Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Discretionary sanction not being enforced

As mentioned above, User:DanaUllman was topic banned in 2009 from from homeopathy. The topic ban is broadly construed, of indefinite length, and explicitly applies to talk pages. I am not aware of any appeal or vacation of the ban, which was duly enacted under discretionary sanctions. Those of you with long memories will recall Dullman's obstinacy and source misrepresentation which he persists at displaying above. It is as if nothing was learned in the last 9 years. As an IP editor I cannot file at WP:AE but I encourage User:JzG or other longstanding editors of this topic to consider requesting enforcement. 65.96.223.83 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP Editor. Why are we entertaining Mr. Ullman on this page? 10 years haven't changed his tactics and allowing him to continue just wastes everyone's time. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI User:DanaUllman was blocked again on 18:00, March 24, 2018 for 2 weeks, for topic ban violations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=DanaUllman&limit=50&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist Unconventional2 (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting source

I have been reading through this recently published paper (OK, last year, but still relatively recent) looking into assertions that homeopathy is implausible (esp. by the British House of Commons' 2009 report on the topic). Seems like it could be useful to work into this article. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

homeopathy

this article may be written by someone who knows nothing about homeopathy Balakasirajan (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it appears to have been written by people who know a great deal about it, including why it is wrong. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why they mentioned here 'homoeopathy' as pseudo science since it is one of the best and effective alternative system of medicine. I don't think it is good that a person who doesn't know about the system writes an article like this. It will affect credibility of both homoeopathy and Wikipedia. Malootti (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It certainly does! Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, that would be making the fairly major assumption that homoeopathy has any credibility ... Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Homeopathy is an alternative to a system of medicine. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As Dara O’Briain says, it’s as a matter of definition that alternative medicine does not work. “We tested it all, and the stuff that worked became 'medicine'“. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Minchin's Law. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Homoeopathy is it really pseudopathy?

Hard to believe homoeopathy is pseudopathy. There are many unbelievable cure homoeopathy is doing. DrShubhangiT (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Unbelievable is right. Did you have any concrete suggestions supported by reliable sources? --tronvillain (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating. I have been challenging homeopaths for a decade to produce a single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything ever, and not one of them has been able to help. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the consensus is clearly shifting towards homeopathy not being a pseduoscience. We got three new editors in the last 48 hours who posted the same message. </sarcasm> And two of them spelled it "homoeopathy", so probably we got the name wrong as well. My bad, didn't know it was an alternate spelling. But still... byteflush _Talk 00:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Requesting people if possible avoid posting personal opinion on Wikipedia, we can respect what we have as alternative solution. Those who believe and has good result/cure will definitely follow the Homoeopathy.Prav3232

Probably time for you to read WP:Lunatic charlatans, followed by WP:SOCK and then WP:BLOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite biased, plays down placebo effects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article unfortunately is quite biased. As I once saw Eckart von Hirschhausen discuss, if I remember correctly, homeopathic treatments seem much more favorable to your doctors next door than the article suggests. Why is this so? (1) Homeopathy is a good source for placebo effect. Hardly mentioned in the article, placebo effects are actually pretty strong and can help a lot with many illnesses. At no point does the article clearly and unambigously say that the placebo effect is a scientifically accepted effect that improves the patient's condition and instead makes it seem to the average reader as if placebo effects were a mere chimera or effects that aren't really there (2) Homeopathy hardly has any severe side-effects, as with all placebos. This is a huge plus compared to many conventional medications that has to be taken into account in a rational risk-benefit-consideration (3) Homeopathy is a very cost-effective solution. If you look at the prices for conventional placebos on the market, those are much more expensive than the average homeophathic medication (100 conventional placebo pills = 18 EUR, 100 Arnica D12 globuli = 10 EUR). So why should a doctor prescribe anything other than homeopathy if he wants to try the placebo effect? Economically, that would hardly make any sense for the patient. Thus, in fact, contrary to what the article suggests, homeopathy is actually used quite extensively in medical practice when it comes to harmless illnesses. What is actually controversial are the teachings of homeopathy, as well as using it as the only medication for severe illnesses that are treatable well by conventional medicine. Let's say a patient comes to you with mild but annoying pain. What would you rather recommend? Ibuprofen or simply some homeopathic dilution? --rtc (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Placebo effects are not a thing. Placebo is a control arm in a study, not an intervention in itself. Every single study purporting to show any benefit of placebo relies on subjective endpoints, and usually on self-reporting. There is no credible evidence of any objective effect, despite the vigorous efforts of a small group of "integrative" proponents. Placebo is a convenient term to describe regression to the mean, natural course of disease, expectation effects, observer bias and all the other confounders that make it difficult to real from illusory treatment effects. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

rtc - your argument seems to be that homeopathy is useful because it's useless. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ibuprofen. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope you are aware of the Ibuprofen#Adverse effects, especially when using it on a long-term basis. --rtc (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You asked, I answered. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. And I commented on the answer. --rtc (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Doctor to Patient "I am going to prescribe some Arnica"

Patient to Doctor "Why?"

What should the Doctor say? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Because that relieves your symptoms and in my opinion is the best option considering risks and benefits. If you are unsure, feel free to ask for a second opinion. You can also try going without any medication at all but relaxing a bit more, taking a walk every day, to reduce stress; this often helps as well." --rtc (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

An ethically questionable doctor then. Lovely. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So what did he do wrong? --rtc (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you a physician? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You are diverting form the question. --rtc (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No you are saying that. I disagree that the placebo effect is useless. --rtc (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

But that only "works" because it doesn't do anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh? --rtc (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"vigorous efforts of a small group"? Placebo clearly and correctly states: "The traditional view of placebo effects is that they are clinically powerful" Sure, it then goes on saying "some recent research has called into question" but let's be honest, this is far from being the scientific consensus. --rtc (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Tradition says "X", newer research says "not X" is a good reason for "X" to you? Please read our article about the fallacy of Appeal to tradition.

As legions of banned users can attest: if you want your to include your personal opinion about homeopathy, you need good sources. Things have changed since 1790. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, tradition has some weight against the most recent fashionable argument. Yes it is known that those crackpot hunters in this and similar articles use subliminal threats of banning and quite soon actual banning for alleged "troublemaking" as soon as their dogmas are being argued against. --rtc (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between dogma and evidence. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to learn their similarities. Evidence is theory-laden. Which is not to be seen as me supporting "anything goes" and the like--rtc (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So, evidence is theory-laden, while tradition has no faults. And this is why your private opinion belongs in the article instead of the evidence. Over the years, I have seen much better attempts from pseudoscience proponents. (Still, they all failed.) WP:SNOW applies here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Placebo effect

There is no such thing as the "placebo effect". It is not a thing. "Placebo effects" are a shorthand in clinical trials for changes that are experienced without active treatment - natural course of disease, regression toward the mean, recall bias and so on. Homeopaths claim to "harness" the "placebo effect". This is a con. There is no effect to harness, as the evidence rater clearly shows. In trials, the "placebo effect" vanishes when the study is properly controlled. A handful of people (e.g. Kaptchuk) have a vested interest in promoting it as a smokescreen for woo, but the reality-based medical community has ifnally caught on to the fact that The Powerful placebo was a crock, with no actual demonstrable effect in any of the studies included. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

please explain, why you are removing the placebo effect. You refer to a discussion at placebo, however I could not really find your reference. Isn't placebo effect a well established and longstanding term to describe observed effects without giving real medicine? --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Referring to the "placebo effect" outside of a clinical trial is potentially misleading, implying a unified effect, as opposed to a collection of mechanisms like bias, regression to the mean, analysis errors, the natural history of the disease, research artifacts, and so on. Homeopaths have actually started to say that it's okay that homeopathy is as good as a placebo because of the mind over matter "Powerful Placebo." --tronvillain (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I just did explain. There is no such thing as the "placebo effect". In clinical trials it is shorthand for everything other than actual treatment effects. Outside clinical trials, it is meaningless. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Homeopathy is very diluted BS, and an unadulterated product is totally harmless. You can't overdose on it. A homeopathic remedy makes an ideal "placebo", as it gets the patient/customer to think they are getting treatment, when they are actually only getting something that has no physiological effect on any real disease process. The only effects would be psychological, IOW a false comfort that fools the person. That can be dangerous, because a temporary sense of "now I'm going to get better" may postpone necessary and real treatment a bit longer, until it's too late. In that sense it isn't "totally harmless", but can be very dangerous. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Likely that some readers (like me) understood the paragraph to mean that it has no effect, while others (possibly influenced by advertizements redefining the definition) interpreted it as having some small effect... If we keep "placebo effect" there, it may require more context. —PaleoNeonate – 16:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent additions by JC7V7DC5768

Hi @JC7V7DC5768: I'm still going over your changes to the page, but please recognize that abstracts found on the NIH's NCBI/PubMed website are not published by the NIH. It is merely an abstract indexing service. So when you put the NIH down as the publisher, or the NCBI down as the website, you are misrepresenting reality. I will also note that OMICS journals are essentially vanity publications, and are not reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I was invited by JC7V7DC5768 to also audit the changes. I have improved citations a bit and have tagged a few as potentially unreliable. The Omics one should ideally not be used as it's considered predatory publishing. The new religious views section appears to have a synthesis issue (WP:SYNTH): sources are selected by the editor to make the conclusions. These may potentially still be kept as examples, but ideally the section should start by summarizing an academic source that discusses that topic. As a result the reliable source's conclusion would be in the section rather than ours. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A large-scale investigation into predatory publishing has just been published in India and legal actions are being launched against OMICS as a result. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The addition of a hydrotherapy section was odd, given that there's a hydrotherapy article. Although looking at the hydrotherapy article now, there may be some undue profringe there. --tronvillain (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Good article

I believe that this article is ready to be nominated for a good article review. I feel there is enough improvements big and small since 2012 that it meets good article criteria. So if others agree nominate it. JC7V-constructive zone 19:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Scotland/England/UK stuff

Black Kite, Zythe Just a quick question - are we certain that the Bristol centre is the only place left in England offering homeopathy on the NHS? I know that GPs are have been formally advised not to prescribe homeopathic remedies, but are we sure that the are proscribed from doing so? My understanding was that there was a list of remedies that the NHS has said they won't pay for, but if a GP has a regular visitor who comes in with a cold and asks for sugar pills, they were still allowed to prescribe them (to make them go away) unless the specific sugar pill is on the blacklist. I'd be delighted to learn that it is getting completely kicked out, but the stuff I've read is a bit fuzzy. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 17:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Homeopathy can only be accessed on the NHS in England and Wales via individual exemptions. It's not blacklisted, but doctors cannot simply prescribe, they have to get a specific approval, according to Marsh. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a difference here between "available", "offered" and "funded". AFAICS it is still available (in limited circumstances), but it's not offered, and from February 2019 it won't be funded. Though it's so unclear I wouldn't be surprised to see I've got this wrong. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Everything is available unless it's blacklisted, but in this case it might as well not be because the NHS doesn't fund it. Reliable sources are generally describing this as "no longer available", notably NHE: [1]. We can safely follow that and ignore any querulous complaints that might arise I reckon. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Colour me delighted (and happy with current wording). GirthSummit _(blether) 20:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hiya. Bristol and Somerset defunded it earlier this year, unless a special panel can justify a patient really needing it (which is theoretically impossible) - so it's legitimate to say it's not funded anywhere in England. You could say "not funded routinely" but that might imply it's still occasionally funded in a way that it's not. CCGs report £0 spending on homeopathy in Wales and Northern Ireland, according to Good Thinking Society research.Zythe (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I hereby reign my neck in all the way, and apologise for my earlier revert. I didn't know this had gone so far in England; when I read your edit I did a search to see if Bristol was still operating, which led to the link I cited, but I should have brought it here before reverting. I'm probably just an oversensitive Glaswegian, in denial that my city seems to have the last remaining bastion of this stuff...GirthSummit _(blether) 23:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

Change : "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific." To : Homeopathy is a an alternative therapy which is scientifically proven, but yet to be proved by the laws of physics.

Change: "Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition";[2][3][4][5] to: Homeopathic preparations are effective for treating illness.

