Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Smithfarm's concerns

Reading the article, in many places it really shouts disapproval. Why are Wikipedians so contentious about this? It seems to me that homeopathy and M.D. medicine coexist in the world peacefully enough. Editing tug-o-wars lead to articles that emphasize controversy and battling POVs. Out there in the real world, things are a lot different. Both M.D.s and homeopaths have their respective "turf". Not everyone is a card-carrying member of the NCAHF. A lot of people (hundreds of millions, i.e. a very significant proportion of the world population) are willing to try homeopathy (and other traditional, conventional, and alternative medicinal methods) for illnesses for which M.D. medicine has no cure. When you've got hundreds of millions of people using it, what's the use of "debunking" it? Isn't that a little immature, even silly? --Smithfarm 15:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, why do we talk about negative opinions on homeopathy in the introduction? Is it because we're afraid someone who only reads the intro might assume that it's embraced by orthodox medicine? --Smithfarm 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what people are worried about. To a certain mindset, a lack of open antagonism towards homeopathy is the same as an endorsement. Frankly, you think it's contentious now, check out Aegis's attempts at revising it. The last time I edited the introduction, I dropped everything except for calling it "controversial," but several people were unhappy with that. Silly, IMO.

However - just because "hundreds of millions" of people use something (and I doubt the truth of that statement) doesn't mean that it works. T.J.C. 19:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The idea that "a lack of open antagonism is the same as an endorsement" is problematic, to say the least, if our goal is a balanced treatment of the subject. --Smithfarm 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey there -- please don't put personal attacks in your comments or section headers such as calling other people "immature". It's against the rules here. --FOo 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if anyone took my comments personally. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding. I wasn't intending to call anyone in particular immature and am not aware that I did so. It was the editing that seemed immature to me, not the persons. --Smithfarm 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Parable

Lets take a parable:

Astrology. It did have a real core, known once in Babylonia, that is repeatably measurable in nature... But once the source grain of knowledge has got forgotten, there has been (and still is) a wide field opened for charlatans, bringing tons of nonsense ballast over that real core. Scientists are leaving this as a nonsense-as-whole, allowing the charlatans to continue with it, and since it lasts for more millennia, the ballast crust is really huge...

The propper method of breaking erroneous parts in astrology (and any other quasi-science) would be to show, what the real core is, where is the truth in it and what else is just a false interpretation... Once you know the core truth, there is no space for mystery or charlatans.

I see the similar problem arround homeopathy: there is something in it, that works (be it a placebo effect or anything else, I don`t know yet and you neither), but until you are showing, that it is impossible and nonsense-as-whole, you are leaving space for empirics... Once you reveal and prove, how it works, you may easily distinguish, who is charlatan and who not... And you need not be afraid of ruining the main-stream medicine, since homeopathy technique has got sure limits beyond which the "chemical doctors" would still be needed...

I am not advocating homeopathy here, but I do criticise (non)scientific method of marginalizing it as nonsense-as-whole, and (possibly) overstating it as remedy-for-anything by the other side...

And into encyclopedia you may write once (our children will?) :

Homeopathy is/was empirically grounded ?...? being practiced without real knowledge of how it works, but being constantly (insanely?) fighted by main-stream scientists for more than two centuries, without that knowledge either...

(Is this enough neutral ? Does either side know, how it really works beside empirical research ? And if so, then prove it... )

(If you consider this off-topic, delete or archive it, the discussion is growing too large anyway...) Semi Psi 13:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not take this as showing I know better - I do not.

I just hope, that while proving or disproving hydrogen bonding topic arround homeopathy, we occasionally will come to a better knowledge, what the structure of water is (and what it is not). While (dis)proving, what white bloud corpuscles can intercept and what they can not, we may occasionally come with better understanding of the body. These are still the two places, marked with "partially unknown" or "mysterious", but promising...

...

There is another scientific method: asking questions and seeking solutions. You need a scientist for the second, but even the crank may occasionally ask a good question. And while the scientist is seeking some solution, he will usually find other solutions/facts by the way...

...

I actually hope, that our children will read in their encyclopedy, that:

Homeopathy is/was a ?...?, that provocated main-stream scientists in start of 21st centrury to find structure of water, function of immune system and (what else?)...

...

Semi Psi 14:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

look if you want to disscuss homeopathy go to http://forums.randi.org/index.php?s= . I'm sure they would love to debate with you.Geni 15:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Noone can predict what the future holds. Wikipedia need to give the information as it stands at the moment. In this case that means reporting the current absence of verifiable objective evidence. Jefffire 18:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion archived / Trimming the fat

I've archived the discussion. I'm pretty sure it worked, haven't tried that before.

This article needs to be shorter and needs to be edited. I propose:

• Dumping the entire "Chronic Disease" section. It's boring and tangential.
• Dumping "Pragmaticism vs. Mysticism." It says nothing at all of substance.
• Dumping everything in the "Scientific Validity" section except for the first section, "Homeopathic claims contradict established scientific theories." An encyclopedia article should NOT be laboriously quoting dueling studies. It's tedious, useless, and lends itself to antagonism. Replace it all with "Critics claim the percieved efficacy of homeopathic remedies is entirely due to the placebo effect, but controversy and research continues" or some such neutral statement.

I think we all agree that the article is unacceptable as-is. This is the first step - cutting all the info that is not critical to a superficial understanding of homeopathy.

T.J.C. 18:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I've nearly given up trying to do anything with this article, but I'm glad to see fresh blood. --Lee Hunter 21:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am for a fresh start and do not believe the quality of the article has suffered on account of the edits. I do, however, think that somewhere in Wikipedia we have to give readers the means to make an informed decision about homeopathy. To do this, some of the editors who have been involved in this article should give up their insistence on making this a polemic. --Leifern 22:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little more on what (if anything) would need to be added to the article to help the reader make an informed decision? I think (hope) as long as we are sufficiently superficial and neutral and provide a variety of competing resources as a jumping-off point for further research, we've done our job. T.J.C. 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Next Step: Removing the Factual Inaccuracies

Hi all! So far, it seems the response has been positive (or at least not negative, heh) towards the trimming job. So the next step would seem to be downgrading the article to "non-neutral" from "non-neutral and factually inaccurate". (I figure it might take longer to get NPOV, so one step at a time is probably best).

That being said, let's discuss: What in the article do you feel is factually inaccurate? I'll take another look-through myself, though I don't remember anything really sticking out - but I certainly don't have enough experience with homeopathic doctrine to know what is or isn't accurate in those sections.

One method we can certainly use is to prefix potentially contentious statements with "Homeopaths believe" or "Critics claim" with a suitable reference, or something like that, so we don't end up arguing. T.J.C. 21:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Misleading introductory statement

The introduction ends with the following statement. While true, it is also misleading:

With few exceptions, homeopathy is not accepted by medical doctors or scientists because its beliefs have not been verified by the standards of modern medicine and the scientific method.

While medical doctors and scientists are naturally interested in the explanations for the causation of effects, in the end it is the existence or non-existence of an effect that counts. If there is an effect beyond the placebo effect, and the risk-benefit ratio is favorable, the method will be incorporated into normal medical practice, leaving the discovery of the causative factors for another day.

There are several types of evidence that it is desirable to obtain before a therapy is advocated:

1. Evidence that the therapy is efficacious above and beyond the placebo effect;

2. Evidence that the therapy is safe;

3. Evidence that the therapy is cost-effective;

4. Evidence concerning the mechanism of action of the therapy. (As long as the first two factors are positive, it is not absolutely necessary for this factor to be clarified before it can be advocated.)

It is true that some accepted and scientifically proven methods of therapy have their origins in folk medicine and off-beat practitioners. Modern medicine is eclectic. It cares not from where a therapy originates. Effectiveness is the factor that ultimately is the requirement for acceptance. Any method that has proven that it can float, has been skimmed off the top and adopted into modern medicine. What is left in the barrel is junk, that falsely claims to do what it can't.

I propose that the sentence be reworded so as to no longer be misleading, since right now it's a straw man argument that misses the main point:

With few exceptions, homeopathy is not accepted by medical doctors or scientists because its efficacy has not been verified by the standards of modern medicine using the scientific method. While they consider the question to be of lesser importance for clinical practice, they are likewise skeptical regarding the claimed mechanism of action, considering it to not be in harmony with the known laws of physics.

-- Fyslee 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how your rewording changes the meaning of the statement, it just makes it wordier and vague. Mechanism and efficacy are both covered by the phrase "homeopathic beliefs." -- T.J.C. 04:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I can see what you mean about wordier, so I'll propose a shortened version later.

I feel the sentence is vague and needs to be clarified. That requires rewording, but it can be done shorter than in my first proposal.

