine related talks too, to compare neutrality)

I have to agree with Andy and Brunton here. I can't see any POV problems with the article of the sort you seem to think exist. Your conception of WP:NPOV is a bit off-base, and your concerns about Google search are completely irrelevant. I'm still not sure what types of edits you specifically want to make. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll open a new topic since I've been writting in the same answer to the original question already answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiozambrano (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits request

I know I have to explain what I want to edit at the requests page, but there says I have to try out here first, so here are my observations. Bare with my english. Thanks.

1) As I said before, you don't say "the size of a fried egg" in a table of bra sizes. No matter how little men know about it. The same way, there's no dilution table in the world that says this mocking way how nothing a drop of that dilution has of the original extract. It's not WRONG, it's not INCORRECT, but comparing with the rest of articles I see subliminal messages like "you are an idiot if you keep reading". Despite the pharmacological science point of view, respected researchers and doctors have worked in this subject and others like chinese acupuncture and herbs to study anomalies in the behavior of things "mainstream" thought assumes, to find cures for you, and they deserve some respect when you are transcribing, for example, their dilution chart. That kind of tone should be restricted.

2) Most of the mentions to the only pharmaceutical base for unexplained results, the dilution, are out of place. I want to remove all the ones that are not part of the paragraph. They are just hanging there, with no other intention than overweighting the already stated. As you can see, they are doing nothing but giving the piece of glory to each editor's way to say the same thing.

I ask before to write, and try to be neutral as requested, so I point out when others are not neutral. (Adding the same thing everywhere is not a social deed, but biasing)

I know editors are not reporters, and as such, don't have neutral speech training, but because of that exact reason, they all should be pointed out when trying to do a social deed, relabeling homeopathy remedies (legally sold) with cigarettes-like red banners to remind them how bad it is, which is what I see in all those repetitive stray sentences.

The word "cancer" appears 4 times in the wikipedia page for "cigarette". The word "molecule" (in the dilution sentence) appears 18. If that's not biassed for you…

3) The description of "Homeopathy" to be displayed in Google includes controversy text. With the short size for that, I think it's NOT the way to describe. You could even use a statement like "it's legal and approved by cenator…" instead, which is ALSO TRUTH, but it's better to include NONE, just a plain description, No unproved claims, no 3 lines of latin, no filler. Just a short description.

Again, the description in search engines (the lede I can't even read here in wikipedia) for "cigarette" has no "cancer" word in it (no controversy text as in Homeopathy) and IT EVEN HAS MARLBORO SUBPAGE LINK IN IT. Really?

Thanks.Sergiozambrano (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How many times do we have to say this: 'we have no control over what Google does. Your argument is with them, not us. Go argue with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be patient. I can't write as perfect as you can, but I"m not a child. I work in an SEO company, and know what I'm talking about. If I'm wrong, please allow others to bother with me, and I'll apologize when the time comes, and I'll even buy you a beer. Non-alcoholic beer.

Responded on user's talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dominus for your advice. I'll go somewhere else to ask for help and will read all the info you had to go through, so I can win my wings. As a last message here let me answer the ones who said Wikipedia has no control over Google:

The description just changed, thank you whoever did it, but I think you deserve to know that was possible, and dangerous as a knife. I still would like to access it, even as read-only to view who and what was edited before. If I didn't win the wings yet, please could you provide me that info? (change logs)

Here's an example of the page for "furniture", which is unlocked and anyone can see it, and the related text in search engines, so you can see Google shows what you provide, at least you don't provide it.

Screenshots of search engine results for a page description in Wikipedia, where it comes from and how to edit it Sorry the upload image isn't working. I uploaded it to my personal website http://sergiozambrano.com/Wikipedia_SEO.jpg Sergiozambrano (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nobody has made any changes to the article for the past five days. If you want to see the change log, go to the article, and click on "View history" at the top of the article. If you want to edit the lead, click on "Edit" next to it.

Again, how Google works is a complete mystery to us, and even to the people at Google. They have hundreds of programmers changing the code around the clock, and some of their tweaks may have weird or unintended consequences. I often have found an interesting hit on searching, and was frustrated to find that the search results were completely different only a few hours later, with my interesting hit nowhere to be found (aaarrrggghhh!!!) That's why nobody here is interested in editing our articles to take Google search into account.

If you ever need any more help, contact me on my talk page or ask at WP:TEAROOM, which is a place where new editors like you can get help. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidence??

Where is the evidence of efficacy WRT to homeopathy?

This is an encyclopedia. The evidence supporting the efficacy of this field should be brought forth post-haste or the article should be altered to reflect the pseudo scientific nature of this field. Are we going to go down the path of infinite left-wing academic discussion (contrarian for the sake of being contrarian), or are we going to present evidence of the facts and finalize this article? 75.203.60.249 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: see Homeopathy#Evidence. Longer answer: Needs some more editorial work, agreed. Perceived political bias(??) aside, please understand we're all volunteers here. Also, please be civil. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to contribute to the article with sourced content and you can make specific recommendations here. I doubt that making political aspersions will be helpful in that regard. – MrX 14:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how politics intersects with quack medicine. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the article presents the "It doesn't work worth a damn" arguments fairly well - and we have evidence (in the form of reliable sources) that say just that. You talks about "finalizing" the article...you should understand that no Wikipedia article is ever "final". SteveBaker (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

True. But absent a huge clinical trial that shows homeopathy works worth a damn, the essential point of this article isn't going to change. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep - that's for sure. WP:FRINGE requires that we give most weight to the mainstream view - which is "doesn't work a damn". Unless potent new evidence of at least WP:MEDRS-standard appears, that ain't gonna change. SteveBaker (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the word quackery should a second time in the first paragraph of the lede. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

POV edits reverted

I may have missed some discussion here, but I try to follow it. But these several edits were reverted by me, because they were highly POV and seem to delete some of the essential neutrality of the article, specifically pointing out the scientific attitude towards homeopathy. The editor removed those statements, making it seem like homeopathy had no issue with science. The editor needs to have a really discussion here before making those type of wholesale changes. If I see some discussion that a bulk of science editors were in favor of the edits, I'll revert myself. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on the previous discussions, I see my reversion was soundly based. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)