Change: "large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, indicating that any positive effects that follow treatment are due to factors such as normal recovery from illness, or regression toward the mean."[6][7][8] To: large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be beneficial, the effects are proven with significant improvement of patients recorded by clinical data and laboratory reports. Homeopathy1 (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Claims like that need sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

work done by Prof. Jayesh Bellare group of Chemical engineering department of IIT Bombay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCrUpuAADac keywords: nanoparticle, method of preparation, hormesis, super-Avogadro dilution, transmission electron microscope, field image, electron diffraction, high-speed video snap, FT-IR spectrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.117.182 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done No change to the article suggested, even if the source were useful. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Outright negative tone of the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No one that contributed to this article, or those that kept an eye on it after considered seriously that not a single person involved with homeopathy bothered to defend it here. The silence from their side is deafening. That is meant of course to reveal that all those who put this article together have nothing to do with homeopathy. Thus the article is de facto biased (like many others no doubt). It is a bad article on this regard (may have been even worse though). A biased or one sided article is essentially of little or no use. It is only an indication that in this occasion Wikipedia has failed its main mission. In this instance it is only able to provide a small idea of the controversy that surrounds homeopathy. This has also been the case in other one sided articles of course. By trying to be neutral Wikipedia people are simply siding with the majority. They know no better but I am afraid this is not neutrality, it is not even common sense. One cannot really expect to find here these qualities? If you people cannot, then let others step in to help...Beickus (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Better read WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and then maybe WP:Lunatic Charlatans. Wikipedia reflects accepted reality and calls out bogus BS for what it is. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - Again

There is an RfC relevant to this topic at - the COI noticeboardMorgan Leigh | Talk 00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Public opposition

I think the Public opposition section needs some serious attention. At the moment, we have a lengthening list of lawsuits (settled and unsettled), petitions, course cancellations, demonstrations, official policy changes, and so forth. What we don't have is any narrative to tie any of it together. PepperBeast (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The narrative kind of is the ever lengthening list, though. Homeopathy is in retreat and there is a real chance that its mid to late 20th Century resurgence in mainstream practice through the miracle of rebranding quackery as CAM / IM, may be at an end. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Regulation in Germany

The wording in your article is misleading: it ought to be added that the three-year course (which is correctly mentioned) is to be done AFTER obtaining the medical license, i.e. all homoeopathic physicians have got the same basic education as all other physicians who do not choose that career path. Most have also qualified as a general practitioner (again after the same training as all other g. p.s in the country) in addition to their homoeopathc training. --129.206.185.175 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Added: Regarding "misleading": Because other countries (India being the example that comes to my mind, or the USA in 19th century) have or had seperate courses of study from the very beginning, i.e. homoeopathic physicians are or were being trained in their own institutions/colleges, and allopathic, ayurvedic, chiropractic etc in theirs. --129.206.185.175 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction not being enforced

As mentioned above, User:DanaUllman was topic banned in 2009 from from homeopathy. The topic ban is broadly construed, of indefinite length, and explicitly applies to talk pages. I am not aware of any appeal or vacation of the ban, which was duly enacted under discretionary sanctions. Those of you with long memories will recall Dullman's obstinacy and source misrepresentation which he persists at displaying above. It is as if nothing was learned in the last 9 years. As an IP editor I cannot file at WP:AE but I encourage User:JzG or other longstanding editors of this topic to consider requesting enforcement. 65.96.223.83 (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP Editor. Why are we entertaining Mr. Ullman on this page? 10 years haven't changed his tactics and allowing him to continue just wastes everyone's time. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI User:DanaUllman was blocked again on 18:00, March 24, 2018 for 2 weeks, for topic ban violations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BlockList?wpTarget=DanaUllman&limit=50&wpFormIdentifier=blocklist Unconventional2 (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting source

I have been reading through this recently published paper (OK, last year, but still relatively recent) looking into assertions that homeopathy is implausible (esp. by the British House of Commons' 2009 report on the topic). Seems like it could be useful to work into this article. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

homeopathy

this article may be written by someone who knows nothing about homeopathy Balakasirajan (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, it appears to have been written by people who know a great deal about it, including why it is wrong. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why they mentioned here 'homoeopathy' as pseudo science since it is one of the best and effective alternative system of medicine. I don't think it is good that a person who doesn't know about the system writes an article like this. It will affect credibility of both homoeopathy and Wikipedia. Malootti (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It certainly does! Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, that would be making the fairly major assumption that homoeopathy has any credibility ... Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Homeopathy is an alternative to a system of medicine. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As Dara O’Briain says, it’s as a matter of definition that alternative medicine does not work. “We tested it all, and the stuff that worked became 'medicine'“. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Minchin's Law. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Homoeopathy is it really pseudopathy?

Hard to believe homoeopathy is pseudopathy. There are many unbelievable cure homoeopathy is doing. DrShubhangiT (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Unbelievable is right. Did you have any concrete suggestions supported by reliable sources? --tronvillain (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating. I have been challenging homeopaths for a decade to produce a single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything ever, and not one of them has been able to help. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the consensus is clearly shifting towards homeopathy not being a pseduoscience. We got three new editors in the last 48 hours who posted the same message. </sarcasm> And two of them spelled it "homoeopathy", so probably we got the name wrong as well. My bad, didn't know it was an alternate spelling. But still... byteflush _Talk 00:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Requesting people if possible avoid posting personal opinion on Wikipedia, we can respect what we have as alternative solution. Those who believe and has good result/cure will definitely follow the Homoeopathy.Prav3232

Probably time for you to read WP:Lunatic charlatans, followed by WP:SOCK and then WP:BLOCK. Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite biased, plays down placebo effects

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article unfortunately is quite biased. As I once saw Eckart von Hirschhausen discuss, if I remember correctly, homeopathic treatments seem much more favorable to your doctors next door than the article suggests. Why is this so? (1) Homeopathy is a good source for placebo effect. Hardly mentioned in the article, placebo effects are actually pretty strong and can help a lot with many illnesses. At no point does the article clearly and unambigously say that the placebo effect is a scientifically accepted effect that improves the patient's condition and instead makes it seem to the average reader as if placebo effects were a mere chimera or effects that aren't really there (2) Homeopathy hardly has any severe side-effects, as with all placebos. This is a huge plus compared to many conventional medications that has to be taken into account in a rational risk-benefit-consideration (3) Homeopathy is a very cost-effective solution. If you look at the prices for conventional placebos on the market, those are much more expensive than the average homeophathic medication (100 conventional placebo pills = 18 EUR, 100 Arnica D12 globuli = 10 EUR). So why should a doctor prescribe anything other than homeopathy if he wants to try the placebo effect? Economically, that would hardly make any sense for the patient. Thus, in fact, contrary to what the article suggests, homeopathy is actually used quite extensively in medical practice when it comes to harmless illnesses. What is actually controversial are the teachings of homeopathy, as well as using it as the only medication for severe illnesses that are treatable well by conventional medicine. Let's say a patient comes to you with mild but annoying pain. What would you rather recommend? Ibuprofen or simply some homeopathic dilution? --rtc (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Placebo effects are not a thing. Placebo is a control arm in a study, not an intervention in itself. Every single study purporting to show any benefit of placebo relies on subjective endpoints, and usually on self-reporting. There is no credible evidence of any objective effect, despite the vigorous efforts of a small group of "integrative" proponents. Placebo is a convenient term to describe regression to the mean, natural course of disease, expectation effects, observer bias and all the other confounders that make it difficult to real from illusory treatment effects. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

rtc - your argument seems to be that homeopathy is useful because it's useless. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ibuprofen. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope you are aware of the Ibuprofen#Adverse effects, especially when using it on a long-term basis. --rtc (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You asked, I answered. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. And I commented on the answer. --rtc (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Doctor to Patient "I am going to prescribe some Arnica"

Patient to Doctor "Why?"

What should the Doctor say? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Because that relieves your symptoms and in my opinion is the best option considering risks and benefits. If you are unsure, feel free to ask for a second opinion. You can also try going without any medication at all but relaxing a bit more, taking a walk every day, to reduce stress; this often helps as well." --rtc (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

An ethically questionable doctor then. Lovely. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So what did he do wrong? --rtc (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you a physician? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You are diverting form the question. --rtc (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No you are saying that. I disagree that the placebo effect is useless. --rtc (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

But that only "works" because it doesn't do anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh? --rtc (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"vigorous efforts of a small group"? Placebo clearly and correctly states: "The traditional view of placebo effects is that they are clinically powerful" Sure, it then goes on saying "some recent research has called into question" but let's be honest, this is far from being the scientific consensus. --rtc (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Tradition says "X", newer research says "not X" is a good reason for "X" to you? Please read our article about the fallacy of Appeal to tradition.

As legions of banned users can attest: if you want your to include your personal opinion about homeopathy, you need good sources. Things have changed since 1790. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, tradition has some weight against the most recent fashionable argument. Yes it is known that those crackpot hunters in this and similar articles use subliminal threats of banning and quite soon actual banning for alleged "troublemaking" as soon as their dogmas are being argued against. --rtc (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to learn the difference between dogma and evidence. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to learn their similarities. Evidence is theory-laden. Which is not to be seen as me supporting "anything goes" and the like--rtc (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So, evidence is theory-laden, while tradition has no faults. And this is why your private opinion belongs in the article instead of the evidence. Over the years, I have seen much better attempts from pseudoscience proponents. (Still, they all failed.) WP:SNOW applies here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Placebo effect

There is no such thing as the "placebo effect". It is not a thing. "Placebo effects" are a shorthand in clinical trials for changes that are experienced without active treatment - natural course of disease, regression toward the mean, recall bias and so on. Homeopaths claim to "harness" the "placebo effect". This is a con. There is no effect to harness, as the evidence rater clearly shows. In trials, the "placebo effect" vanishes when the study is properly controlled. A handful of people (e.g. Kaptchuk) have a vested interest in promoting it as a smokescreen for woo, but the reality-based medical community has ifnally caught on to the fact that The Powerful placebo was a crock, with no actual demonstrable effect in any of the studies included. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

please explain, why you are removing the placebo effect. You refer to a discussion at placebo, however I could not really find your reference. Isn't placebo effect a well established and longstanding term to describe observed effects without giving real medicine? --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Referring to the "placebo effect" outside of a clinical trial is potentially misleading, implying a unified effect, as opposed to a collection of mechanisms like bias, regression to the mean, analysis errors, the natural history of the disease, research artifacts, and so on. Homeopaths have actually started to say that it's okay that homeopathy is as good as a placebo because of the mind over matter "Powerful Placebo." --tronvillain (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I just did explain. There is no such thing as the "placebo effect". In clinical trials it is shorthand for everything other than actual treatment effects. Outside clinical trials, it is meaningless. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Homeopathy is very diluted BS, and an unadulterated product is totally harmless. You can't overdose on it. A homeopathic remedy makes an ideal "placebo", as it gets the patient/customer to think they are getting treatment, when they are actually only getting something that has no physiological effect on any real disease process. The only effects would be psychological, IOW a false comfort that fools the person. That can be dangerous, because a temporary sense of "now I'm going to get better" may postpone necessary and real treatment a bit longer, until it's too late. In that sense it isn't "totally harmless", but can be very dangerous. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Likely that some readers (like me) understood the paragraph to mean that it has no effect, while others (possibly influenced by advertizements redefining the definition) interpreted it as having some small effect... If we keep "placebo effect" there, it may require more context. —PaleoNeonate – 16:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent additions by JC7V7DC5768

Hi @JC7V7DC5768: I'm still going over your changes to the page, but please recognize that abstracts found on the NIH's NCBI/PubMed website are not published by the NIH. It is merely an abstract indexing service. So when you put the NIH down as the publisher, or the NCBI down as the website, you are misrepresenting reality. I will also note that OMICS journals are essentially vanity publications, and are not reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I was invited by JC7V7DC5768 to also audit the changes. I have improved citations a bit and have tagged a few as potentially unreliable. The Omics one should ideally not be used as it's considered predatory publishing. The new religious views section appears to have a synthesis issue (WP:SYNTH): sources are selected by the editor to make the conclusions. These may potentially still be kept as examples, but ideally the section should start by summarizing an academic source that discusses that topic. As a result the reliable source's conclusion would be in the section rather than ours. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A large-scale investigation into predatory publishing has just been published in India and legal actions are being launched against OMICS as a result. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The addition of a hydrotherapy section was odd, given that there's a hydrotherapy article. Although looking at the hydrotherapy article now, there may be some undue profringe there. --tronvillain (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Good article

I believe that this article is ready to be nominated for a good article review. I feel there is enough improvements big and small since 2012 that it meets good article criteria. So if others agree nominate it. JC7V-constructive zone 19:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Scotland/England/UK stuff

Black Kite, Zythe Just a quick question - are we certain that the Bristol centre is the only place left in England offering homeopathy on the NHS? I know that GPs are have been formally advised not to prescribe homeopathic remedies, but are we sure that the are proscribed from doing so? My understanding was that there was a list of remedies that the NHS has said they won't pay for, but if a GP has a regular visitor who comes in with a cold and asks for sugar pills, they were still allowed to prescribe them (to make them go away) unless the specific sugar pill is on the blacklist. I'd be delighted to learn that it is getting completely kicked out, but the stuff I've read is a bit fuzzy. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 17:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Homeopathy can only be accessed on the NHS in England and Wales via individual exemptions. It's not blacklisted, but doctors cannot simply prescribe, they have to get a specific approval, according to Marsh. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a difference here between "available", "offered" and "funded". AFAICS it is still available (in limited circumstances), but it's not offered, and from February 2019 it won't be funded. Though it's so unclear I wouldn't be surprised to see I've got this wrong. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Everything is available unless it's blacklisted, but in this case it might as well not be because the NHS doesn't fund it. Reliable sources are generally describing this as "no longer available", notably NHE: [2]. We can safely follow that and ignore any querulous complaints that might arise I reckon. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Colour me delighted (and happy with current wording). GirthSummit _(blether) 20:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hiya. Bristol and Somerset defunded it earlier this year, unless a special panel can justify a patient really needing it (which is theoretically impossible) - so it's legitimate to say it's not funded anywhere in England. You could say "not funded routinely" but that might imply it's still occasionally funded in a way that it's not. CCGs report £0 spending on homeopathy in Wales and Northern Ireland, according to Good Thinking Society research.Zythe (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I hereby reign my neck in all the way, and apologise for my earlier revert. I didn't know this had gone so far in England; when I read your edit I did a search to see if Bristol was still operating, which led to the link I cited, but I should have brought it here before reverting. I'm probably just an oversensitive Glaswegian, in denial that my city seems to have the last remaining bastion of this stuff...GirthSummit _(blether) 23:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2018

Change : "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific." To : Homeopathy is a an alternative therapy which is scientifically proven, but yet to be proved by the laws of physics.

Change: "Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition";[2][3][4][5] to: Homeopathic preparations are effective for treating illness.