As it now is written....

"With few exceptions, homeopathy is not accepted by medical doctors or scientists because its beliefs have not been verified by the standards of modern medicine and the scientific method."

....the focus is on "its beliefs."

It is not at all clear that "mechanism and efficacy are both covered" by that phrase, and it would improve the article to make the difference clear. Scientists (if this were their only objection one could be tempted to call them "pseudoscientists") who only object to the implausibility of the proposed mechanism of action, are likely few in number and are missing the point, which is efficacy. This is the point of importance, mechanism of action being of less importance for clinical practice.

Here is my proposed revision:

"With few exceptions, homeopathy is not accepted by medical doctors or scientists because its claimed efficacy and proposed mechanism of action have not been verified by the standards of modern medicine and the scientific method."

It is less wordy and clarifies (what is currently assumed and understood only by initiates here in this discussion) "beliefs." If that word includes both aspects, then they should be written clearly.

I have added the clarifying words "claimed" and "proposed," since they represent the facts of the matter, and thus we ensure a NPOV. It should be clear that there is controversy, and what is involved in that controversy. Both aspects are controversial. -- Fyslee 08:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that one a lot better, and in retrospect, you're absolutely right, "beliefs" is too unspecific. T.J.C. 20:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lee's Recent Edit

Proponents of homeopathy respond that the methodical dilution of a particular substance, beginning with a ten percent solution and working downward, is fundamentally different than the random contact of water with various molecules.

Lee, you're either going to have to back this statement up with HOW it is different or remove it, or I'm going to need to add a postscript saying this suggestion violates the second law of thermodynamics and known molecular theory. The physical act of dilution does not change the behavior of water molecules. Alternatively, you could emphasize the fact that the homeopathic mechanism is 'spiritual' and need not be bound by the laws of physics. T.J.C. 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the statement pending further discussion. T.J.C. 04:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You have to look at what I've written within the context of the paragraph. The specific criticism in that paragraph is that homeopathy is not consistent since, within a certain remedy, a given molecule of water has probably come into previous contact with x number of other molecules throughout history therefore it must retain the memory of all those other molecules. But you can only argue logical inconsistency if you present the entire theoretical framework (i.e. that the methodical dilution of a substance is different than random contact of a particular molecule of water with a molecule of x substance). Presenting a fragment of a theory out of context and saying it is "inconsistent" is intellectually dishonest. The question of whether this theory violates thermodynamics and molecular theory etc etc, is an entirely different question and dealt with at length elsewhere in the article. --Lee Hunter 15:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You allude to intellectual dishonesty - yet at the same time, you make an arbitrary decision that when the water molecules are encountering RANDOM substances, they can be treated as interactions between substance molecules and water molecules - but when it's part of a HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY, suddenly the water becomes a separate entity that supercedes molecular theory?

Nowhere in the paragraph in question does it distinguish between "the water" and "the molecules of water," since the molecules are the water. As such, the precise statement that you have written, regardless of context, is incorrect. Any procedure, including dilution, involving water and substrate molecules, is emphatically not "fundamentally different" from random molecular interaction, and if homeopaths think it is, they need to explain why. I'll have to add a postscript. T.J.C. 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

References

I've gone through and reformatted the references section to replace footnotes with the new < ref > code. I found that lots of the backlinks were broken, because the text refering to them was removed. For now, I've just hidden them using <!-- --> so that they are easily accessible. I'm planning to wait a week, and any that remain unused can be moved into a Sources section or something. Any objections? SeventyThree^(Talk) 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Falsifiability

It is not accurate to say that homeopathy is not falsifiable, and if so the same criticism can be applied to all medicine, since one could always say that lack of efficacy is due to wrong diagnosis or other factors. In fact, many double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have been done with respect to homeopathic remedies, but setting aside that for the moment, it would be easy to conceive of a study design that would be falsifiable. It would simply consist of a large enough number of patients with similar symptoms appearing before a limited number of homeopathic practitioners who would, based on the interview, make their diagnosis and prescribe a remedy. The remedy would be administered through a double-blind, placebo-controlled approach, and a follow up would show whether the placebo group did better than the control group. It would be a bit more complicated than a regular study, because in all likelihood practitioners would prescribe different remedies for different patients, but that is a statistical problem, not a falsifiability problem. --Leifern 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You've just described the White et al 2003 study. Given it's result are you going to say that homeopathy has been falsified?Geni 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're referring to a study of 93 asthmatic children led by Adrian White of the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, Devon that showed that treatment with homeopathy over a season yielded no better results than a placebo. I don't know much about the study or its findings, but it seems to me that homeopathy can't be disproved in general on the basis of a single study. --Leifern 16:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

so how many studies then?Geni 18:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The criticism is that the "Law of Similars" iself is not falsifiable. As it pertains to the article, that's an interesting claim to make considering that the law of similars is not expressly defined as "the law of similars means that substances which cause symptoms can cure the same symptoms." Anywhere. That should be remedied before we start talking about "falsifiability."

The "law" itself is absolutely falsifiable - but as I understand it, what they(the critics) mean is that a common dodge that homeopaths use during treatment is something like "the cure didn't work because our proving/diagnosis of the symptoms was wrong, but the original homeopathic theory is sound" (when really, it is evidence against the "law"). So in such a way does the law avoid scrutiny or falsification by homeopaths (since those of us who study molecular medicine already know it's complete and utter crap). The article should be adjusted, at least to define the law before making any claims on it. The criticism should also be more specific. T.J.C. 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no that is only one option

the person gets better=homeopathy worked

the person gets worse=agrivation

different symptoms=herring,s law/direction of cure stuff

no change=remedy needs time to work/the remedy was antidoted by something/wrong remedy or potency.

Geni 19:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Excised the following

I sliced out:

"Those who do give and receive treatment are likely to argue that 'of course the treatment will not work for you if you fight it' etc etc. Let's face it, this is a religion."

Really didn't belong, did it (despite the fact that I agree) Manning 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To my mind several discussors ignore an important point. Undoubtedly, homeopathy does work, sometimes, but its foundations are unscientific. This is no criticism of Hahnemann, but it is a criticism of persons who are unable to accept that homeopathy is not a science. Today, therefore, homeopathy is quackery. Researchers should test the few remedies that do work, and determine why they work. Suneet Sood (suneetsood@hotmail.com)

Which are these homeopathic remedies that you claim actually work? I've so far heard of none that holds up to scrutiny. Daniel Lindsäth 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mag's edit on 20:13, 12 February 2006

"But perhaps more importantly, the technique of homeopathy flies in the face of the theories on which science and medicine are based, or even rejects scientifically valid assumptions -- some of which have stood the test of time, and enabled practicioners to develop more and more advanced treatments, for hundreds of years. Other aspects of homeopathy simply defy scientific analysis, being explicitely subjectively based and not objectively quantifiable."

I find this is to be a POV attack on homeopathy that shouldn't be in the introduction, for several reasons:

1. "flies in the face" has a highly negative visual connotation which seems explicitly intended to make homeopathy look bad. It leads the reader to believe that homeopathy and/or homeopaths intentionally oppose conventional medicine for the sole purpose of contesting its fundamentals, which is blatantly incorrect and POV. Indeed, it is not homeopathy that doesn't agree with modern medicine, but modern medicine that doesn't agree with homeopathy.

Umm clasical homeopathy does dissagre with modern medicine. For a start it rejects germ theory. At that vital force stuff to start with. The claims that modern medicine are suppression and the like.Geni 18:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Homeopathy doesn't "disagree" with modern medicine for the sake of disagreeing, nor does it intentionally oppose other practices. People who believe this is true clearly are not homeopaths. It just so happens that homeopathy is not in harmony with modern medicine; this isn't a phenomenon which happens on purpose by either side. It isn't any homeopath's fault for this; it is Hahnemann who devised the system by which today's homeopaths work. His system and modern medicine evolved down different branches, and presently they remain as such, but that doesn't mean they are polar opposites. Homeopaths don't choose homeopathy because it is different; indeed, most homeopaths honestly believe is it right.

Really, it is mostly those on the side of modern medicine who usually display any fierce opposition. Like I said, it is modern medicine that doesn't agree with homeopathy, not the other way around. An unproven mechanism doesn't imply a betrayal of scientific values; many people do not understand this distinction.