Change: "large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, indicating that any positive effects that follow treatment are due to factors such as normal recovery from illness, or regression toward the mean."[6][7][8] To: large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be beneficial, the effects are proven with significant improvement of patients recorded by clinical data and laboratory reports. Homeopathy1 (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Claims like that need sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

work done by Prof. Jayesh Bellare group of Chemical engineering department of IIT Bombay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCrUpuAADac keywords: nanoparticle, method of preparation, hormesis, super-Avogadro dilution, transmission electron microscope, field image, electron diffraction, high-speed video snap, FT-IR spectrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.56.117.182 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done No change to the article suggested, even if the source were useful. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Outright negative tone of the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No one that contributed to this article, or those that kept an eye on it after considered seriously that not a single person involved with homeopathy bothered to defend it here. The silence from their side is deafening. That is meant of course to reveal that all those who put this article together have nothing to do with homeopathy. Thus the article is de facto biased (like many others no doubt). It is a bad article on this regard (may have been even worse though). A biased or one sided article is essentially of little or no use. It is only an indication that in this occasion Wikipedia has failed its main mission. In this instance it is only able to provide a small idea of the controversy that surrounds homeopathy. This has also been the case in other one sided articles of course. By trying to be neutral Wikipedia people are simply siding with the majority. They know no better but I am afraid this is not neutrality, it is not even common sense. One cannot really expect to find here these qualities? If you people cannot, then let others step in to help...Beickus (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Better read WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and then maybe WP:Lunatic Charlatans. Wikipedia reflects accepted reality and calls out bogus BS for what it is. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC - Again

There is an RfC relevant to this topic at - the COI noticeboardMorgan Leigh | Talk 00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Public opposition

I think the Public opposition section needs some serious attention. At the moment, we have a lengthening list of lawsuits (settled and unsettled), petitions, course cancellations, demonstrations, official policy changes, and so forth. What we don't have is any narrative to tie any of it together. PepperBeast (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The narrative kind of is the ever lengthening list, though. Homeopathy is in retreat and there is a real chance that its mid to late 20th Century resurgence in mainstream practice through the miracle of rebranding quackery as CAM / IM, may be at an end. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Regulation in Germany

The wording in your article is misleading: it ought to be added that the three-year course (which is correctly mentioned) is to be done AFTER obtaining the medical license, i.e. all homoeopathic physicians have got the same basic education as all other physicians who do not choose that career path. Most have also qualified as a general practitioner (again after the same training as all other g. p.s in the country) in addition to their homoeopathc training. --129.206.185.175 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Added: Regarding "misleading": Because other countries (India being the example that comes to my mind, or the USA in 19th century) have or had seperate courses of study from the very beginning, i.e. homoeopathic physicians are or were being trained in their own institutions/colleges, and allopathic, ayurvedic, chiropractic etc in theirs. --129.206.185.175 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read the below given article and comment

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/15/homeopathy-works-scientific-evidence

Also, the question I have in mind: does homoeopathy exacerbate the placebo effect, i.e., does it increase the placebo effect by exhibiting effects in psychological aspects? Some drugs make one feel very happy, some make one excited, etc. Do homoeopathic drugs, in large concentration (having significant number of molecules in solution) cause any such change in human behaviour (not necessarily observable, usually, as the dilutions are extremely low)? Viv73 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Crappy article from the Grone’s Comment is Free. Waste of newsprint and pixels. Sorry, but you asked. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The settled position of this article and WP generally is that homeopathy is bunk; this talk page should not be used for trying to sneak pro-homeopathy arguments in by the back door nor for sneaking in links to partial articles that would not otherwise survive WP:EL. This discussion should be removed per WP:NOTFORUM and absent any cogent arguments to the contrary I will do in shortly. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To specifically respond to the comment for anyone reading this in an archive, the content of articles on medical subjects is based on medical sources, not newspaper articles (see WP:MEDRS). The author of the guardian piece does cite medical literature, but in a misleading fashion, interpreting "some clinical trials show homeopathy to be effective but are so poorly done the results are meaningless" as "clinical trials show homeopathy to be effective". In brief, the Wikipedia article already reflects the actual content of the sources cited in the newspaper article. Though if Viv wants to speculate on mechanisms rather than talk about improving the article, then yeah, notforum. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Error on archive 64

Just a heads up: it seems Lowercase sigmabot III duplicated the text on talk:Homeopathy/archive 64. Would fix it, yet to know how. 2A02:A210:A1C1:8200:AC02:960A:5145:3D71 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked but couldn't see an obvious issue. However, it can happen for multiple thread copies to be archived when editors sometimes bring back threads to this talk page. If there's something I missed, you may need to be more specific. Thanks for the note, —PaleoNeonate – 12:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at the list of posts at the top, the subject index. It repeats the whole lot twice. I could fix it by deleting the duplicate stuff, but we aren't supposed to do that,(edit the Archives) so I didn't. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh you're right, there were two indexes. Since the talk header already has the feature, I removed the extra index (which did not involve editing the archives). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As a pedant, I wish to know if two indexes are together called indices? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right. —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Always nice to see comments have an effect, thank you! Now I'll readily admit I don't understand all the talk about 'indexeceses', but when I open the archive, I still see Item 1-15 repeated in item 16-30, in the menu as well as in the body of the text. If the archives are not supposed to be edited, then so be it. The original heads-up was also intended to point to a possible error in the sigmabot, which might be repeated on other talk pages, which would lead to unnecessary bloat. I'm still learning this wiki-thing and know next to nothing about bots; should I leave a message on its talkpage? 2A02:A210:A1C1:8200:A532:5F36:24BB:A015 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Oh wait, I think I got it. The double index/two indices caused the double archiving, right? Sorry to've bothered you again, in that case. 2A02:A210:A1C1:8200:A532:5F36:24BB:A015 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"No molecules remain"

In the lead: "Dilution typically continues well past the point where no molecules of the original substance remain." A miswording, since the substance remains somewhere. Suggested rewording: "Dilution typically continues well past the point where individual doses would contain no molecules of the original substance." 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• A very good point, and a change I have made. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Evidence

This is clearly not moving forward and there is no consensus for adding anything based on the reported sources. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Can any of the links mentioned at https://www.ccrhindia.nic.in/Index1.aspx?lid=7624&lsid=9684&pid=642&lev=2&Regid=0&langid=1 be used as evidence in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2819:112B:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Those links are just pointing to entire databases, not sources. It would be like asking if The New York Public Library is a good source - you have to be way more specific. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Ultra-Diluted Toxicodendron pubescens attenuates pro- inflammatory cytokines and ROS mediated neuropathic pain in rats* One of the world's premiere Science journal has published research paper by Indian group of researchers on pain relieving properties of a popular Homoeopathic Medicine. Published in the Journal *Scientific Reports* from the *Nature* group, the paper through experiments on cell line and laboratory rats, describes how ultra diluted Homoeopathic Medicine Toxicodendron Pubescens, popularly known as *Rhus Tox* can reduce pain in rats. The study shows protective effects of Rhus Tox against sciatic nerve injury through maintainance of normal nerve architecture and inhibition of inflammatory changes. The neuro protective effect suggests involvement of anti oxidative and anti inflammatory mechanism. Samir K Brahmachari, biologist and former Director General of CSIR (Council of Scientific & Industrial Research), GoI expressed "Experiments are well conducted and measurements look convincing". As per the record of Ministry of AYUSH, under the Ministry of Health, under the Government of India, Homoeopathy has the highest number of quality Research papers published among all AYUSH systems. However Homoeopathy, time and again, has been a soft target of criticism of being unscientific to suppress it's growing popularity among the masses and classes. This study, through its positive results and high quality data, once again establishes the scientificity of Homoeopathic therapeutic modalities while keeping the critics dumbstruck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:281A:7C1F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC) That article was retracted. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44557-w Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Some more evidence of effectiveness:- https://www.hri-research.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/NHMRC-Information-Paper-Mar2015.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000353.pub2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009710.pub2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005648.pub2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28437146 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:281A:7C1F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC) More evidence:- http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12006007011 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12006004029 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12011005521 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12006003041 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=22011001331 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29768637 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12007000273 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/928/CN-01617928/frame.html http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=32014000336 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30482029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005974.pub4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005974.pub5 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12001001913 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12003001645 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=11998002055 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003399 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004923.pub2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28340607 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12013059274 http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/par/documents/websiteresources/con321968.pdf http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/Showrecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=32016000312 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12005005278 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12013030001 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12010005641 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=22013009513 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12011004329 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12012006384 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/860/CN-01441860/frame.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pds.3316/abstract There are a lot more at https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/search?pa=7&q=homeopathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:281A:7C1F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC) I am trying to prove that homeopathy is not placebo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:281A:7C1F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Hello IP, you should probably have read the FAQ at the top of this page before spending all that time adding those links. Specifically Q7. -- McSly (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC) I don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:282B:C895:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC) You have spent some time finding and adding those links in order to "prove that homeopathy is not placebo!". Question 7 of the FAQ on this page specifically addresses this: "Should alleged proof that homeopathy works be included in the article? (No.)". So if you had read the FAQ first, you would have saved the time since it is clearly answering your question. --McSly (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC) I looked through some of your links. You have dumped on this talk page, among other studies, a retracted paper, reviews that state the studies of homeopathy are of such poor quality no conclusions can be drawn, and a feasibility study that determine it was impossible to perform a certain type of study of homeopathy and thus no conclusions could or would be drawn. If you think these are "evidences of homeopathy", I think you are just attempting a link-bomb version of the gish gallop. If you can't be bothered to form coherent arguments or even read the studies you're throwing at us, you're simply wasting everyone's time. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Well shouldn’t this crap be deleted then? Andyjsmith (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent evidence on Homeopathy - it is really a placebo therapy?

The most recent review is not clear...

The quality of the body of evidence is low. °A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, (that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo) but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28340607— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1938 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"If we take out the data we dont like, we get different results." Gosh, that's clever. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 04:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

"The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence." Okay. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

°A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, (that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo) --Jay1938 (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

If I'm reading it correctly, this paper is saying that the quality of the trials was insufficient to be certain that the effects of homeopathy were definitely the same as the placebos tested against - have I read that right? Not 'it looks like it might work', but 'these trials were too poor for us to draw any conclusions with confidence'? Or have I misread it? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Right. This says "tests were not close enough to call it a placebo, but the tests themselves were too small to support any conclusions." So... unless for Wikipedia's purposes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the same conclusion as that in Linde part 2 from way back in 1998: higher quality studies are less likely to find an effect. While advocates will insist that this means there is value to be found in the lower quality trials, what it really means is that p-values are useless when even small amounts of bias or other quality compromises are introduced into small studies.EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Another way to think of this is that for well conducted trials, it is impossible to distinguish between two placebos with a finite sample size. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2019

change word Pseudoscience to complex science Christoaa (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done this is not a valid edit request as it provides no actual reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019

"In 2019, the Canadian government stopped funding homeopathic foreign aid to Honduras. the Quebec charity, Terre Sans Frontières, had gotten $200,000 over five years Global Affairs' Volunteer Cooperation Program."

Change 'the Quebec charity' to "The Quebec charity" 74.113.53.193 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done aboideau^talk 15:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

The edit I made here, removing Category:Pseudoscience, was correct, as per WP:SUPERCAT. Removing the category has nothing to do with suggesting that homeopathy is not pseudoscience. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Homeopathy is the canonical pseudoscience. Guy (help!) 00:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know... Category:Pseudoscience is definitely not as diffused as it could be, but I think it makes sense for it to directly contain the main articles on major pseudoscientific movements. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

To repeat myself, "Removing the category has nothing to do with suggesting that homeopathy is not pseudoscience." The reason given above for restoring the category is mistaken and has no basis in the categorization rules. We have a quite clear guideline indicating that the category should be removed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The way you are arguing gives the impression there are no exceptions to SUPERCAT, which is false. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

No one has suggested a good reason for making an exception. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The more accurate statement is that you personally judge the offered reasons not to be good. I think this is an excellent example to make use of {{All included}}, and is quite similar to its other uses. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience currently contains Template:catdiffuse. Freeknowledgecreator is correct that this should be diffused one level down to Category:Homeopathy. I'd like to remind editors here that the purpose of categories is to facilitate browsing and navigation, not to badge the article with a particular characterization. We correctly and unequivocally identify this subject as pseudoscience in the lede. VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help me work out an ambiguity then. There is a major qualitative difference between a specific pseudoscientific claim and an entire pseudoscientific school of thought. Homeopathy is pseudoscience. But Homeopathy is also a pseudoscience. A particular homeopathic remedy or theory is also pseudoscience, but it is not "a" pseudoscience. If not Category:Pseudoscience, I think there should be a category that is explicitly for these top-level subjects. There is Category:Alternative medical systems, but that lists pseudoscientific as well as non-scientific subjects. A category of "the pseudosciences" would be broader than just medicine and would also include things like astrology. The top level science articles have a simple navigation template for linking to the other ones, so I suppose that's another possibility for linking these subjects directly - the nav template presently used is a bit cluttered, and mixes major fields of pseudoscience with both higher categorizations and more specialized items. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of Category:Pseudoscience is to help the reader find articles that illustrate the concept of pseudoscience. This is probably one of the most relevant articles tot hat purpose - it has been so widely studied and discussed as an exemplar of pseudoscientific endeavour that omitting it violates the principle of minimum astonishment. Guy (help!) 14:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph you given in page is wrong

The following paragraphs please remove this Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific.[2][3][4][5] Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition; large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, indicating that any positive effects that follow treatment are not due to the treatment itself but instead to factors such as normal recovery from illness, or regression toward the mean.[6][7][8] I am treating several patients by homeopathy and cure several patients. it is perfect science which based on natural law of cure Dr.Prateek jaiswal (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

As stated the many times above, no, it's not. Praxidicae (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The following paragraphs please remove this Homeopathy is a pseudoscience – a belief that is incorrectly presented as scientific.[2][3][4][5] Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition; large-scale studies have found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, indicating that any positive effects that follow treatment are not due to the treatment itself but instead to factors such as normal recovery from illness, or regression toward the mean.[6][7][8] I am treating several patients by homeopathy and cure several patients. it is perfect science which based on natural law of cure Ravipa8127 (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. This is properly sourced and correct. Homeopathy is the textbook case of pseudoscience. --McSly (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cochrane Meta Reviews and Systematic Rreviews

As well as PubMed, etc. you might also like to list the Cochrane Organisation in the preamble under "Ideal sources ..." for its many meta and systematic reviews of studies on homeopathy, particular in relation to homeopathy as applied to particular diseases. See . Hedley 07:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfinger (talk • contribs)

Will those be included in a pubmed search? I'm not opposed to its inclusion, but either way, they're honestly not that useful. You can reliably predict that nearly every Cochrane review of alt-med will ultimately conclude, "there is insufficient evidence from high quality studies to determine whether _____ is an effective treatment for _____." Cochrane's standards are high enough that the majority of reviews don't make ludicrous conclusions, but they do have this weird thing about always having most of the authors be true believers. This is related to their internal requirement for authors to have "experience" in the field that is being reviewed. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

References

can't edit

it's "similia similibus curantur" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.159.73 (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected because of too much vandalism and disruption from believers and inexperienced editors. If you create an account and start editing various articles, you will soon be able to edit the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To answer the original question, both forms exists; indicative ("similia similibus curantur") and subjunctive ("similia similibus curentur"). See List_of_Latin_phrases_(S)#similia_similibus_curentur. Both are properly used in the article. --McSly (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Head of NHS

In the news this morning,[3] referring to "chancers being able to con more people into parting with their hard-earned cash in return for bogus treatments which at best do nothing, and at worst can be potentially dangerous". Source may be usable. Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Top work by Marsh there. Guy (help!) 12:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The lead

The lead is presently too long and too argumentative.Heptor (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nope. It’s just the right length and factual. Unless you’re pro-homeopathy in which case maybe you have a point. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Which one? Heptor (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, removing big chunks of a stable article that's been under attack by quacks forever isn't likely to find immediate consensus. You could probably make a case for moving some of it into "plausibility" or whatever, the bloat in the lede is the result of endless querulous demands by homeopathists so could certainly be improved but I think we need to discuss specifics here first. Guy (help!) 09:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this edit is fine, in particular referring to homeopathy as “pseudoscientific” instead of “a pseudoscience”, and getting it up front. Does anyone object to it being reinstated?

I also pretty much agree with getting rid of the “bloat”. How about it? Brunton (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: No worries, I realized that there would be discussions. No disrespect to the deleted material, many of the individual statements are well-written and should definitely find their home in the body of the article. But, the way it is all mashed together I find rather painful to read, sorry. The discussion about quackery vs science is interesting, but it has been settled on Wikipedia in favour of science, which I think is the only way possible to write a repository of knowledge; this is now a digression. I'm glad to see that there is a consensus to move some of the material out of the lead, I'll proceed with more caution. Heptor (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, Sure. I think the paragraph on international government level evaluations is important, but the third paragraph should probably be folded into the body as largely redundant to the government reviews by now. Guy (help!) 23:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I summarized the paragraphs on government level evaluations, leaving the details for section Government level reviews. Also, included a sentence stating that the Homeopathy remains popular, otherwise these reviews seem to be coming out of the blue. Heptor (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Brunton, that's fine a lot clearer. Guy (help!) 23:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Upon closer examination most of the material I had deleted is already present in other parts of the article, in particular Regulation and prevalence, Efficacy, Government level reviews. If anything, there is still a lot of redundancy in the article. Heptor (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, you took the lede form being too long to being way too short. Three paragraphs is fine for the lede, and one of them should be the government level reviews because withdrawal of government support is currently one of the most discussed facets of homeopathy. Guy (help!) 17:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG The Gov't level reviews were mentioned. There is no reason to list all eight of them in the lead though. Heptor (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, Brevity is admirable, but excessive brevity in this case risks lending support to fraud. See below. Guy (help!) 23:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

How? It said "homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any medical condition, and homeopathy itself is not a plausible system of treatment"[4]. Heptor (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible updated lede for discussion

Bear in mind that any removal of caveats and qualifications around the facts of homeopathy being bollocks will be bitterly opposed by believers, and any attempt to remove the fact that it is bollocks, and is thus being driven out of mainstream practice in the West, will be equally strenuously resisted by the reality-based community (including me).

That said, years of querulous demands have indeed led to a bloated lede. However, while it could certainly be shorter, the MOS is but a style guide and comes second to factual accuracy: we may not force undue weight for a fringe view by asserting stylistic preference.

I propose the following as a starting point for discussion:

Homeopathy or homœopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. It was created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), the belief that a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people would cure similar symptoms in sick people. Homeopathic preparations are termed remedies and are made using a process of serial dilution, in which a chosen substance is repeatedly diluted in alcohol or distilled water, often well past the point where even a single molecule of the original substance would remain. Practitioners, known as homeopaths, select remedies by consulting reference books known as repertories.

Homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any condition, though The World Health Organization has warned that homeopaths still claim to treat serious diseases such as HIV and malaria. The claims inherent to homeopathy have been known to be incorrect since the mid-19th Century and are contradicted by all relevant scientific knowledge gained in the more than two centuries since its invention. Although some clinical trials produce positive results, it is generally recognised that this is due to chance or bias and the most rigorous trials show that homeopathy has no objective effect.

While homeopathy remains popular, legal, and quite widely practiced especially in India, its implausibility and lack of active ingredients or evidence of efficacy has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as quackery and nonsense. Large scale assessments of homeopathy by national and international bodies have recommended withdrawal of government funding, including: the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; the United Kingdom's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; the European Academies' Science Advisory Council; the Commission on Pseudoscience and Research Fraud of Russian Academy of Sciences; the Swiss Federal Health Office; the French Académie nationale de Pharmacie and Académie Nationale de Médecine. Each concluded that homeopathy is ineffective, and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding. Notably, France and England, where homeopathy was formerly prevalent, are int he process of rmeoving all public funding. The National Health Service in England ceased funding homeopathic remedies in November 2017 and asked the Department of Health in the UK to add homeopathic remedies to the blacklist of forbidden prescription items, and France will remove funding by 2021. In November 2018, Spain also announced moves to ban homeopathy and other pseudotherapies.

refs defined elsewhere:

Extended content
References

I predict a wailing and a gnashing of teeth from believers, if nobody else. Guy (help!) 19:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The proposal by Guy is much better written than the existing version, and incorporates many of the recently proposed improvements. After reviewing it, I moved this version into the article. I find it difficult however to share Guy's concern about faith-based editing. Wikipedia's policy on such editing seems to be very clear. A summary of the relevant policies is available in a orange-themed info box at the top of this very discussion page. I am in fact concerned that his repeated mentions of such editing are giving such editors undue recognition, a practice colloquially known as feeding the trolls. Heptor (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, I have been following this article since forever, I wish I could share your optimism :-) Guy (help!) 00:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This remains to be seen. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document knowledge, and it defines a high bar for what is considered knowledge. Heptor (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, in this case we are dealing with people who have spent a great deal of time and money studying the amount of money the tooth fairy leaves, the relationship between age of child and amount, the variations of amount for single versus double teeth, the timing of tooth replacement and so on, without ever realising that the tooth fairy does not, in fact, exist. Guy (help!) 02:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair comparison, even if jestful. Many people have reported the existence of the tooth fairy, but Wikipedia reports the scientific consensus. Heptor (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And, following up on this analogy, the article on fairys doesn't spend several paragraphs on explaining that fairys aren't real according to compounded studies by large-scale multi-national peer-reviewed research efforts :) Heptor (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, if multiple large-scale multi-national peer-reviewed research projects had been conducted to check whether fairies existed, we probably would. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a rather too much now. Comes off as preachy. In a way, spending so much effort on dismissing the claims is giving these claims an undue weight. Heptor (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support Guy's version as written - looks like a big improvement. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly is a huge improvement. It is well-written and well-structured. Heptor (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed a huge improvement, but I would like to suggest a small change, from "even a single molecule of the original substance" to "even a single molecule from the original substance". It's more accurate, as the substances chosen are usually mixtures of many different kinds of molecules; that is, a mixture rather than a single compound. It makes little sense to speak of a molecule of, say, duck liver, and a bit more to speak of a molecule from the original aliquot of duck liver. It might also make sense to specify "where not even a single molecule from the original substance remains in the dose given" since no molecules have actually been destroyed. The molecules remain somewhere, just not in the homeopathic preparation.-Nunh-huh 10:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, I'd just go with "none of" actually. The lede doesn't need jargon. Guy (help!) 18:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"None of" would also work :) - Nunh-huh 01:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support version by The Other Guy.™ Hate it when someone uses the term "lede". See [5] and [6]. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Further improvements in the lead

The first sentence in the second paragraph, "Despite the claims by the practitioners, homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any medical condition", is making an assertive claim that is currently not properly followed up until later. I would like to suggest that the main reasons why homeopathic preparations are not effective should be briefly summarized immediately after this sentence. For example,

Despite the claims by the practitioners, homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any medical condition. The minuscule doses used in homeopathy are implausible to have any biochemical effect. The theory of disease that underlies homeopathy, such as claims about disease caused by Miasms, is inconsistent with the current scientific knowledge about medicine and biology. Clinical trials controlled for the placebo effect have generally -- although with some exceptions -- demonstrated no objective effect from homeopathic preparations. Homeopathic practice has been described as unethical because it discourages the use of effective treatments, while the World Health Organization has warned against using homeopathy to try to treat severe diseases such as HIV and malaria.

This follows the structure of "1) statement: it doesn't work. Because 2) justifications used for thinking it would work are nonsense 3) clinical trials had shown that it indeed doesn't work, 4) 1+2+3 = Continued practice is unethical. So there is a statement, support for this statement, and a conclusion. Heptor (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

So the lead is being reworked because it was too long. Yet here you suggest putting in more explanation again, rather than paring it back. The lead needs to summarise, so the core information is it is not effective for treating any medical condition. A reader will then be able to read down into the article if they want the discussion of effectiveness and why it is ineffective.Sirfurboy (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Most of the reason it was so long was endless cavilling by True Believers who don't want clear and definitive statements. Guy (help!) 08:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Will make the rest of the text easier to read. Right now, it takes a lot of mental effort for the reader to understand the structure that JzG listed below. It will probably require several passes at the text. A brief, clear and definitive presentation would make it easier to read the following elaboration. Heptor (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, If it was up to me (it isn't) we would include the three core problems with homeopathy:

1. There's no reason to suppose it should work;

2. There's no way it can work;

3. There's no proof it does work.

That is my view, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Guy (help!) 09:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I would replace "proof" by "evidence (not be confused with feeble attempts at evidence that fail miserably)", but yes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I say go ahead and update the lead by focusing in (with citations) on the core problems listed above and ignoring the desires of the True Believers per Wikipedia:No, you can't have a pony. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The miniscule doses used in homeopathy are not miniscule, they are non-existant. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

and they would, if present, be minuscule in standard English. - Nunh-huh 16:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I am going to start using homeopathic vowels: "mnscl". :) (I m gng t strt sng hmpthc vwls: "mnscl".) Surprisingly readable! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I agree with your list and I support the other guy's (dang, trademark violation) Guy Macon's suggestion that you should update the lead by focusing in on the core problems that you listed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. Heptor (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor has further simplified the lead as follows: "Clinical trials controlled for the placebo effect have generally – although with some exceptions – demonstrated no objective effect from homeopathic preparations." This statement is correct but might give a casual reader of just the lead the impression that the trials are contradictory. Could we have a form of words that makes clear the meta-analysis clearly demonstrates that there is no objective effect. Discussion of trials that seem to suggest an effect, and why you would expect some studies to produce such results by chance, could be in the meat of the article. I am not sure I am bold enough to find the correct form of words myself ;) Sirfurboy (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find a way to improve it despite several attempts.. The bare fact of the matter is that some clinical trials are bound to report wrong results due to causes including Type I errors, experimental mistakes, improper procedures, bias, p-hacking, and outright falsifications. It's hard to get a simple, clear and correct conclusion from clinical trials alone. My understanding is that clinical trials do not establish knowledge by themselves, that there has to be a plausible mechanism of action to support them. Although we could end up with an edit war with the Believers of frequentism, it's truly the last thing we need at this time. Heptor (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Just remove "although with some exceptions". That's what "generally" means, so it's strictly accurate and not misleading to the casual reader. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I have in fact just made that change. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Great! I also removed "controlled for the placebo effect", since that's what "clinical trial" generally means. Heptor (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

“especially in India”

Quack clinic in Bangalore

Quacks in Bangalore

I suspect that this is undue in the lead, especially considering this, a more recent source posted on the “Regulation and Prevalence of homeopathy” talk page a while back, which shows usage of homeopathy in India at most likely under 5%. Incidentally, the source cited for it was not published by the NIH as stated in the article, but in ‘’Homeopathy’’, the house journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. Brunton (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, for one. Homeopathy is plenty used outside India. Heptor (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Brunton, homeopathy in the West is mainly part of SCAM practice and is rarely practised by actual doctors. In India it is genuinely seen as one of the major medical systems, along with Ayurveda and reality-based medicine. There are people who see nobody other than homeopaths. Guy (help!) 22:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this claim needs a verifiable source that doesn't just state that homeopathy is common in India, but that homeopathy is more common there than elsewhere. As per WP:V, the claim that it is especially prevalent in India is not something we can assess merely by seeing images of it showing that it is openly and commonly practiced in India. We need something that objectively states that it is practiced more in India than other parts of the world. My worry is that we may be singling out India as one "hot spot" but there may be other countries in the world where it is equally common. Sirfurboy (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Would https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471616 do? Non-RS from Simon Singh: https://www.simonsingh.net/Simpsons_Mathematics/read-the-article-that-the-hindustan-times-would-not-publish/ (full disclosure: I know Simon personally). Also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491617300231 I find https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/SilkStalkings/homeo-is-where-the-bengali-heart-is/ amazing: Hahnemann is indeed well known in Idnia (I work a lot with Indian teams, and, being a people person, I talk with my friends in Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Pune and elsewhere about their passions and beliefs). I think you'll find that homeopathy has more adherents than most Hindu gods. Guy (help!) 00:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think [7] will do because Brunton challenged it above. Reading the abstract, I think he has a point (along with what he says above about publisher). This article may well be evidence that homeopathy is very prevalent in India, but it is not evidence that it is more prevalent in India than in other countries. "especially in India" implies that India is exceptional, so it is not enough to say homeopathy is prevalent in India. We need a source that says it is more prevalent in India than anywhere else. Otherwise it is unfair to single India out in the lead. I note that India does get treatment in the body of the article which seems wholly appropriate. Sirfurboy (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Update of Chapter Official conclusions and recommendations

First section on NHMRC Australia conclusion is not in line with publications.