As for suppression, you can't deny that the purpose of most OTC cough/cold remedies and painkillers is to suppress the symptoms in order to give immediate relief. As an example, Vick's DayQuil advertises to "temporarily relieve [cough/cold symptoms] to get you through your day". But in the end, it is one's body that gets rid of the illness, is it not? You don't need to be a homeopath to understand the fundamentally flawed approach of symptom suppression. --Bencze Gyenge 01:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It does not reject germ theory. We have discussed this many many times before, I have referenced many sites that disprove this claim, yet you persist with it. --Leifern 21:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Clasical homeopathy rejects germ thoery. Read the orogen it can hardly be otherwise.Geni 06:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Geni, I can only conclude that you are being willfully ignorant for reasons I can't even fathom. The basis for classical homeopathy in its current form is that a) the body has the ability to heal itself when afflicted with various kinds of assault, including germs, viruses, toxins, etc. This is what is some homeopaths call "vital force," though you seem to use the term more than any homeopath I've come across. b) if the body is unable to heal itself, treatment must not only try to eliminate the immediate threat, but must also help the body learn to deal with that threat better in the future. Classical homeopaths would laugh at your assertion and if they were as uncharitable as you, ridicule and humiliate you. Seriously, stop spreading lies. --Leifern 12:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting aproach. Unfortunetly not the one addopted by clasical homeopaths. You see Hannemans's allacks on allopathy prevent the adoption of any such system. What you have have described would be a branch of pratical homeopathy.Geni 12:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's be precise here: in the branch of classical homeopathy that you believe to be the case - it has nothing to do with the classical homeopathy homeopaths advocate. --Leifern 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh no true homeopath. Fine you go an tell Danna Ullman that[1].Geni 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

2. "...which have stood the test of time, and enabled practicioners to develop more and more advanced treatments, for hundreds of years." Redeeming merits of modern medicine have no place in this article, especially the introduction. Again, blatantly POV. It's as if homeopathy itself threatens to halt further advancement of modern medicine simply due to their non-harmony. I think not. It's spelled "practitioners", anyway.

3. "Other aspects of homeopathy simply defy scientific analysis, being explicitely subjectively based and not objectively quantifiable." I don't see the relevance of this. First of all, this has already been stated. Secondly, it's not enough to say "other aspects" without stating what aspects; since the aspects can't be discussed in the introduction, this line doesn't belong there.

I suggest this portion be removed from the introduction. Newcomers to this topic don't need to be bludgeoned to death with redundant variations of "WARNING: MODERN MEDICINE DOES NOT AGREE WITH HOMEOPATHY!" --Bencze Gyenge 11:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits 18 February

My edits are not intended to alter the balance of this article or change the content, but are intended to shorten/clarify/simplify, and I have noted the above discussion and made some minor adjustments to tone accordingly. I have only deleted text that I thought was obviously redundant or repetitive. I think that in its present form, the article is fair and balanced; there is clear expression of reservations, but also a very full and sympathetic account of homeopathy. I think that the reference list should be chosen more selectivelyGleng 18:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that earlier versions (January versions) contained more detail, I also note that this article is already flagged as longer than is preferred. It seems to me that the amount of information at present in this article makes it an interesting account of homeopathy which is not so overwhelming in content as to be indigestible, and provocative enough for either critics or sympathisers to wish to find out more, and provides plenty of links for either to do so. Please note that I have contributed to none of this myself, only tried to edit it to help present all aspects fairly.Gleng 21:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Leifern's edit; the deleted statements were unneccessary here.Gleng 22:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus - there is no consensus

Let me be clear here: There is no consensus on this article. If there were a "condemned" tag, I'd slap it on this piece of pro distic polemic. Geni, Skinwalker, et al have hijacked it, constantly reverting or reintroducing language that fits their point of view but no encyclopedic standard, repeat old canards again and again, and in the end everyone but Aegis (who himself/herself has abandoned any pretense of a constructive effort) simply gives up on the whole thing. --Leifern 17:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Safety

Again I think that this article is basically OK, and that the clean-up tag is not warranted. However, I think that the sections on Safety and on Validity could both be tightened by using selected very solid references from objective sources. I propose replacing the section on Safety as follows, which is essentially a precis of FDA statements from the cited link, except for the last sentence which is retained from the original. "The FDA considers that there is no real concern over the safety of hoeopathic products "because they have little or no pharmacologically active ingredients". One exception is that, whereas conventional drugs for adults can contain no more than 10 percent alcohol, some homeopathic products contain much more than this. The FDA has delayed its decision concerning alcohol in homeopathic products while it reviews the necessity of these high levels. There have been a few reports of illness associated with the use of homeopathic products. However, in cases that they reviewed, the FDA discounted the homeopathic product involved as the cause of the adverse reactions. In one case, arsenic was implicated. But, as expected, FDA analysis revealed that the concentration of arsenic was too low to cause concern. Perhaps the main concern about the safety of homeopathy arises not from the products themselves, but from the possible withholding of more efficacious treatment, or from misdiagnosis of dangerous conditions by a non-medically qualified homeopathist." Gleng 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. I don't know if it's even worth mentioning the alcohol bit. This is a general rule that obviously stems from concern over products like cough medicine that are sold in 500 ml containers. It's not really very relevant for products that come in one ounce or smaller bottles.--Lee Hunter 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revise of Validity section

I suggest replacing this section as follows (with references), and invite comments.

"The first important question is "Do homeopathic remedies have a beneficial effect?" The answer to this question seems to be unequivocally yes, for many patients and many conditions, treatment by a practitioner of homeopathy is better than no treatment, and many patients report benefits after conventinal treatment has failed. The second important question is "When homeopathic remedies work, why do they work?" For a conventional treatment, such a question is likely to be answered by explaining a specific mechanism in detail. For example, the effectiveness of a conventional drug may be explained by describing the chemical structure of the drug, how this structure enables it to act at specific receptors, how this leads to a specific change in the function of particular cells that play a known role in a particular organ, and how this organ is involved in the disease process. Each step in the explanation will be based on a variety of evidence, will be experimentally testable, and will be open to further, more detailed explanation. For instance, the chemical composition of receptor molecules may be known, the gene for the receptor may be known, and disorders of that gene may have been directly associated with the disease. By comparison with conventional treatments, there is no rational scientific basis for the actions of homeopathic remedies. So why do they work?. Homeopaths believe that the production of a homeopathic remedy involves a conditioning of the liquid that gives it some active properties. It is not impossible to envisage how this might occur, what is more difficult to envisage is how animals evolved a mechanism for responding to liquids conditioned in this way, or what that mechanism might look like. In the absence of plausible explanations of these questions, or of convincing evidence of relevant changes in the structure of water, most scientists prefer alternative explanations for the efficacy of homeopathy. The preferred explanation is the placebo effect. If a patient believes that a treatment will be effective, it is often likely to be effective. Why placebos are effective is also not understood, but the brain controls the responses of the body to injury and infection, we know many mechanisms by which it does so, we know that our "state of mind" influences these mechanisms, and in some cases we know which parts of the brain are involved and how they are involved. The placebo effect is often large, so any conventional drug is ideally tested in a large, multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial, the object of which is to test whether the drug has an objectively-demonstrable effect that is significantly better than the effect of a placebo. Many clinical trials that partially fulfil these criteria have investigated homeopathy or related uses of ultradilutions, and many of these have indicated some kind of efficacy above placebo[7]. However, many of the trials are open to technical criticism or involve samples that are too small to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. In August 2005, The Lancet published a meta-analysis of trials of homeopathy, the largest and most rigorous analysis so far conducted, involving 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials. The outcome of this meta-analysis suggested that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are indeed likely to be placebo effects. Homeopaths have responded to the publication of this meta-analysis by explaining that homeopathic medicines do not show ‘specific effect’. They show ‘individualized’ effect, that it is the whole patient that is treated, not a specific disease, and that during a correct homeopathic treatment, symptoms often aggravate initially. They explain that suppressed symptoms can reappear for some time during the process of cure – as disease again moves from more vital organs to less important ones, and that the trials analysed were a mixture of ‘complex homeopathy’ and ‘classical homeopathy’."Gleng 22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Response