Please rework NHRMC conclusion in this section to fit to 2019’s slightly updated publication and add new reference below to the article.

Updated NHMRC Communication on Homeopathy

Justification: This unfortunately not to be a good article rated WIKI article should carefully avoid any tendency to not being neutral. The new reference gives users the chance to better understand the basis and slight correction of NHRMC position on homeopathy. As long as the majority of editors refuse a criticism chapter, care has to be taken that the one direction information is accurate and current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.195.226 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no section called “on NHMRC Australia”. A puzzle? Heptor (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You‘re right. It’s not a real section with a chapter number. Section means the part/section of this article that starts with “In March 2015“ and ends before “In November 2016“. This part needs to be reworked as NHRMC Australia has decided in 2019 to extend their analysis of 2015 by a more homeopathy oriented draft and to more carefully formulate parts of their conclusion. I would also offer to update this part but I have no edit rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.42.2.97 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The CEO statement at the head of this annotated draft from 2012 reads:

The document I am releasing comprises the 2012 draft report in its entirety, with annotations that have been reviewed by the previous Chair of the Homeopathy Working Committee. These annotations have been made for context and to avoid misunderstanding of the draft report.

It must be emphasised that this is an incomplete piece of work that is not a NHMRC-endorsed report, therefore its content must be read in this context. NHMRC’s usual practices of quality assurance were not applied to this document. These practices (which include methodological review, expert review, public consultation and approval from the expert committee and NHMRC’s Council) can often result in significant changes to initial drafts.

I am sorry, but this is not a document of citation quality for WP:V standards. Indeed, the annotated report points out some fairly fundamental flaws with the report such as the inconsistency in the "c" rating which is variously "encouraging evidence" and "no evidence". This may be the substance of some debate somewhere, but it would constitute OR to attempt to summarise conclusions from this source as it lacks QA or peer review and remains an old draft. Sirfurboy (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood. I will check WP:V standards point in detail with the experts and will come back to you. We have here an official appendix to a released report by a serious institution that article editors located at position one of an important chapter. But @Sirfurboy: please check also through this article and explain to the community why Internet bloggers can/have to be quoted here. I'm starting to get a little bit afraid from the feedback here that homeopathic fundamentalists seem to be right in blaming article maintainers to be biased. Let's see what the experts will tell us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.47.37 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Why can you not use Talk pages correctly? -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 13:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. This is properly sourced and correct and published conclusions are unchanged. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Is it a pseudoscience?

Homeopathy is a scientific system of medicine and it's action is well established. IIT bombay students have successfully tested its action. So kindly update the page Drsenapati (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not-it is definitely pseudoscience through and through. Its purported mechanism of action is implausible and nonsensical. There is no significant update to the page that needs to be made. We reflect what high-quality sources say about homeopathy and this is in line with common sense, logic, and the scientific consensus. There is absolutely no good evidence that it works any better than a placebo. It's just water (and in rare circumstances it's contaminated due to poor practices and isn't just water-then it has actually caused harm). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

For reference, the "IIT Bombay students" published a paper in Homeopathy (apparently also someone's PhD thesis) where they took homeopathic pills off of store shelves and detected trace metals, after which they concluded "aha, homeopathy works because nanotechnology". I don't have the time to go over everything logically and scientifically wrong with that sentence. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. See for instance: [8] IIT study was uncontrolled, did not rule out contaminants and in any case does not attempt to answer question of efficacy. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

It isn't and it isn't. And, no, what they have done cannot, in any way shape or form, be referred to as "testing its action". What they have done has nothing whatsoever to do with testing its action, and that this was ever published is an embarrassment to whatever journal published it. VdSV9•♫ 15:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Good article

This article had been demoted from good article in 2012. Maybe it's time to re-nominate it? Please consider the discussions that led to the demotion. Many of the concerns raised by Mkweise had recently been addressed. Heptor (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Revert of my edits

As this is not a biographical article, there is no reason for it to be illustrated in the infobox by a person, who has his own article. I also made copy-editing corrections that were reverted as well. Blanket reversion is not the way Wikipedia works. To the deleter, please look at the edits one by one.Geewhiz (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's fine, Hahnemann is the face of homeopathy, he was the one who invented it, many homeopathic institutions are still named after him. Guy (help!) 12:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

So what? If it's not a biographical article, it should have a picture of something related to the subject in the lead. If Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, then the article about lightbulbs should have his picture as the lead photo? --Geewhiz (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware of any policy that only biographical articles can have pictures of a person. But there are many policies I am probably unaware of. Can you find any such policy? What image do you think would better represent the article than a picture of its inventor? Your removal of the picture and replacement with a picture of a pill bottle from elsewhere in the article (with its caption removed) was not an improvement, but there might be a better image we could all agree on, and the picture of Hahnemann could be retained further down the article when discussing his invention of the subject. Sirfurboy (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with the picture of Hahneman. I just thought it shouldn't be in the lead. Nothing to do with policy, just logic.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Edison didn't invent the lightbulb. Part of the confusion over that, and several claims of invention, is because the light bulb exists in a Platonic sense: there is a concept of an incandescent lamp which still exists, independently of who invented it and which works regardless of who made it. In contrast, homeopathy was Hahnemann's invention, can be traced clearly to Hahnemann, and has no existence outside of Hahnemann's opinion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

But it’s not his fault that they are still using it. Heptor (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Introduction to India?

How did homeopathy come to India, and to be so entrenched there? Organisations like AYUSH treat it as part of Indian traditional medicine, along with ayurveda. Yet homeopathy is much more recent, and Western in origin. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

While it might be an interesting topic of conversation, discussion of it would almost certainly be undue in this article. I would also question whether it is particularly “entrenched” in India, given that according to Indian Government statistics alternative medicine, including the therapies covered by the ‘AYUSH’ ministry is only used by about 5 to 7 percent of the population (so usage of homeopathy itself is presumably considerably lower than that). Brunton (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to assume out of hand that this would be undue. Here is a dedicated article in Homeopathy (journal) about this specific subject. I do not have access to the full text and it fails WP:RS in any case, but it does establish that coverage exists. VQuakr (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be appropriate in an article about homeopathy in India, or possibly in the India section of the “regulation and prevalence” article (even there it might be a bit off-topic), but it would be too much detail here. Brunton (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to suggest that content would be undue that has not even been proposed yet. A sentence or two in background (with or without link to a larger treatment in another article) seems within reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Historical context

Hey Guy. I've been wondering about the edit you made here diff. You wrote "[Homeopathy] was at least less likely to be actively harmful", changing from "[Homeopathy] was never harmful". Could you please elaborate on your rationale? Is there any reasonable way for homeopathic preparations to be harmful? Or did Hahnemann used lesser dilutions than is common today? Heptor (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Heptor, Hahnemann was making it up as he went along. We have no idea what doses he used until he started on the serious dilutions for which homeopathy is now known. The sources suggest that "unlikely to be" may be a better version, but not "never". Guy (help!) 22:39, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Guy: Alright, using never may have been a bit brash. Heptor (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

miasm vs miasma theory in the lead.

I get that miasm is part of Hahnemann's concept of "miasms" as "infectious principles" underlying chronic disease as explained in the 'Miasms and disease" section. But miasma theory appears to be a different concept, and not associated with Homeopathy that I can see in the body. Perhaps someone mixed up the terms? Ward20 (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, appears to be separate concepts. Heptor (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

I think there is still a big problem with the lead. The first four paragraphs of this article rap up a stunning 33 citations. Two of those citations are cited twice. There are up to 6 citations in a row for single sentences. This looks like a case of WP:OVERCITE.

I fully understand the demands placed on us as editors to ensure we are writing information that is sourced, factual and of due weight, and we are treating a subject in a neutral way by upholding what the science actually says. However, there are two ways we can improve the lead:

1. Consider which citations are needed to support a sentence and cite just one instead of six, moving other citations to the main body where they can be discussed in detail. 2. Discuss the issues in the main section with citations, allowing the lead sentence to be uncited. There is no need to cite in the lead a statement that is discussed and cited in the main body.

That does not mean we absolutely must remove all citations, or never double citations - but we can definitely do better than this. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, this is an artefact of years of attempts by believers to water the article down. There's no issue with citing stuff if it's likely to be contentious to some readers. Guy (help!) 08:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I full understand how it has come about, and that it is important to demomstrate the article is fully supported by the literature and research. However, specifically in the lead, I think this is too much. When information is discussed in the main article and fully cited, the summary on the lead does not need to repeat the citations. It certainly does not need 35 citations.

I am also not suggesting we just delete or remove citations. We certainly do not want to lose the benefit of the information they bring to bear. However, a concious effort to pare back the citation overkill in the lead would seem to be worthwhile, done slowly and carefully. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The issue is that once we move those citations to the body of the article, believers will show up and start removing bits from the lede as "uncited." That's why we wound up with this mass of citations there, because otherwise we're constantly fighting people attempting to wikilawyer a way to subvert the lede. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Historical context

The historical context of homeopathy is quite important and very interesting. I would like to add a couple of sentences about it in the lead. Heptor (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: can you please clarify your objections? I believe these edits that you reverted are mostly common knowledge on this subject. Do you object on the grounds of verifiability or due weight or something else? Heptor (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact the homeopathic remedies generally didn't directly kill anyone seems overdetailed for the lede. The proposed edit also didn't make very clear that it was a historical viewpoint. VQuakr (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that the homeopathic remedies probably haven't kill anyone is an important part of why homeopathy was so popular in the 18th/19th centuries. At the risk of being accused of whitewashing it (again), it was simply better than other nonsensical treatments that were available at the time. Heptor (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, any reason why you reverted my edits to the "Historical Background" section? Heptor (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff of the reverts in question? VQuakr (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This --Heptor (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see that anyone's reverted that, including myself... VQuakr (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah well. It was partly reverted by this. As long as there are no objections, I'll assume it was a collateral and re-instating it. Heptor (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Probabilities

What is the exact probability of one molecule of salt being present in a 22C dilution? 19:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Essentially zero. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yepp, about $1.03\cdot 10^{-22}$. Heptor (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I wonder if we could ever find a patient of a homeopath, or even a homeopath themselves, who understood what that meant? HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I have searched without success for a good study of the fraction of homeopathy customers who are aware of what homeopathy is. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, those do seem to be mutually exclusive. Some people don't understand math, and it's not our fault. Can't cure the stupid. Heptor (talk) 12:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

A lot of people don't even know enough to think of that. I can certainly find plenty of unscientific surveys reporting a consistent result that even most people who use homeopathic remedies can't explain how they work or what they contain. The SBM guys have mentioned on multiple occasions talking to people who swear by the stuff who admit they had no idea how diluted the ingredients were. A lot of people think it's just a kind of natural remedy. I mean, myself, anecdotally, the people I know who have purchased the stuff didn't know that dilutions were involved at all - they thought it was like a vitamin supplement. That's the population of consumers whose proportion I wish I could add to the article - the fraction of users who are just completely ignorant. Someguy1221 (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. It's quite possible that many people just didn't bother to read up about what they are buying, as opposed to being scientifically illiterate. Extra reason to have a well-written and impartial Wikipedia article on the topic. Heptor (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There’s a survey reported on page 94 of this, but it’s ten years old, and I think it’s all healthcare consumers rather than just consumers of homeopathy. But note the numbers who thought homeopathic remedies are either “moderately” or “very” concentrated. Brunton (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

”Some people don't understand math, and it's not our fault.” - No, it’s not our fault, but we need to take them into account and try to explain it in a way they can understand. Brunton (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure. The thing is, a previous version used 11 sentences in the lead saying that it didn't work, and 4 sentences to explain what it was about. That's what got this article demoted from GA in 2012. Heptor (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

Homoeopathy medicines are proven science which is showing tremendous results everyday. Iam a Homoeopathy practitioner & i know Homoeopathy. Only someone with a knowledge of Homoeopathy can discuss about this, not someone who googles & writes a bad article on Homoeopathy. I request you to delete this post immediately. Dr.D's Homoeo Clinic (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done. Not going to be done. At Wikipedia, we rely on what mainstream, reliable sources have to say on the subject. If you can find reliable sources indicating that homeopathy is in any way effective, we can discuss the content of the article based on that. PepperBeast (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2020

Avagadro number has its own limitations. We Homoeopaths know Maths. I would suggest everyone to think beyond. Particles beyond 10^23 might not be detected by now. The energy released by an atom when its been broken down where does it go? Apart from science & maths, if you are stubborn that Homoeopathy doesnt work, i challenge you to do a Drug proving with a proper guidelines followed. Why should it have placebo effect on childrens, infants & animals? It is good that you have a discussion on this, but i wish it to be healthy & towards something meaninful. Not in a way to demean a system. If you want to do a drug proving, you can contact me, i shall guide you. Know it for yourself. Science tends to change every few years. Dr.D's Homoeo Clinic (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done per the above. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As catch-all term for alternative medicine

I may be missing something, but isn't the term "homeopathic" fairly often used for other forms of alternative medicine, that don't actually involve homeopathic dilution? This may be inaccurate usage, but it seems common enough that perhaps there should be something in the intro.--Pharos (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

In my own anecdotal experience, I have never heard that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Nor I. I suspect it may be a regional thing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised to see it incorrectly used in that manner, but I haven't heard of that either. If you know of any reference that points this out, feel free to add the information. VdSV9•♫ 13:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

e/c Me neither. I don't think it's a thing at all ! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely used (incorrectly) as a catch-all term for natural remedies. People who don't know much about "alternative medicine" tend to have no idea what homeopathy is. Here's a PopSci article on this point: https://www.popsci.com/homeopathy-natural-remedies/ JoelWhy?(talk) 14:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

that popsci article would support the “not a thing” camp, yes? Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I think it evidences that there are people who mistakenly believe homeopathy = any "natural" therapy. (i.e., The point of making this clarification in the article is that there are people who believe it.) JoelWhy?(talk) 16:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's an article from a quack, complaining about how people confuse her Naturopathy quackery for homeopathy quackery: https://www.nhand.org/2016/02/22/the-difference-between-naturopathic-medicine-and-homeopathy/ JoelWhy?(talk) 16:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

So, maybe a section clarifying that some people mistakenly equivocate? VdSV9•♫ 17:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I note that both the examples given above are from the USA. I'm pretty sure it's not the case in my English speaking country. I acknowledge there are a lot of Americans, but always have an eye out for US-centrism on Wikipedia. (There's a lot of it.) If I see a sentence in an article saying something like "some people mistakenly" believe something, I am always tempted to attach a Who? tag and ask for a source. Examples aren't sources. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a sentence clarifying its relationship to the broader area of herbal medicine in the intro might be helpful to readers.--Pharos (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not a narrower area of herbal medicine, it claims to be “a complete system of medicine” and to work on completely different principles. Brunton (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL! Indeed. Homeopathy preparations are made from minerals, stardust, plants, diseased tissues, bacteria, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if some are made from the memories of past child abuse. They are extremely diluted bullshit and completely harmless. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A sentence that said it is related to "the broader area of herbal medicine" would be incorrect. The only broader area it relates to is that of pseudoscience and magical thinking. Herbal medicine and homeopathy are completely unrelated. If any clarification is added, it should be something along the lines of "it isn't a general term for alt med, yet some people mistakenly equivocate" (not a suggested wording, it would have to better mirror the references. Just the overall message that I think could make sense). VdSV9•♫ 01:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Pharos, other than to point out that homeopathy is not medicine, herbal or otherwise, there's not a lot to say though. Guy (help!) 23:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Potency vs Dilution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Regarding this edit, reverted by Cjwilky. From Merriam-Webster, potency is the ability or capacity to achieve or bring about a particular result, while dilution is "the action of diluting". Homeopaths are not doing anything of the former, so why use this confusing terminology? Heptor (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

"The process of dilution and succussion is termed "dynamization" or "potentization" by homeopaths."VdSV9•♫ 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This should be added. You have it from a source, I assume? Heptor (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

But it's from the article. What's the issue? Heptor (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My point was that, in homeopathic lingo, the process of increasing dilution and succussion is called "potentization", as the article already explains. So something that has been "potentized" has increased its "potency", that's why those are called "potency scales". Of course it doesn't increase potency in the meaning of the word you quoted from the dictionary, but in this context it means something completely different. It is not just dilution, it is dilution and succussion - even though the latter doesn't really do anything. VdSV9•♫ 13:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you suggest to do about this? Using this word in the homeopathic sense suggests a claim of potency. This claim shouldn't be made in Wikipedia's voice. Your use of quotations suggests that you are not entirely comfortable to use this word in that sense even in your own voice. Heptor (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean, it should be fine to use "potency" in quotation marks. But I think it's also fine as it is. The homeopathic terminology is duly explained in the article. Stating that homeopaths dilute their preparations is correct; at worst, it's incomplete, but as you pointed out, the difference isn't anything substantial... So, is there any need to change it?...Heptor (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Dilution instead of potency makes more sense. @Cjwilky: is there anything you would like to add to the discussion? Since you were the one performed the reversion. VdSV9•♫ 19:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

"Dilution" should be the term we use outside of direct quotes. Single-word quotes look like WP:SCAREQUOTES and should be avoided. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the invite to discussion. The issue of dilution v potency is obviously a controversial topic here, I understand that. First, I am a practicing homeopath of 30+ years and so can hopefully help bring about something that works here for everyone. I can get references, but let's go without for now, and see if the topic makes sense to you then go from there. I'm giving you the full picture here, explaining the practical qualities relating to potency and then a model that may help with understanding towards ideantifying the solution to the dilemma here - apologies for the length of this!

"Potency" does not refer to strength in the orthodox way - a higher potency is not "stronger" or more effective per se. Homeopathy works with different individuals in different ways eg some people are more sensitive to remedies, some less so, so the generalisations I'm abnout to give are not universal. Within the homeopathic world, a higher potency resonates at a higher level, ie it can be more subtle, tends to work at a deeper level in a person (eg working on more fundamental rather than surface problems, or longer standing problems like in dealing with a causation from very far back in a person's life), can be longer lasting, can be more effective when working with more intense or acute symptoms (eg the results of a car accident, pain from a broken bone, rape). It is also less likely to work when the symptom picture of the remedy doesn't very closely match the symptoms of the individual. On the other hand, a lower potency will tend to work when it is less precisely matched to the symptoms of the individual (one reason why 6x, 6c, 30c are used as over the counter or self prescribed remedies). A lower poentcy will often not last as long in effect and need more repetition, it tends to be more related to the physical level rather than the mental/emotional. So there is one understanding of what potency relates to within homeopathy, not strength as such.

Another way of seeing this is using the idea of resonnance and frequency in the same way as this is understood in physics, or music. Each remedy has a wave pattern, a sound quality if you like. A higher potency has a higher or finer frequency. It isn't louder or quieter, which can be seen to relate to "strength" in orthodox terms.

Taking this sound model, if a remedy is diluted without sucussion, the frequency isn't changed, but the volume is. Dilution by itself makes it "quieter". In homeopathic practice, dilution without succussion is used when an individual is highly reactive or oversensitive. In that case, say a 30c potency may be put into a bottle of water, and in some cases this dilution may be done several times. It is known that this helps to lessen a strong reaction form the individual, it doesn't change the potency or frequency of the remedy. So you see how it correlates to quieter.

To the dilemma. You can see how dilution in terms of homeopathy means something entirely different to potency. And potency in homeopathy means something very different to potency in normal parlance. Is it good to use "potency" in quotation marks? I think so. Indeed the heading of "Dilutions" used in the article here is innacurate in relation to homeopathy, that too should really be "Potencies" ie in quotation marks. Cjwilky (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. That is just meaningless handwaving mumbo jumbo. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy: welcome to alternative medicine 🤗

@Cjwilky: I hope you do realize that most of what you write has no physical interpretation. For example, when you say that "each remedy has a wave pattern", a physical interpretation would require some physical quantity to change observably and periodically. Resonnance of a physical system is also something measurable and observable, and what you mentioned is neither. For this reason, what you write falls outside the scope of scientifically verifiable knowledge, and cannot be described as objectively true in Wikipedia's voice. That being said, you are most welcome to add the information you mention to the article, provided that it is properly sourced and that it is clearly described as something believed by homeopaths and not stated to be objectively true. Heptor (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m not entirely certain that Cjwilky is welcome to add anything to the article, or even the talk page. Brunton (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the invite. This whole response reminds me of a scene from an old Adam Sandler movie. VdSV9•♫ 22:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Just trying to help, seems there is a mental block about understanding my point. I'll leave you to work it out for yourselves then, toodlepips! Cjwilky (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

We understand your point. But our article isn't written from an "in universe" perspective; we don't accept homeopaths' re-definition of words at face value. So we need to use language that has the correct meaning, from a mainstream perspective. VQuakr (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Cato, or Cicero, or someone like that: "I wonder how one augur can pass another without laughing." EEng 16:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The Homeopathy#Dilution section

Some issues about the Dilution section of the article:

1. In the Probabilities section of the talk page above, the OP asked "What is the exact probability of one molecule of salt being present in a 22C dilution?" The article itself also uses the term "molecule" in relation to salt (which I am taking as referring to table salt, sodium chloride). As a chemist, using a term like "molecule" to refer to an ionic substance like NaCl which possesses no molecules makes me uncomfortable. However, I am struggling to see an elegant way to edit the article to address this inaccuracy without obscuring the points being made in that section. Am I alone in thinking this could / should be improved?
2. I am also concerned about the use of the term "dilution" (which is, of course, scientifically accurate) without recognising that it is not the term used by homeopaths. On this point, I suggest changing

   Three main logarithmic dilution scales are in regular use in homeopathy.

   to something like:

   Three main logarithmic dilution scales are in regular use in homeopathy (though practitioners typically refer to these as potency scales[90][91]).

   supported by the present reference 90 and 91 that are used with the earlier statement

   The process of dilution and succussion is termed "dynamization" or "potentization" by homeopaths.[90][91]

3. The section goes on to state that

   A popular homeopathic treatment for the flu is a 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum. As there are only about 10⁸⁰ atoms in the entire observable universe, a dilution of one molecule in the observable universe would be about 40C.

   I am unsure how one dilutes a duck liver, or even a microscopic sample of one, nor is it clear how a duck liver can be divided into units of "one molecule" when a duck's liver is a mixture of very many compounds and there is no single chemical substance describable as duck liver. It may be that the source uses the term molecule in relation to diluted duck liver, though as its author was an eminent physicist, it seems unlikely to me that he would be ignorant of basic facts from biology and chemistry (like that a liver is an internal organ and not a single chemical substance).

4. Why are we using <math> tags like <math>1</math>-to-<math>10^{24}</math> dilution (that is 12C) is approximately <math>1.02\%</math> to appear as

   $1$-to-$10^{24}$ dilution (that is 12C) is approximately $1.02\%$

   when we could just use 1-to-10²⁴ dilution (that is 12C) is approximately 1.02% to get

   1-to-10²⁴ dilution (that is 12C) is approximately 1.02%

   which matches the style of the rest of the text?

I realise I could be WP:BOLD and make edits but talk-first seems wiser for a contentious topic like this, especially when one edit I am suggesting has similarities to the one that just led to a block for violating a topic ban. Thoughts / Comments / Opinions? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that you should stop trying to make Homeopathy make sense, because it doesn't. I appreciate the need for accuracy. I think it is vital that we somewhere note that if the potential medication isn't potentised by striking the intermediate mixture on the right kind of leather bound bible it ain't going to work!!! -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 13:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have zero interest in making homeopathy make sense because it is deeply flawed by any reasonable standard. I am interested in having Wikipedia's article on homeopathy make sense because encyclopaedic content should make sense, even when describing nonsense. I also think that a Wikipedia article should not use scientific terms inaccurately. Now, would you care to comment on a relevant topic (like the content of the article) and stop trying to ascribe motivations or intentions to me? EdChem (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misinterpreted my comments. I was sympathising. I think that trying to rationally explain homeopathy for our readers isn't possible, nonsense and all that. You shouldn't knock yourself out trying. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Roxy, I'm glad to hear that I was misinterpreting and I'm sorry to have responded harshly. While the topic may lack internal logic (woo and all that), I think that an encyclopaedia article on it should not misuse terms. My teaching experience has exposed me to many situations where someone takes a stupid mistake as authoritative. For example, I had a student give the formula of barium hydroxide as BaOH in an exam who, when challenged, correctly explained why the formula should be Ba(OH)₂ but asserted having seen a bottle labelled as BaOH in a lab and figured that they must be mistaken in their reasoning. Table salt is not molecular and the only reason to even consider implying otherwise here (in my view) is if we were directly quoting homeopathic "theory"... and even then, we should note that this is wrong. There are ideas in homeopathy that are scientifically unjustifiable and I agree that we will sometimes struggle to explain these rationally, but I don't like compromising actual science beyond the distortions inherent in homeopathy itself. EdChem (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say that rationally explaining this subject is possible, even if it's a bit of a tall order. The homeopaths have a belief system, and it should be possible to rationally document what it is. As to your point 1., it was I who wrote the section about the salt. I have to admit that I did not until now realize that NaCl is an ionic compound, and not technically a molecule. I did realize that it dissolves into ions in water, but homeopaths sometimes use sugar to mix in the substances, so this part is technically correct. Do feel free to re-write. Your points 2--4 also appear to improvements. Heptor (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Although the text you quoted in point 3 is written correctly as it is. It does say "about 40C", so maybe it's maybe 38C--42C. On the C scale, the difference between atoms and molecules is often negligible. Heptor (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Atoms and molecules? Try quarks. Picoquarks. Entire universes inside picoquarks. Turtles all the way down. EEng 21:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, it's helpful to know that the use of "molecule" in describing salt did not arise from a source pointing to a homeopathic belief about the nature of salt. Finding a way to do so elegantly remains the challenge.  :) EdChem (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

EdChem, 1: There is no exact probability of finding a molecule of the supposed active substance - the water is evaporated from sugar globules, and individual globules may never get any of the water (one manufacturer was completely missing one vial in six with the water, and the only the top globules of the rest were being touched -oddly, nobody noticed).

2: I don't think we should reference potency in this discussion. We can say that believers use "potency" and "potentization" but the scientifically accurate term is dilution; the idea that more dilute is more potent is sufficiently counterintuitive that we should carefully ringfence any mention I think.

3: No clue. Oscillo is just insane. A "flu medicine" containing none of a nonexistent bacterium that doesn't cause the viral illness influenza.