"The first important question is "Do homeopathic remedies have a beneficial effect?" The answer to this question seems to be unequivocally yes, for many patients and many conditions, treatment by a practitioner of homeopathy is better than no treatment, and many patients report benefits after conventinal treatment has failed. (I understand what you're going for here, but pandering to people who don't understand the pragmatic fallacy is not acceptable in a scientific validity section. How is it 'better than no treatment?' What are the "benefits?" This is way too unspecific.) The second important question is "When homeopathic remedies work, why do they work?" (Again: pragmatic fallacy. What do we mean by "work?") For a conventional treatment, such a question is likely to be answered by explaining a specific mechanism in detail. For example, the effectiveness of a conventional drug may be explained by describing the chemical structure of the drug, how this structure enables it to act at specific receptors, how this leads to a specific change in the function of particular cells that play a known role in a particular organ, and how this organ is involved in the disease process. Each step in the explanation will be based on a variety of evidence, will be experimentally testable, and will be open to further, more detailed explanation. For instance, the chemical composition of receptor molecules may be known, the gene for the receptor may be known, and disorders of that gene may have been directly associated with the disease. By comparison with conventional treatments, there is no rational scientific basis for the actions of homeopathic remedies. So why do they work?. Homeopaths believe that the production of a homeopathic remedy involves a conditioning of the liquid that gives it some active properties. It is not impossible to envisage how this might occur (Besides the fact that we haven't defined "active properties", assuming that we mean properties that are physically consistent with modern physics and thermodynamics, it is impossible given the method of homeopathic remedy preparation - by shaking the container.), what is more difficult to envisage is how animals evolved a mechanism for responding to liquids conditioned in this way, or what that mechanism might look like. (This is circular reasoning and assumes that a mechanism exists, whereas a primary scientific criticism is that none does.) In the absence of plausible explanations of these questions, or of convincing evidence of relevant changes in the structure of water, most scientists prefer alternative explanations for the efficacy of homeopathy. The preferred explanation is the placebo effect. If a patient believes that a treatment will be effective, it is often likely to be effective. Why placebos are effective is also not understood, but the brain controls the responses of the body to injury and infection, we know many mechanisms by which it does so, we know that our "state of mind" influences these mechanisms, and in some cases we know which parts of the brain are involved and how they are involved. The placebo effect is often large, so any conventional drug is ideally tested in a large, multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial, the object of which is to test whether the drug has an objectively-demonstrable effect that is significantly better than the effect of a placebo.(I like this, but isn't it beyond the scope of this article to completely explain the placebo effect? Linking should be enough.) Many clinical trials that partially fulfil these criteria have investigated homeopathy or related uses of ultradilutions, and many of these have indicated some kind of efficacy above placebo[7]. However, many of the trials are open to technical criticism or involve samples that are too small to allow firm conclusions to be drawn. In August 2005, The Lancet published a meta-analysis of trials of homeopathy, the largest and most rigorous analysis so far conducted, involving 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials. The outcome of this meta-analysis suggested that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are indeed likely to be placebo effects. Homeopaths have responded to the publication of this meta-analysis by explaining that homeopathic medicines do not show ‘specific effect’. They show ‘individualized’ effect, that it is the whole patient that is treated, not a specific disease, and that during a correct homeopathic treatment, symptoms often aggravate initially. They explain that suppressed symptoms can reappear for some time during the process of cure – as disease again moves from more vital organs to less important ones, and that the trials analysed were a mixture of ‘complex homeopathy’ and ‘classical homeopathy’." (Honestly, this is just a rewrite of the last paragraph that, IMO, makes it more difficult to understand, and homeopathic talking points on "individualized symptoms" and symptom aggravation at the beginning of treatment and suppression and all the other dodges to explain the lack of efficacy and repeatability of randomized trials has no place in a scientific validity section, because it completely lacks a scientific basis.) T.J.C. 00:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Many thanks for your comments. I felt that this section should acknowledge that surveys of patients report high levels of satisfaction with homeopathic treatment; for them it "works", just as many treated with a placebo report that it works - the effects are better than no treatment. Obviously I do not personally believe that the treatments have any active properties, and I'm not going to attempt to explain what these might be - instead I thought it better to show what a satisfactory explanation would look like and then just state that no comparable explanation exists for homeopathy. We can state what homeopaths believe, these are neutral satements of fact and don't imply endorsement. I think there must be a limit on attacks on those beliefs, not least because they are counterproductive.82.35.214.10 08:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's take these part by part. 1)If we accept that the placebo effect is a real effect, then it would be irrational to believe that homeopathy does not "work" at least in the sense that placebos "work" - to deny this would be to accept that homeopathic remedies are somehow different from placebos. I think that to deny that many patients believe that homeopathic remedies work is not feasible. We have to accept this and move on from there. 2) I do not think it acceptable simply to assert that there is no scientific foundation for homeopathy without stating very clearly what is meant by this; not to do this is simply to argue from authority, and comes across as arrrogance. 3)We must be careful about citing studies selectively - lots of studies have suggested an effect of homeopathy, lots of others have concluded otherwise; numbers of citations aren't a good basis for argument here, as the important issue is the quality of the studies, so let's go just for the biggest most rigorous most recent meta-analysis, one that has been recognised as such by (at least one) homeopath site. 4) I think it would be wrong not to include mention of criticisms of the study. I think that the readers can make their minds up; the purpose of an article here surely is not to decide for the reader but to give the reader the means to make his or her own mind up. Gleng 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Plan?...

At present this article is disputed. It still contains material that gratuitously expresses a POV, and I do recognise Leifern's concerns, or some of them at least. The remarks headed "Possible reasons for the increasing use of homeopathic remedies are...." are perfectly reasonable opinions, but they are pure opinion. There is no evidence for these nor can I see how there could be. The obvious reason why the popularity of homeopathy is growing is simply that more and more people believe that it works, and this doesn't need to be said. This section reads like an explanation for why people believe stupid things. I suggest deleting it in the interests of NPOV.

The remarks about the AMA should I think be properly sourced and referenced and moved to the Validity section, which should be rewritten more or less as above.

I suspect that Aegeis has a point in insisting that miasms be included, however bizarre they might seem, they do appear to be a major theme in homeopathy. I'm sorry that he couldn't engage more constructively.

Lets try to get the text more non-judgemental, i.e. evidence-based not opinion-based. Gleng 09:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the statement about the AMA, with a formal statement of their policy, and put this in the Validity section; the remainder of this section still needs revisionGleng 17:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I've made the Validity edit as indicated above, I've tried to take careful note of the comments of T.J.C., and tried to keep it short. Still need to link with references.Gleng 13:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Propose removing mention of Austria and Mexico from section "..around the world"; the other entries are associated with noteworthy points of general interest, we can't mention every countryGleng 21:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The text of the article is made up of deliberate lies

I will expose only two among them, for now.

1. It is a lie that Hahnemann broke with contemporary medical practice moved by higher considerations, that is, being disappointed by its inefficacy. In reality, the reason was pecuniary: he was not able to earn for his living. Thus, he wrote in a letter of 29.08.1790: "I cannot reckon much on income from practice. This I know from fourteen years' experience". And in another letter of the same date: "I have entirely given up my practice for the past year, because it cost me more than it brought in..."

The legend was invented much later by Hahnemann himself. He used to tell it on occasions suitable for embellishing his personal reputation, as in a letter addressed to the very influencial Hufeland, published in 1808 in the Allgemeiner Anzeiger der Deutschen. But quotations from his private letters, as opposed to his stilted public declarations of much later date, clearly show that his claim was disingenuous.

Since this claim is irrelevant to the basic principles of homoeopathy, but nevertheless you insistently placed it in the most prominent position (at the very beginning of the article), it is obvious that you intentionally use it as a smokescreen, to dupe an unsophisticated reader.

2.The homeopathic doctrine consists of two main parts (represented by two main works of Hahnemann, the Organon and the Chronic Diseases), namely, the principle of similars, and the theory of miasms. The latter being manifestly obscurantist, you remove it to misrepresent homoeopathy as an empirical discipline. It as a silent lie; a close parellel would be representation of Nazism without concentration camps.

3.After observing the quackery paradise of Wikipedia for almost a year, I do not expect an honest discussion of any subject on your part. Instead, the quality of Wikipedia articles on the subject will be publicised on the Web; your semi-literate comments on the Talk_page will only serve to expose the level of expertise of wikipedian writers.