4: No idea, <sup> works for me. Guy (help!) 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Guy, there is an exact probability determinable so long as the process is accurately described, or at least a range if there are unknowns in the process. What its value actually is was not what I was raising, however, it was the inaccurate description of salt as possessing molecules. As for point 2, I agree completely that what is occurring is dilution and am not for a second suggesting removing that term in favour of homoeopaths' preferences for "potency scale", etc. As far as saying tat believers use "potency", can you suggest an alternative to way that I have suggested? On 3, Heptor is correct that the statement about 40C is accurate in isolation, but I'm stuck on how anyone can take duck liver or a sample from it and meaningfully engage in serial dilution. This may be a point where Roxy's point kicks in, given the idea itself is strange (to put it politely). EdChem (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that whole section WP:OR? Sounds like we are here discussing how best to express this thing we all know to be true, but... That's not how WP is supposed to work. Am I missing something? VdSV9•♫ 13:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Not the whole section, of course. Sorry. But a lot of it, especially the parts being discussed here. VdSV9•♫ 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Psuedoscience

What if articles in reliable sources such as medical journals find homeopathy effective (which some do)? Then do we come to believe that it is not a "pseudoscience"? Does a term like "quackery" not sound fairly shrill, like an emotional response rather than a measured one? Does it not sound defensive to use these types of terms, as if to not use them betrays doubt? Is this not an underresearched piece if it, by definition, shows the author's opinion and states it as fact? Why this article with its wording, tone, and one-sided research, i.e., research which supports only the author's thesis, could be seen as NPOV is beyond my capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:480C:E100:31F5:462:97D6:F1D4 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV carefully. Look especially at section: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wikipedia is mainstream and reflects the mainstream scientific consensus. The rest of your comments I will leave, as per WP:NOTFORUM. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You are attempting to cherry-pick "research" that supports homeopathy, when most of those are in poor, often predatory journals. We, as editors here, need to look at the breadth of the published evidence, which says homeopathy is pseudoscientific nonsense. Moreover, it violates every single principle of biology, chemistry, and physics. I'm openminded about what is and isn't science-based evidence, but if your hypothesis is implausible at every scientific level, then it's hard to look at any published "research" supporting homeopathy as legitimate. And, in general, it isn't legitimate. The scientific consensus is clear – homeopathy does not work, and cannot work. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

We already cover this in the article and the FAQ. See the paragraph on Ioannidis, for example. Guy (help!) 09:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Treating any medical condition

The article presently states that homeopathy is ineffective for treating any medical condition. Maybe it should be a dash more nuanced and say something like “treating any real medical condition”? There are a lot of people with made-up conditions out there. Heptor (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

But no source that I know of is going to say that it is effective in treating made up medical conditions. I think probably it is fine as it is. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I found one. Citing, "there is evidence for a real placebo effect for conditions like mild-to-moderate depression, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), the common cold and (especially) pain (though also Parkinson’s Disease and some other neurological conditions)" . In all seriousness, maybe the article should clarify that homeopathic treatments can have a (purely psychological) placebo effect, despite having no physiological effect? Heptor (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"Having the same efficacy as placebo" is equivalent to "ineffective". Treatments need to demonstrate their superiority to placebo to be considered effective. -Nunh-huh 22:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, it's a blog. And depression, IBS and the common cold are definitely real medical conditions anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be some research in that direction though. The definition of placebo as ineffective is to an extend a matter of semantics. Citing Ted Kaptchuk in Harvard Health, Placebos won't lower your cholesterol or shrink a tumor. Instead, placebos work on symptoms modulated by the brain, like the perception of pain.. My point is, perhaps this article can be further improved by including a discussion of the placebo effect from the homeopathic preparations? Heptor (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, the literature showing that placebos "work" is almost entirely driven by quackery shills, most notably acupuncture advocate Ted Kaptchuk. When you dig into it, the studies showing placebos to be clinically useful are almost always based on small self-reported changes in subjective outcomes. Guy (help!) 22:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, please consider this review in Current Psychiatry: . This study on IBS involved 80 patients. They are all almost excessively clear that the effect is purely psychological. For example, citing Kaptchuk himself There was no f— way needles or herbs did anything for that woman’s ovaries, so they are not postulating any nonsense about Miasmas, water memory and such. Are you sure that we have good reasons to dismiss them out of hand? Heptor (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, a sample group of 80 is very small indeed - and it's a primary source. We're not dismissing it out of hand, we're evaluating it and saying that it's a looong way from meeting our sourcing requirements. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it mainstream that Placebo can be effective against psychological conditions, such as depression? My point is that sentence "Despite the claims by the practitioners, homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any medical condition" is very broad. Perhaps it should instead say that "Homeopathic preparations have no effect beyond placebo", which also sounds appropriately reserved for an encylopedia. Heptor (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A substance which has "no effect beyond placebo" is by definition a substance with no known medical effect. New Oxford American Dictionary: "Placebo: a substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs." The substance has no effect. Administering such a substance may have effects, but they are the consequence of the administration, not of the substance. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and well observed. So perhaps we should write a section about how the homeopaths typically interact with their customers, and how this sometimes triggers the placebo effect in the latter? This is rather important in understanding the topic, because that's what made homeopathy so successfull despite its ineffectiveness. Heptor (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, I thought it was a combination of a sustained, well-funded marketing effort, and a press that is largely staffed by journalists who are poorly educated in scientific subjects, that was responsible for its success - but that's just my view. Regardless, any write-up about placebo would be out of scope at this article, that should be done at placebo. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

One could argue that the journalists, so aptly described by Girth Summit, are probably tricked by the placebo effect caused by the way the homeopathic preparations are typically admnistered? 🤷‍♂️. I don't have sources, and it's hard to argue against the New Oxford. I removed the mention of the placebo, hoping that my other recent edits constitute an improvement of the article. Heptor (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, nah, I reckon they're tricked by misleading PR, plausible-sounding 'experts', and their own apparent desire to present both sides of any issue in the mistaken assumption that the truth must be somewhere in the middle. I remember hearing an actual cosmologist astrologer on Radio 4 recently presenting the 'scientific' side of their discipline - the journo didn't even have the decency to sound embarrassed... GirthSummit _(blether) 10:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Journalism is far too often just a form enterntainment. Reasearch and education are done at universities. PS: thanks for the correction. Was it per chance on Nov 01, 2019? Heptor (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Heptor, no - it was the Saturday morning show, Saturday Live I think its called. It's a magazine show rather than serious news, but still... GirthSummit _(blether) 11:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Mathie et al review

If the editors would consider the systematic review by Mathie et al they might find reason to change their opinion on this article, particularly the lead which clearly is negatively biased, without balance of positive POV. Stating definitively that homeopathy is a pseudoscience and "not effective for treating any medical condition" is an incompletely researched opinion and not reflective of Mathie's efforts which were conducted with extremely stringent methodology. This is not "cherry picking", just presenting existing published writings to point out an imbalance of sources in the article.

Mathie et al's findings from the best available placebo-controlled clinical trials showed that individualized homeopathic treatment is 1.5 to 2 times more likely to have a beneficial effect than placebo. This also reflects the results of Linde et al, "Like us, Linde and colleagues reported a pooled OR of 1.50–2.00 for the highest-quality RCTs".

In conclusion, he states:

• There was a small, statistically significant, treatment effect of individualised homeopathic treatment that was robust to sensitivity analysis based on ‘reliable evidence’.

• Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review of homeopathy RCTs.

• The overall quality of the evidence was low or unclear, preventing decisive conclusions.

• New RCT research of high quality on individualised homeopathy is required to enhance the totality of reliable evidence and thus enable clearer interpretation and a more informed scientific debate.

While small this is a positive "significant" result, therefore the sweeping "not effective" statement is subsequently incorrect.

At worst Homeopathy is uncertain in its effects and as he states further ongoing studies are necessary. Therefore, I believe this Wikipedia article really needs to be rewritten to accomodate more neutrality and state the results of research from both sides.

References:

• Overview of Mathie et al review
• Mathie et al review
• Linde et al review
• Mathie presenting his review in Malta (video)

Joshua Arent (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joshua. You are making a fundamental mistake in your approach to this. This is a reality based project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand, science is science, the closest thing we have to measure "reality". Joshua Arent (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the best science, homeopathy does not work and cannot possibly work. Retimuko (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Many discoveries could not possibly work until the science was understood. Homeopathy makes no sense to current physics, but the results can be measured as with the two studies cited. Joshua Arent (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's see if they can publish these studies in a reputable medical journal. Then we would consider them seriously. Retimuko (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The results are that it is not possible to reject the null hypothesis (the null hypothesis being Homeopathy is no better than placebo) per, for instance, (Mathie et al. 2017), but you cite (Mathie et al. 2014) because you think that says something you like. It doesn't.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of individualised homeopathic treatments. In individualised homeopathy, the homeopath matches all the person’s symptoms to a single homeopathic medicine, rather than treating the person for a particular health condition using one or more homeopathic medicines. Individualised homeopathy typically involves a long interview between the practitioner and the patient. The review included 32 eligible trials covering 24 different medical conditions and patient numbers completing the trials ranging from 3 to 199. Twenty-two trials were included in a meta-analysis. From this the odds ratio in favour of individualised homeopathy was 1.53 (95%CI 1.22 to 1.91). However the authors found that 29 of the 32 trials had unclear or high risk of bias and concluded that the finding should be interpreted with caution. The systematic review was considered high quality (AMSTAR score 9/11)

[9]

Note the problems here. In particular, that the long interview has been posited as the most likely confounding factor, because time spent with a practitioner also has an additional placebo effect. The quality of the studies was such that even in this review, the authors were clear that it was not possible to reject the null hypothesis. Despite positive spin coming from the HRI (hardly an unbiased source), there is nothing to see here. This page is correct. There is no evidence that homeopathy is effective for any treatment. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Arent, absolutely everything we have discovered since Hahnemann plucked this conjecture out of his organon has show it to be incorrect, impossible or both. For homeopathy to be correct, most of biochemistry, physiology, chemistry and physics would have to be not just wrong but spectacularly wrong.

GPS works, therefore homeopathy can't. Guy (help!) 07:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Arent, Wait, I just noticed you claim to be an alchemist. That may go some way towards explaining why you believe in homeopathy. Guy (help!) 21:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homeopathy/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 02:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• No response so Failing this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

History

Okay. I will give this one a go. It will probably take a while given the size and nature of the topic so please bear with me. If anyone else is interested please feel free to leave any comments, just try to keep it focused on the criteria. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Noticed some citation needed and page needed tags (page needed ones have been present for a while). Could they be resolved please. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Hahnemann rejected the mainstream First mention of Hahnemann should have full name and wikilink (see also should at least be moved up).
• Hahnemann ingested some bark Bark of cinchona?
• Hahnemann came to believe that all effective drugs produce symptoms... I wonder if this is a bit of an overreach. The source says he theorized the same could be true of other substance. It also says he did other experiments or "provings". The way it is written it makes it appear like all he did was try the bark.
• Okay I see provings is explained in more detail below. I still think some rewording of the above sentence would be useful.
• as well as the ancillary conditions under which they appeared What does this mean?
• is psora supposed to be italicised (I am not sure WP:WAW applies). Also do we need to say it means itch twice.
• described as being related to any itching diseases of the skin, supposed to be derived from suppressed scabies and claimed to be the foundation of many further disease conditions So he described it as any itch, but it is now believed to be scabies. Is that what we are meaning? Whos doing the claiming?
• The law of susceptibility ... This could probably be introduced better. "Homeopaths coined the term ...." or something. It kinda just appears with no explanation.
• Miasm's are described three times. Hahnemann introduced the concept of "miasms" as "infectious principles", remote cause of all chronic diseases (miasms) and attract hypothetical disease entities called "miasms". Do we need all those. If we explain miasm's early can we not just refer to them as miasms from then on? The second one I can understand, but the third seems overkill.
• Hahnemann's miasm theory remains disputed and controversial within homeopathy even in modern times Sorry cant access the source. Leading with this (and the fact it has the one source) leads me to believe the criticisms following this comes from the homeopathy community. Is this correct?

<break>

• Homeopathy achieved its greatest popularity in the 19th century. It was introduced to the United States in 1825 by Hans Birch Gram, a student of Hahnemann. This seems a bit disjointed and seems to imply that its popular arose because it was introduced into the united states? Further down it talks about how it never really took hold in the US and was more established in Europe.
• The timeline is not well explained. We say it achieved its greatest popularity in the 19th century then we talk about a resurgence in the 20th century. So where is the dip?
• the first US national medical association, the American Institute of Homeopathy, was established. Is this saying the first medical association in the US was a homeopathic one? The source [10] seems incredibly weak for this claim. In fact I don't think this is a good source to use at all?
• {{tq|The relative success of homeopathy in the 19th century may have led to the abandonment of the ineffective and harmful treatments of bloodletting and purging and to have begun the move towards more effective, science-based medicine.}] From a 1971 source with no page number. Have found no other sources saying anything similar after a search of the internet.
• One reason for the growing popularity of homeopathy was its apparent success in treating people suffering from infectious disease epidemics. Same with this source.
• Most of the next paragraph is sourced to primary sources. Secondary ones would be better. They are attributed so not a deal breaker, but secondary sources would help us judge the weight better.
• but Ernst and Singh consider it to be linked to the rise of the New Age movement Who are these people (they are not blue linked) and what makes them notable for inclusion? Their place in the sentence suggests they are homeopaths.
• Whichever is correct This does not seem like encyclopedic language to me (in fact this is the only article that uses it [11])
• WP:Proseline in 21st century.
• More Bluelinks needed to notable organisations (i.e Science and Technology Committee of the United Kingdom House of Commons and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia)
• Should spell out abbreviations first use (NHS)
• The last three paragraphs appear out of place and random (why are we highlighting these countries, incidents). Feel some major undue and recentism issues here (plus the last paragraph has grammatical errors). I think this needs some major revisions, with this either moved to more appropriate articles or at least summarised better if it is kept. We should only really have major developments in the history section.