Aegeis 14:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Aegeis

Aegis, may I kindly suggest that you make edits to the existing version rather than just keep rving into your version? Your point about Hahnemann (if you have a citation) is reasonable to put in. As for point 2 and 3, notions of miasm don't exist in modern homeopathy as far as I can tell. If you want to add a comment in the history section that seems fine also. However, making comparisons to the Nazsi and calling the commentators who disagree with you "semi-literate" doesn't accomplish anything. As someone who strongly thinks that homeopathy is junk, the version that seems to be consensus seems to mainly adequately reflect the existing problems and criticisms. I am therefore rving it again. JoshuaZ 15:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Miasms do exist in modern homeopathy[2][3].Geni 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Aegis, I do not think that the current text attributes any motive at all to Hahneman, either good or bad, if it does it should be neutralised, but I don't recognise this, certainly not as you assert at the top of the article. We might have opinons about motives, but this is not a place for opinions, and I particularly think it is unsafe to attribute motives on the basis of interpretation of private letters. As I have stated on the talk page, I think a section on miasms is needed, as they do feature in contemporary writings of homeopathy. I was going to use your text as a basis if no-one else is willing to engage.Gleng 15:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the miasms section because it was long, boring, and badly written. Are you, Aegis, accusing me of deliberately obscuring the truth about homeopathy? Oh my! My previous posts have certainly shown me to be quite the homeopathy defender, I'm sure. You're not interested in discussion for the purpose of creating a neutral article, you're interested in discrediting homeopathy, which is not consistent with the aims of a Wikipedia article. Host your overwritten (frankly, it appears you only use obscure "pseudo-intellectual language" for the express purpose of sounding intelligent, not for the sake of brevity or clarity) and POV (you are needlessly speculative and opinionated, e.g. "Perhaps, it was not especially embarrassing for Bönnighausen who was a professional lawyer."), but thorough and interesting report somewhere else, and we'll link to it. Honestly, I like what you've written, because it comes from actually having read the homeopathic manuals - I'm too cheap to hunt them down myself and it would probably just make me mad anyway. But what's the point of fighting about it on here? If you're too POV, you will just be reverted. You are too polarized on the issue to contribute effectively. Frankly, I think I'm too polarized to contribute effectively, which is why I don't generally bother. Gleng has been doing a good job at staying neutral, if he wants to add miasms back in, he should. T.J.C. 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

..around the world

Removed Austria and Mexico as these comments were not associated with other points of general interest; homeopathy is very widespread and we cannot be exhaustive here.Gleng 15:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Aegeis

Just to be clear why I do not think that Aegeis' text is not acceptable. His/her article is interesting and clearly knowledgeable, but there are two fundamental problems: a) it is extensively riddled with opinion - for example, I do not know what evidence there is or might be that Hahnemann was senile at 72, but I doubt that this allegation can be substantiated. b) I think it is inherently unreasonable to represent homeopathy today by an exposition of what it was like 200 years ago; it would be unfair to represent conventional medicine today in the form it was even 50 years ago. Perhaps a separate article on early history of homeopathy would be appropriateGleng 16:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Miasms=

Proposed text addition. I started from Aegeis' text and then checked on current views. The comments on current views are digested from an interview with Andre Saine,

"Miasms

By 1816, Hahnemann was concerned at the failure of his homeopathic remedies to produce lasting cures for chronic diseases. He found "...a continually repeated fact that the non-venereal chronic diseases, after being time and again removed homoeopathically … always returned in a more or less varied form and with new symptoms." To explain this, Hahnemann introduced the miasmatic theory, that three fundamental miasms are behind all the chronic diseases of mankind: syphilis, sycosis, and psora. The miasm of psora he concluded was behind most) of the chronic diseases known to medine. Miasma, from the Greek for "stain", was an old medical concept, used for "pestiferous exhalations". The sense of this is indicated by Hahnemann's Note 2 to §11 of the Organon: "...a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, … in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property...".

According to Hahneman, miasmatic infection causes local symptoms, usually in the skin. If this local pathology is "suppressed" by external medication, the disease goes deeper, and manifests itself as organ pathologies. In §80 of the Organon he asserted psora to be the fundamental cause of such diseases as epilepsy, cyphosis, cancer, jaundice, deafness, and cataract.

Even in his own time, many followers of Hahneman, including Hering, made almost no reference to Hahnemann’s concept of chronic diseases. Today, some homeopathic practitioners [4] accept that Hahnemann’s theory does not hold up in light of current knowledge in immunology, genetics, microbiology and pathology, and recognise that Hahnemann neglected to identify genetic, congenital, metabolic, nutritional, and degenerative diseases, and failed to differentiate the multitude of different infectious diseases. However, they believe that some elements of his theory are valid. For instance, they believe that the fundamental cause of disease is constitutional (i.e. the susceptibility to becoming ill), and that it is contrary to good health to suppress symptoms, especially skin eruptions and discharges. They also accept Hahneman's concept of "latent psora", the early signs of an organism’s imbalance that indicate that treatment is needed to prevent the development of more advanced disease." Gleng 21:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The addition seems a bit long, but I'm ok with it. JoshuaZ 21:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I like it. T.J.C. 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

semi-protect?

Should we semi-protect this article so Aegis doesn't keep messing around? JoshuaZ 20:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Lee Hunter 21:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

his account is old.Geni 22:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this page is probably not a candidate for semi-protection. Aegeis only vandalizes maybe, what, three times a day from an anonymous ip? If you look at current requests for page protection, admins don't semi-protect unless there is sustained vandalism from several ip addresses. I would favor blocking the range of ips Aegeis uses, as well as his account (he's shown that he has no interest in being a properly-behaved Wikipedian), but that may be difficult. I mean, go ahead and submit the protection request, and if it's approved, great. However, Aegeis will be back eventually. I think we need to come up with a longer-term solution for this problem. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Range block would involve knocking out Lucky Net Ltd hitting 255 IPs.Geni 18:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Aegeis and NPOV

Other than Aegeis, is there now a reasonable consensus that this article is now factually accurate and NPOV? If so it would be nice to remove the tag, but if there are still issues to be addressed, let's hear them. I have been very impressed generally at the patience and goodwill of Wikipedia editors from many different viewpoints; I became involved in this article mainly just to find out how the community worked in a dispute. Aegeis' attitude presents a threat to the whole concept of Wikipedia however, as he/she refuses to enter negotiation or constructive discussion, and ignores obviously legitimate criticism about the factual basis, balance and relevance of his/her edits. It seems to me that Aegeis is in the following class: "Users who exhaust the community's patience There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community")." Gleng 13:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh there are plently of Factual and POV errors left in there:

The model of homeopathy was developed by the Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) and first published in 1796.

Not true. The practical homeopaths don’t really use hahnemann’s model

Thanks, will look intoo thisGleng 14:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now ammendedGleng 18:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

but attributes claimed effects to the Placebo Effect

Not true there is also the banarm effect to consider and the effect of the homeopathic case takeing (which can be viewed as a baisc form of counceling and [mode=cynic] is pobably very effective at dealing with hypocondriacs)

Thanks, added refernce to Forer effectGleng 14:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Other homeopaths, dilutions of the agent or the product of the disease. Rabies nosode, for example, is made by potentizing the saliva of a rabid dog.

That is isopathy rather than homeopathy

Will checkGleng 14:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

All I've found indicates that isopathy is just a subset of homeopathy??Gleng 18:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends. Technicaly it isn't because "like cures like" is not same cures like. Most homeopaths I've run into have been pretty quick to distance themselves from isopathy when clinical trials go against it

ammendedGleng 09:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To understand the effects of quinine, he decided to take it himself, and saw that his reactions were similar to the symptoms of the disease it was used to treat.

Needs some mention that this was probably due to an allergy.

OK will checkGleng 14:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now ammendedGleng 18:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

For many patients and many conditions, treatment by a practitioner of homeopathy is better than no treatment, and many patients report benefits after conventional treatment has failed.

But that reference you provide is a bit misleading. It basically says that Hahnemann had the symptoms of an acute reaction to quinine poisoning as seen in clinical studies (Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin. December 1988, Canberra City, ACT 2600, Australia.) but it fails to ask the crucial question of whether there is a parallel between those symptoms of a quinine reaction and malaria. There are, in fact, a number of similarities. So how does this prove or disprove his theory of like cures like? --Lee Hunter 20:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Because like cures like is meant to be a general theory. Or are you going to claim that quinine only works on those alergic to quinine?Geni 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your point. Hahnemann was sensitive to quinine, so a lower dose provoked a strong toxic reaction. Someone who is less sensitive would require a larger dose before they showed a toxic reaction. --Lee Hunter 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

where is "Cold fingers and feet with trembling" part of the toxic reaction?Geni 22:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Chills and trembling are certainly part of the picture [5] In any case, cherry-picking one symptom out of twenty doesn't really change the picture much. --Lee Hunter 02:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is false and POV.