Preparations and treatment

• I don't feel like the explanation of "materia medica" is explained clearly enough. How does an alphabetical arrangement of drug pictures (what are these?) help with preparation?
• Do practitioners use one or both of these references or are they entwined?
• Is the translators name important?
• Examples include arsenicum album (arsenic oxide), natrum muriaticum (sodium chloride or table salt), Lachesis muta (the venom of the bushmaster snake), opium, and thyroidinum (thyroid hormone). I am wary of using examples at the best of times (doubly so when there is no secondary source - or in this case no source at all). Why are we choosing these examples? It would be better if another source chose them for us. It can give the impression we (wikipedia) are deliberately listing preparations that are dangerous or mundane, instead of this being something that is generally brought up by sources.
• Why is Nosodes bolded, particularly when sarcodes is in quote marks?
• either pinned to the patients' clothing, put in their pockets, or placed under glasses of water that are then given to the patients Wouldn't it be simpler to just say given to the patients. Is the particular method of giving the writing important? This whole sentence with ...and the use of radionics to manufacture preparations at the end is very awkward and almost a run on
• 200CK is a 200C preparation made using the Korsakovian method What is 200C mean. I see it is explained further down, but it needs some introduction before we use it. I would suggest moving or removing this example as the C scale shoul stay under the dilutions heading.
• Fluxion and radionics methods of preparation do not require succussion We mention Radionics earlier, but what is Fluxion?
• Three main logarithmic dilution scales are in regular use in homeopathy. But we only describe two
• No reference for Hahnemanns favoured scale
• Example text Do we need to have both of these, we basically have four ways of saying the same thing here.
• In Hahnemann's time, it was reasonable to assume the preparations could be diluted indefinitely, as the concept of the atom or molecule as the smallest possible unit of a chemical substance was just beginning to be recognized. uncited
• The universe scale is getting a bit too much to visualise (which I guess is the point). Maybe a graphic would help.
• Provings are claimed to have been important in the development of the clinical trial, due to their early use of simple control groups, systematic and quantitative procedures, and some of the first application of statistics in medicine. Can this statement be confirmed, it seems quite important. The source has no page number for this. Also the book looks like it was published in 1984 not 1999.
• Why do we have a see also to Nocebo at the bottom of the section? It has no context.

<break>

• Some stray text in Consultation.
• even body type why even. Likes/Dislikes appears more strange than body type?
• The process of homeopathic dilution results in no objectively detectable active ingredient in most cases We have probably done this to death in the previous sections
• in a biologically active concentration strong enough to have caused some people to lose their sense of smell I know it's the NYT, but does it meet WP:MEDS
• Zicam also listed several normal homeopathic potencies as "inactive ingredients", why do we need this. Over half the pill section is on one product, which seems a bit undue.
• Isopathy differs from homeopathy in general in that the preparations, Why "in general"?
• I assume that isopathy is diluted, but what about the flower preps
• Does "Veterinary use" fit under this sub-sub heading. It feels weird squeezed between other variants and isn't it just normal homeopathy but given to other animals. I would think it should be moved to the bottom and up a heading. That will also help the article be less focused on humans.
• Need some cites for UK vets
• We go to quite some effort to say how it doesn't work in humans (except placebo), yet just say it is controversial in vet medicine. If anything it works less in animals (which we do demonstrate), but controversial seems to imply there is some sort of evidence it might work. Is this just because refs don't delve into vet homeopathy as much as humans or is there another reason?
• The name refers to an electric bio-energy supposedly extracted from plants and of therapeutic value Grammar "and of therapeutic value".
• Cool to see some Asian perspective, the world view so far has been a bit narrow. Do we mention Indias ruling because electrohomeopathy is common in India? I feel some context is needed.
• Again I feel like using controversial in Homeoprophylaxis downplays the seriousness.

Evidence and efficacy

• The very low concentration of homeopathic preparations, which often lack even a single molecule of the diluted substance Not sure why very is italicised
• Contrariwise, quantum superposition has been invoked to explain why homeopathy does not work in double-blind trials. I would link double-blind. I wonder if the double blind aspect needs expansion. It is kind of key to efficacy so something here or earlier explaining that double blind trials don't show any evidence would be useful before we bring up quantum supersposition as to why that might be the case.
• The use of quantum entanglement to explain homeopathy's purported effects is "patent nonsense", as entanglement is a delicate state that rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second. I assume "patent nonsense" is quoting someone, but we don't present anyone to attribute it too.
• We spend a bit of time on entanglement. Is this because it is the most pushed explanation?
• I wonder if the first two paragraphs in Evidence and efficacy would fit better here. The section can then start with the "Outside of the alternative medicine community, ..." paragraph and we then have the dilutions and water memory explanations under plausibility. It is already getting a bit repetitive.
• though this is now considered erroneous was it ever considered viable?
• No evidence of stable clusters of water molecules was found when homeopathic preparations were studied using nuclear magnetic resonance,[165] and many other physical experiments in homeopathy have been found to be of low methodological quality, which precludes any meaningful conclusion.[ This gets a bit awkward. We say no evidence and then say other experiments had low methodological quality. So did these other ones show evidence? If not then why are we mentioning them. If they did then it is worded wrong. Or is it just a run on sentence?
• For comparison, ISO 3696:1987 defines a standard for water used in laboratory analysis... I don't follow how this applies.
• There is some redundancy between plausibility and dilutions, which is to be expected. I do wonder if there could be some streamlining though. FWIW I found the Park explanation better than the universe one. Also Avogadro's number that explains the 12C and the first mention of it might be better together.
• In May 2018, the German skeptical organization GWUP issued an invitation... The problem with these is that they get out of date fast. Is it really needed given all the rest we have about dilutions?

<break>

• I feel the rest of this section (and even parts of what I have already done) fail the focus criteria. I see that I delisted it for the same reasons 6 years ago (I forgot I had closed that). I don't see much point continuing this until this is sorted. It needs to be trimmed down quite a bit. I opened a split discussion on the talk page as that is one option if editors want to keep all this info in Wikipedia. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Split Evidence and efficacy

Hey. I took on the GA review of this article and was slogging my way through the Evidence and efficacy section. Has there been any thought here to maybe splitting it into its own daughter article? Would that be something editors are willing to consider? AIRcorn (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"Homeopathy is pseudoscientific"

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Please change "Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine." to "Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a system of alternative medicine."

I was going through this term 'pseudoscientific' which was edited a long time ago. Wikipedia is supposed to deliver the existing view, thought and most importantly current evidence to the general people. I'm an evidence medicine volunteer, currently working for Cochrane collaboration. I found that 'Homeopathy is pseudo-scientific' this is a more didactic statement for general people. The references added over that only depicts opinion, not evidence. Many preclinical and clinical research has shown the effect of homoeopathy (although small) in various conditions. Even some 'meta-analysis' also concluded that. Only lack of explanation in the mechanism of action can't label a system as pseudo-scientific. This opinion may be added later section of 'controversies/criticism' Many recent studies, references, evidence are to be added to make this page reached. Moreover, that opinion term 'pseudo-scientific' is already presented in the "evidence and efficacy' section in a good way.

Thank you, Dr Abhijit

 Not done: Please see FAQ at the top of the article, and if that does not change your mind, go through the archives to familiarise yourself with the previous discussions on the issue, then try and build a WP:CONSENSUS among editors for the change. In absence of existing consensus for such a change, it can not be made to the article by a responder to an edit request such as yours. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Greater balance needed, I believe

Most of the page reads like a debunking homeopathy, and when I also see that the famous American Institute of Homeopathy is not given any voice here, I tend to believe this page is far from balanced/neutral. Perhaps one can start from here https://homeopathyusa.org/about-aih-2/position-statements-letters-2/aih-response-to-washington-post.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiratoral (talk • contribs) 08:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't 'give voice' to organisations here, we reflect what reliable sources say about any subject. We are not debunking homeopathy, we're reflecting what the best sources say about it. The source you've presented above is a primary source outlining the view of a particular organisation on this subject - I don't see how we could use it here. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

About homoeopathy

Under the word homoeopathy, Wikipedia describes the false interpretation about the homoeopathic medicines and the whole homoeopathic therapeutic system... Its not pseudoscience... Wikipedia have to correct it... Homoeopathic medical system globally practiced by homeopaths and used by patients all part of the world... As a homoeopath i strictly oppose this... Dr sugail (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ above and the archives of this page. This has been discussed many times. Retimuko (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Another Example of Wiki Bias

Recently, I began to notice numerous and heavy amount of biasing on several articles, Homeopathy turned out to be the second worst of them. Seriously? You are gonna cite views negative of the homeopathy?

On one hand it is suggested, it is pseudoscience. If it is truly pseudo science:

Either 1. It should show no effect or 2. It should work on placebo effect.

If it works on placebo effect: Then acknowledge placebo effect, don't deny it.

If it Does not work on placebo effect: Acknowledge it. Consider it as science.

Anyways, no one gave the administrators a right (through 'general discussions') to add negative points, critical points to the beginning of article. And no, an article is considered neutral when the opposing and favouring sides both claim it is biased, not when only one side says it is.

Anyways,"The whole world thought, that the planets revolved around Earth, before Copernicus Proved them wrong" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.173.45 (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Please read the FAQ (and also the editnotice that appears at the top of the page when you press "edit"). This should provide the answers to your concerns. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Miasms

Hi! I'm adding another characterisation of miasms in the Organon but it's being reverted. What's wrong with my addition? That it needs its page number? Thanks. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A few things here. For one, your original edit overwrote & removed an accepted reliable source, so I reverted. Your second addition (without overwriting a source) was reverted by SkepticalRaptor per WP:MEDRS, indicating they don't feel it is a medically reliable source for this article. Finally, yes, we'd want a specific page number from the source so people can look it up themselves and see how it relates to that paragraph/topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, then if that is OK I'm going to add a page number. This is a properly referenced piece of text, just showing that Hahnemann's characterizations were all over the place. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably better if you place the citation here and let others look it over first, since it's already proven contentious & we don't want to have an edit war. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a new, hopefully uncontentious citation. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted again. How was my source of less quality than Clarke's Homeopathy explained? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You've been asked a few times to bring the citation here for discussion. Yet, you didn't. You should read WP:MEDRS carefully, as it describes what is and isn't a reliable source for an article like this. More than that, numerous editors watch this page carefully to keep out anything that isn't scientifically supported. Finally, and this isn't the most important thing, look at how citations are formatted in this article. Notice how carefully they're done? You need to do the same thing once you bring the citation here and discuss it in a very civil manner. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I think I was discussing in a very civil manner. I think that content surely trumps format. Surely, format is not the most important thing. Regarding content, I just read WP:MEDRS and I'm understanding that the problem is that the journal appears to be into CAM? I don't know, it would be easier if those who see problems were candid in spelling them out more specifically. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think the sourcing is a problem. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies may have been about CAM, but it was a peer-reviewed mainstream academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and its founder and editor-in-chief is arguably the leading mainstream authority on CAM. It is being used to source not a claim of efficacy or other biomedical claim, but what Hahnemann believed about ‘miasms’. MEDRS states in its opening paragraph that for this type of statement the general rules on RS apply, and this source is fine according to that. In fact, it’s exactly the sort of secondary source we should be using for non-biomedical statements. The issue to consider here is whether including the addition is giving Hahnemann’s views undue weight, per WP:FRINGE. I think it’s probably OK. Brunton (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Brunton, also the editor was Edzard Ernst, and this article was written by David Robert Grimes. Both skeptics. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm only peripherally involved, but this one piqued my interest. FWIW, I think EAF has done everything possible to follow the rules and contribute constructively. My reading of his original addition was that he was trying to give readers the flavor of what Hahnemann was promoting. It seems bat-crap crazy to me, but it *is* historically accurate. Beyond that, EAF wasn't saying the miasm hypothesis adds up to anything worthwhile. Sure, his first edit improperly removed a ref, but he promptly corrected that, and then really tried to do address the concerns presented. I know for a fact that I've unintentionally screwed up, so I'm OK with his response.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with adding his text to the article. Beyond that, I think it's a net positive, so I think we should do it. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Diagree. It's just more homeopathy garbage that attempts to make homeopathy more than it is. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Look, SkepticalRaptor, I don't know you, and you don't know me, but I do resent the personal attack you left in your edit comment, "These pro CAM people need to set up their own garbage Wiki someplace far away from here." Your behavior, which runs contrary to the letter and spirit of Wikipedia (see WP:NPA, etc.), shows that you're far too personally invested in this subject to debate rationally. I suggest you step back and take a deep breath. This should be a civil discussion, and words/phrases like "garbage", "need to set up their own garbage Wiki", and "far away from here" have no place in it. That said, if you have a rational argument against adding the text and reference, please present it. (And, while you're at it, what is this "CAM" that I'm supposedly in favor of? Complementary and Alternative Medicine, perhaps? If that's it, and you think I'm in favor of that mumbo jumbo, you're wrong.) Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me just comment here that SkepticRaptor seems to be wrongfully assuming that EAF is a believer. Even if he/she was, that's irrelevant. The latest information added to the page was about what Hanneman claimed/believed about miasms and whatnot, which is perfectly expected to be in this article. We can and should have an exposition of the claims and beliefs of proponents of pseudoscience on the relevant articles, as long as we don't lend credence to it. The reference he/she used is titled "Proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are physically impossible" FFS. This is fine. Looks like SkepticRaptor has jumped to conclusions regarding the beliefs and intentions of EAF and he, as well as maybe others, is acting in an overprotective manner over this. VdSV9•♫ 04:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I came here a few days after and I see that my little edit attempt sparked more discussion. Yes, I'm sorry that I deleted a reference the first time. I think most people who commented since my last visit here have interpreted the situation correctly. Cheers. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Citation for discussion

If I look up the original reference in the Organon, with page number, and format the reference according to the ones in this article, are you guys going to see any further problem with it? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that is a primary source, so using it would fall within WP:OR. But see my comment above about the journal. Brunton (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer, we don't include the Organon as a rule, because it's a work of fiction. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's fiction, but this article is about fictional cures! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, but I see, it would be OR. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)