In what sense POV? Think statement is factually true and can referenceGleng 14:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"For many patients"= weasal words "treatment by a practitioner of homeopathy is better than no treatment" unless you have broken any bone or have apedicitis or indeed any non self limiting condition.Geni 18:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how many patients go to homeopaths for treatment of broken bones, but there have been plenty of studies of how patients perceive the effectiveness of their treatment, and these are generally supportive, for whatever reason, see e.g.: Guthlin C, Lange O, Walach H. Measuring the effects of acupuncture and homoeopathy in general practice: an uncontrolled prospective documentation approach. BMC Public Health. 2004 Mar 4;4:6.PMID: 15113434 The AMA advice (part of AMA policy statement) is not to underesrtimate the power of the placebo effectGleng 09:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Many clinical trials that partially meet these criteria have investigated homeopathy, and many have indicated some kind of efficacy above placebo[7],

False. No trial that has met these criteria has produced some kind of efficacy above placebo (partly becuase depending on wether you include the multi centre requirement there are only 1 or 3 studies that do).Geni 13:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement is "partially meet" - true that none fully meet these criteria, however trials of conventional drugs that fully meet them are relatively rare. Think statement given is factually trueGleng 14:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No trial that manages to produce resonable value of "partially meet" has shown efficacy above the placebo.Geni 18:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just not true. There have been a number of reasonable quality studies, and there is a sense in which the only way it's clear that the studies were not adequately designed is that they still seemed to show an effect of homeopathy. see Jonas et al. A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 4;138(5):393-9. PMID: 12614092 and Linde et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43 PMID: 9310601 I think it is important to approach homeopathy skeptically, but especially important not to either overstate the case against or to unreasonably discount honest arguments in its favour. Gleng 09:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm you just listed a couple of meta anaylisis not clincal trials. Linde et al 1997 is flawed[6] and in any case was largly reteacted in Linde et al 1999. An attempted meta anaylsis of meta anayisese is ammuseing but flawed principle.Geni 01:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If the could indeed show an effect, in a scientific double-blind test, they could also claim the Randi one million dollar award. Oddly enough, no-one has. Daniel Lindsäth 09:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You are both fighting, I think, on unsafe ground. There are many reasons why an apparently well conducted trial might produce an unreliable result, and indeed very many do. There is first a possibility of fraud, which generally I'd discount because I think this is very rare. More commonly though, there is the inevitable statistical uncertainty - a P value of 0.05, generally taken as criteria to provisionally accept the outcome, will arise by chance one time in 20, and when individual trials involve multiple comparisons these false positive outcomes can accrue readily. When this is combined with publication bias - the tendency to wish to write up positive outcomes but shelve negative outcomes, the overall effect is that individually significant outcomes must still be taken with skepticism. So the Randi challenge would not be satisfied post hoc by an incidental positive result, and I'm quite sure that any test of the Randi challenge would be designed to be robust against chance false positives.

Yes it is always possible to find flaws in test design, and I don't question this for a moment. However it is possible to find flaws in just about any test design that I have ever seen. The problem here is one of circularity - the outcome is clearly wrong, so there must be a design problem, here is a design problem so... Well, the fact is that scientific acceptance doesn't merely rest on trial outcomes but on the whole context of a theory that is supported i detail by diverse lines of evidence. This is what is lacking in homeopathy, and I think it is a mistake to focus only on trial outcomes, and a great mistake to suggest that a single positive outcome on a well designed test would be conclusive, and a mistake also not to acknowledge that some reasonable trials seems to produce positive outcomes, though on balance the overall picture indicates that these are probably false positives.Gleng 13:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please back up your claim that "some reasonable trials seems to produce positive outcomes" of withdraw it.Geni 14:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

see e.g. Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea: combined results and metaanalysis from three randomized, controlled clinical trials. Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003 Mar;22(3):229-34. This is a)from the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington b)published in peer-reviewed international clinical research journal c) studies are randomised, double blind, placebo controlled d) overall sample size is large (242 children) e) significance of difference from placebo is not marginal (P = 0.008) Yes I can see problems post hoc, can you?Gleng 17:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Or if you don't like meta-analyses: Homeopathic treatment of mild traumatic brain injury: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1999 Dec;14(6):521-42. Chapman EH, Weintraub RJ, Milburn MA, Pirozzi TO, Woo E. (Harvard University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.)82.35.214.10 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathic treatment of mild traumatic brain injury? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Serious data drege man serious data dredge. If you measure enough varabiles yes you will get some significant ones. What of it?Geni 14:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you now have a problem with randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials? Please explain. --Lee Hunter 15:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

They took a large number of measurements and then simply selected those that were significant. A fairly trivial way of getting whatever result you want.Geni 16:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that they took a large number of measurements? I don't see it in the abstract.[7]--Lee Hunter 23:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the primary outcome measure was the subject-rated SRH-MBTI Functional Assessment. However they don't give figures for that other than to mention the result was not sigificant. They then start messing around with subtest which is where the large number of measurements comes in.Geni 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the abstract says: "The primary outcome measure was the subject-rated SRH-MBTI Functional Assessment, composed of three subtests: a Difficulty with Situations Scale (DSS), a Symptom Rating Scale (SRS), and a Participation in Daily Activities Scale (PDAS). The SRH Cognitive-Linguistic Test Battery was used as the secondary measure. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance demonstrated that the homeopathic treatment was the only significant or near-significant predictor of improvement on DSS subtests (P =.009; 95% CI -.895 to -.15), SRS (P =.058; 95% CI -.548 to.01) and the Ten Most Common Symptoms of MTBI (P =.027; 95% CI -.766 to -.048). These results indicate a significant improvement from the homeopathic treatment versus the control and translate into clinically significant outcomes." --Lee Hunter 12:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"that the homeopathic treatment was the only significant" there were things where it did not produce a significant result. They would not be messing around with these subtests if their main result was significant.Geni 13:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You are completely misreading the abstract. "The primary outcome measure was the subject-rated SRH-MBTI Functional Assessment, composed of three subtests" In other words, the main test and the subtests are one and the same thing. The main test had three parts and each of those three parts showed positive results for homeopathy. --Lee Hunter 14:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say that about the PDAS subtest?Geni 15:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no significant effect on PDAS. The authors first did a global ANOVA on the whole outcome, including all three measures, and showed a significant treatment effect; they then broke down the analysis to identify in which element the difference occurs - this showed that it was in the SRS, then they looked at individual elements in the SRS post hoc.It really looks fine, it's an unusually thorough and careful analysis; below is from the paper "Although the effect of homeopathic treatment was not significant for the PDAS (F(1.47) = .195, P = .660), there was a significant effect of homeopathic treatment on the DSS (F(1.47) = 7.34, P = .009; 95% CI -.895 to -.15) and an effect close to significance on the SRS (F(1.47) = 3.77, P = .058; 95% CI -.548 to .01). ...

Post-hoc analysis of the Symptom Rating Scale

Because the SRS included symptoms with very low incidence (eg, vomiting, seizures), a “basement effect” was suspected. Therefore, we selected all of the symptoms that had a median pretest score of 4, indicating that at least half of the subjects reported experiencing the symptoms at least “most of the time.” Ten symptoms (see Table 1) fell into this category. An ANCOVA predicting posttest scores on a scale composed of these ten items (SRS-10), testing the effect of treatment group and controlling for pretest scores on the SRS-10, showed a significant group effect (F(1,47) = 5.21, P = .027; 95% CI -.766 to -.048). This result lends support to the conclusion that the homeopathic treatment produced a meaningful reduction in subjects' significant symptoms. "129.215.83.79 17:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

maybe, you'll have to check whether there was appropriate adjustment for multiple comparisons, but the claim is that "some reasonable trials seems to produce positive outcomes" and this seems unarguable.

Argument by assertion also know as WP:NOR.Geni 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that presenting studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals is simply using primary sources. Rejecting studies that don't suit your personal view of "quality" research (as if somehow you were more knowledgeable than the journal's editorial committee of domain experts) is original research. --Lee Hunter 02:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The merits of the studies are out of bounds, the given examples have been published in reputable sources, and it's not appropriate to engage in criticism of the statistics. "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." So the claim is good: just to recall the wording "Many clinical trials that partially meet these criteria have investigated homeopathy, and many have indicated some kind of efficacy above placebo[7]". Now it's not hard to find more examples of these, - (double blind placebo controlled randomised trials), in peer reviewed literature, excluding journals of alternative medicine, and excluding studies from homeopathic sources, though it may be argued that it is POV to exclude these. Can change "many have indicated" to "some have indicated" ; won't argue about how many makes manyGleng 11:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) In fact, the authors' stats seems pretty robust, I don't see any cause for complaint here "To control for the possibility of increased Type I error resulting from multiple significance tests, we conducted a multivariate ANOVA, testing the effect of treatment group (homeopathic versus placebo) on change scores (posttest score minus the pretest score) on the three primary dependent variables: the SRS, the DSS, and the PDAS. The Wilks' Lambda for the effect of treatment group was .841 (F(3,46)) = 2.89, P = .046). Following this significant multivariate effect, the three primary dependent variables were tested with separate factorial ANCOVAs. For each analysis, the posttest score for the variable was specified as the dependent variable, with group (homeopathic or placebo) as a between-subjects variable and with the corresponding pretest score as a covariate" Gleng 15:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Geni's edit is POV, substantiate "Most clinical trials have been of poor quality" with primary evidence from a reputable source or keep the POV out of this. I think it does science a disservice to be less than fair, balanced, open, objective and reasonable, and it's hardly surprising we're blamed for arrogance and dual standards. OK, drop the explanation of what a reasonable scientific explanation would look like, personally I think it's a mistake just to say there's no plausible explanation without being very clear about what you'd consider to be a plausible explanation, otherwise again it's just arrogance. Personally, I'm done with this nowGleng 17:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Plausible= doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics, doesn't require a complete rerite of quantum physics and isn't inconsistant with most of the field of analytical chemistry. As for low quality of trials that one seems to have surfaced in pretty much ever meta analyis since Kleijnen et al.Geni 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

this is not coherent. On the one hand, there are many things that don't break the laws of thermodynamics etc that are not plausible, on the other hand, as there is no explanation for homeopathy it is hard to call it inconsistent with anything. The jibe about the low quality of trials is just that, unless someone has specified what they mean by low quality, and have supported that claim with an exhaustive analysis of all clinical trials with a matching analysis of conventional trials. It's too easy to say that a trial must be bad if you don't believe the answer, too easy and not honest. What is worse, it's a hostage to fortune. A perfect trial will occasionally produce a wrong answer, frankly it's best to acknowledge that and move on. Trials won't resolve this, and they're not the reason in the end why scientists discount homeopathy - the real reason is the lack of a plausible explanation - though not in Geni's sense

Those cretia were picked for a reason. The laws of thermodynamics knocks out a load of really exotic attempted explanations. The quantum physics one knocks out weak quantum theory and some of the fusion based ones. The analytical chemisty one knocks out a lot of the memory of water ones since they way analytical chemists prepare standards is simular to the way homeopathic remedies are made. If some of the water memory models were correct it would mess up the field of analytical chemistry. Clearly this is talored for homeopathy rather than a more general case.Geni 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the deletions made by Geni. these removed

1)The statement that homeopathy is often better than no treatment. This is uncontroversial, except for those who don't believe in the placebo effect. It is however important to acknowledge that many people who have been treated by homeopathy think that it works.

There is a statement before that. The process of homeopathy does not involve treatment. And you had better have some very good evidence for that many.Geni 00:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

2) Clarity over what is a plausible explanation. The importance for clarity here is exemplified by Geni's interpretation, which would not amount to a coherent statement. This I guess led to Geni's suggestion of OR. By reference to Wikipedia policy, I'd say that my phrasing is not OR but simply makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge. It's neither new nor original, merely explicit. However if other editors disagree then fine.82.35.214.10 22:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored edits

No, restored edits and fixed reference. The reference is a secondary source in a reputable juurnal (Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 4;138(5):393-9), in accordance with WK policy. Geni's arguments are OR. I will however say that just because an explanation is not consistent with current theories does not make it implausible. As scientists we rarely claim absolute truth, and would be rash to declare anything proved, argument from authority not reason is not science. As scientists we take the evidence, all of it, not pick and choose the bits we like. We work with it all. Geni, try writing for the enemy. If you get support from other editors, OK, I'll go with consensus. But these edits and this text was placed on the Talk pages before they were introduced, and revised after comments from other editors, so to delete them unilaterally is to abuse the principles of consensus editingGleng 10:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So you reject the Bayesian aproach to science. Ok lets move onto the falsificationist one. The mechanisms suggested for homeopaty are:

Memeory of water- would mess up analytical chemistry if true

Weak quantum thoery -in so far as there is a coherent theory here (there isn't but that is a seperate issue) it contradicts estabilished quantum theory and kinda runs into problems with Planck's constant.

Various stuff about energy medcine- Runs into problems with the first law of thermodynamics.

fussion/fishion- Runs into problems with the energy requirements for this to take place

Rejection of avogadro's number- runs into problems with the results of the various methods for measureing avogadro's constant

Hanneman's stuff about magnets-runs into problems with our current understanding of electricity and how organisms work.

I think that falsifys the lot.

Your cite doesn't support the claim made.Geni 11:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

All OR. None of this is falsification, and the comment on Bayesian is sheer nonsense; Bayesian approaches in particular deny absolute truth, but provide a quantitative criterion for conditional and provisional acceptance. In fact they provide an explicit method for balancing probabilistic evidence, including the inevitable unreliability of any statistical conclusion of generality from a sample. A hypothesis is not falsified by being inconsistent with another theory or hypothesis but by prediction and experiment; as no single experiment or trial can invalidate homeopathy it can't be falsified so is not scientific in this sense, as far as the mechanisms are concerned I don't even want to get into whether they hold up, of course I doubt it but this is OR and beyond scope of WP. Your reference is appropriate for the statement made in the text you reverted, so I've added itGleng 12:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't think this is falisifcation? Please provide a mechanism that I haven't just knocked to bits. Actualy Bayesian does call for rejecting new thoeries and even evidence when it contradicts an established theory. It is the reason I don't like it very much.Geni 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief - evidence for hoeopathy vs no treatment - no, this is not controversial unless you discount the placebo effectGleng 12:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The importance of the placebo effect is overated. The homeopathic narative is far more significant a factor in why homeopathy appears to work. You have been reported for breaking the 3 revert rule WP:3RR.Geni 12:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Importance of placebo effect? OR, see AMA policy statement. Theories are accepted or rejected, of course, if they are rejected this doesn't make them implausible, only inconsistent with current evidence. RCTs vs no treatment - well RCTs involve placebo because of the strength of the placebo effect, so you have to look at evidence for the placebo effect, beyond the scope of the article. But tehre are patient surveys, that not surprisingly report high satisfaction. 3RR, fine, all edits in good faith incorporating constructive elements and with explanation on Talk. Science is not about picking the evidence that fits but about objectively assessing the totality of evidence. Experiments produce misleading outcomes sometimes even when conducted properly, and discounting an experimental outcome is not necessarily to criticise the design or the scientists, instead you cite the outliers and explain that they are outliersGleng 12:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias toward homoeopathy

The statement that Hahnemann did not accept the conventional medicine of his day is a lie. He proposed the soluble mercury for the treatment of syphilis as late as in 1789; it was as toxic a preparation as all others of the same group. The innovation was completely in the spirit of the conventional medicine of his day. And so it was with all his earlier ideas. So, either adduce a single fact (before 1796) to the contrary, or remove the mendacious assertion.

But why at all should the section on the basic principles of homoeopathy begin with such a statement, quite irrelevant in the context? It does not elucidate homoeopathic concepts, and even be it true, it would not entail that the latters are true either. It is here to bias the reader toward homoeopathy from the very start, using bloodletting and all as a scarecrow, and providing him with no real facts about homoeopathy; such a jesuite ploy. This trick is one of many which betray the biased (toward homoeopathy), POV status of the article.

Aegeis 21:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Aegeis

You have a point. I don't think Hahnemann in any way saw himself as rejecting the conventional medicine of the time. He was simply experimenting with the same medicine that his contemporaries were using (mercury, Peruvian bark etc.) trying to find a way of delivering them with less toxic side effects. In much the same way, researchers today try to find more efficient delivery techniques for chemotherapy. Having said that, it's not so much a "lie" as an overly romantic depiction. In any case, that sentence should be changed or deleted. --Lee Hunter 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

have you ever read the organon? elizmr 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have revised to try to accomodate these points above, at least partly - the sentence on dilutions I have not deleted but moved to the other discussion on this point. I guess I don't see the article as being pro Momeopathy, guess it depends what you read into it, but let's not use words like lies; if a phrase is not appropriate or unbalanced or badly chosen or wrong then OK; let's please assume good faith thoughGleng 09:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Lee's comment "I don't think Hahnemann in any way saw himself as rejecting the conventional medicine of the time" and Aegeis comment above, the following is from http://www.nndb.com/people/438/000050288/ I have left in the last sentence to demonstrate that it is from a skeptical source "...Leipzig in 1789. In the following year, while translating W. Cullen's Materia medica into German, he was struck by the fact that the symptoms produced by quinine on the healthy body were similar to those of the disordered states it was used to cure. He had previously felt dissatisfied with the state of the science of medicine ...Needless to say, the basis of Hahnamann's homeopathic approach to medicine is entirely fraudulent "

This from the Catholic Encyclopedia/History of Science http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10122a.htm "Never before had a physician built a system upon so many purely arbitrary hypotheses as Hahnemann. Paracelsus also had declared war upon the old medicine, and had attributed little value to anatomical and physiological investigation, which, however, was still in its initial period of development; but, with his reverence for Hippocrates, he nevertheless ranks higher than Hahnemann, who is the representative of empiricism and the despiser of all the positive successes which medicine had previously attained"

Is it really wrong to say that Hahnemann was actively rejecting conventional medicine of the time? I'm not trying to make a point, these extracts are not evidence but interpretation, and we should get this right, whatever the answer is. Gleng 13:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Tricky. Rejecting it yes. Closer to outright attack if you read his rants about allopathy. Of course if you consider what passed for mainstream medicine at the time he may have had a point.Geni 02:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally some scientific evidence

I haven't read all the discussion but I would like to share some knowledge I came across on the long journey of medical treatment ...

First, most scientist states that there is no evidence of how homeopathy works and always comes with the dilution solution. I agree with them ... indeed, there is no possibility that some particules are left in the solution... but ... some experiement were conducted, once major by Professeur Fritz-A. Popp (author of [8] Biology of light) shows that each homeopathy product has a different wave length. What this shows is that homeopathy does not treat using conventional "physical matter" but instead using vibration and energy to cure. Thus I would cathegorize homeopathy in the magnetotherapy group...

Studies made using GDV (Gaz discharge visualisation) shows the change of energy potential when "simple" water is "energize" with homeopathy (from a single spot of light to a big hallow).

As for the "clinical testing " they did for comparison... no wonder they have the same effect as the placebo ... by definition the homepathy is specific to a patient not to a disease. Did they interview the patient for their background, feelings, so on ? I don't think so. You cannot use the same method for analysing homeopathy as you would allopathy. Thus you can't really make comparison. They are not different medecines, they are complementary.

I would use allopathy for "urgent" problems and homeopathy to cure/clean one's body on the long term.

Just an example of usage for those who still think that placebo is in effect... I saw a little girl of about 4 months being bitten by a bee (of course she is allergic to the bees) in the upper arm. immediately the arm started to get swallen. The parents gave her "apis mellifica" (which was the cure for their daughter) and in a few minutes the inflammation stopped and the only thing left was the place where the bee bit. Placebo ? on who's part ? the parents ?

Hope this will shed some more lights to actual effectiveness of homeopathy.

Regards

You do realise that if the reseach was correct FIS and various spectoscoptic techniques involveing florense would be slightly imposible to use?Geni 13:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re introductory sentence: "The claims of homeopathy have not been proved to the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine." Seems to me that a) not clear what claims are meant b) scientists would rarely claim that anything is proved c) much conventional medicine does not meet the standards of EBM, and so these are weasel words. d) unfortunate to use prove in different senses in this article I think that homeopathy is utterly without foundation, but I think this is POV. Suggest it should be rephrased and moved to section on scientific validityGleng 09:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bandolier and Cochrane

Looked at these, and I think that Cochrane is clearly a high quality source. However there is at least one Cochrane review which is partly supportive of homeopathy and this should also be cited. Less sure about Bandolier as a source, because I can't see that their Journal is peer reviewed, and seems not to separate opinion from evidence. Is this a source that meets highest WP standards? I think on the mainstream science side we should only use the very best and unimpeachable sources. Comments?Gleng 11:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Aegeis/Nazis

I'm glad that Aegeis is engaging. This section at present (Aegeis raw first draft) is full of opinion and interpretation, and there is a clear danger of "guilt by association" which should be avoided. However there are interesting historical issues here, relating to a) the links between homeopathy and religious beliefs, which were an explicit part of Kent's philosophy, and b)political (as opposed to scientific) support/lack of support for homeopathy. It seems to me that these could be developed objectively and would be relevant and interesting. Aegeis, can you trim out the opinion and develop the fact basis?Gleng 09:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The ridiculous state of this article (re revert)

I contributed much to this article back in mid-2005, and stopped following Aegis' "contributions". Now Aegis is going beyond all reasonable bounds to demonize homeopathy and totally disrespect the concept of Wikipedia - doing the equivalent of discrediting chicken as food because the Nazis liked to eat it, too. That he is allowed to do this shows the weakness of Wikipedia, and this article has degenerated to a ridiculous mess consequent to his insinuations and others' poor knowledge of the field.

It is for this reason that I am offering all of you the opportunity to see the article in a previous state where it was not a caricature (of both the pro- and anti- sides, I must add!) but a mature,informative article fit for public presentation. Please do not revert my revert but instead read the article in its entirety, and then the pre-reverted one in comparison, also allowing others that follow you with the same privilege. I do not underdstand why people who've read about an aspect of a complex discipline think that they know the whole, nor why Aegis has not been shut down by now for his unrepenent hostility (well, perhaps it's better to kill an article than people...). Davidnortman 16:39, 28 March 2006

Glad that someone took this in hand. It made me sick, but I really didn't have the time or knowledge, without extensive fact finding, to take it in hand myself. Doc 21:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Aegeis, Gleng, Davidnortman edits

I have edited taking into account the useful edits of Gleng which built on Aegeis history edits (but moved them to history section). Despite the claim of Davidnortman it is a part of the history and belongs in the article. Though I am happy to discuss. I am disgusted by deletion of EBM. Pls discuss your reasons if you want to consider it again. Mccready 05:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to work with the Aegeis edit constructively, despite reservations, and while awaiting other comments. On balance, I'm not convinced that the Nazi reference adds anything useful to the article; it's a historical aside. The comments on religion though are different. Kent clearly integrated homeopathy with religious beliefs, and from his rejection of empiricism and promotion of dogmatic adherence to given laws, it seems that this influence had continuing importanceGleng 12:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The nazi thing is only useful for cheap point scoreing when homeopaths try the "look at these famous people who support us" line of argument. Otherwise it has not real significance other than a historical curriousity.Geni 12:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with the science (EBM) section is that it is completely POV: it so happens that there is roughly as much positive evidence as negative evidence for homeopathy (where "positive" doesn't mean "proves homeopathy ocnclusively" but "shows that there is something going on" - this point could be explicated if needed) rather than mostly negative evidence as presented there, whereas the detailed scientific evidence section in the reincarnated version strove to present both sides and to provide some major refernces so as to invite further reader exploration rather than misrepresenting the issue as simple, straightforward, and settled for all eternity. In contrast the EBM section overstates the case (EBM is a specific movement that is not universally accepted within the medical community - see a large essay I wrote on the topic - though it is touted as such in the media, so it is more appropriate to say that homeopathy should meet scientific standards (whose nature can be multifaceted) than that it should meet the specific criteria of EBM (which is considered overly rigid, unrealistic, and bias-producing by many in the medical community); and oversimplifies the scientific issues (e.g., ignoring non-clinical evidence relevant to the understanding on mechanism-of-action which, in turn, affects the judgement of the relevance of clinical data).

There are two levels of investigation possible: the superficial one where one gets to the politically correct, officially sanctioned, readily available material, or a deeper one that attempts to get in touch with the truth of the matter, as the one (I argue) that resulted from collaboration in a previous incarnation of this and other sections. Putting aside the malicious edits since, the pre-reverted article is full of good-natured yet misguided authoritativeness. Davidnortman 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Popularity and other issues

Unless someone can supply sources for the popularity section, shouldn't it be deleted? And the figures of homeopathy assoc are not good enough. We need independent data.

• Since Linde withdrew, so should the ref.
• I've tightened the science section - it was too long
• I'm very happy to discuss the science and if anyone deletes the science section again I will RfC

Mccready 02:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I give up here. The version to which Davidnortman reverted is rambling, badly written, ridden with errors and POV, and the bulk revert of painstaking errors corrected one by one with discussion contributed by many editors is un-WP. I started to restore some of the obviously improved sections, but the essence of WP is that "officially sanctioned readily available material" are precisely the verifiable sources that WP needs. "Attempts to get to the truth" are OR and intrinsically POV. This version is weaker in sources, direct quotes, facts and verifiable authority. But now I've reverted to the version before Davidnortman's bulk revert; I've looked through WP policies and this is clearly un-WP. By all means replace section by section while talking and observing WP verifiability and reliable sources. I have not retained Ballista's edits because they lack these.Gleng 10:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

What is NPOV

If known facts pro et contra a theory are in the ratio, say, of 1:9, then a NPOV (unbiased) review of the theory should be overloaded with negative facts just in this proportion. If the facts are presented fifty-fifty, the review is biased toward the theory.

Then, the only criterion of mentioning facts (insomuch as they are facts) in a review should be their significance, however scandalous or otherwise embarrassing they may seem. The facts concerning the allies of homoeopathy in its struggle against science are significant in the following aspects:

First, they shed additional light on the process of dissemination of homoeopathic ideas.

Second, as concerns the Swedenborgian influence, they show how much unempirical are many among practical prescripts of homoeopathy.

Third, as concerns homoeopathy under the Nazi patronage, its significance lies, as said in the text, in its being the biggest clinical trial of homoeopathy in its history.

Aegeis 21:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Aegeis

Skepticism, philosophy of science, informed contribution

Skepticism about homeopathy is a welcome thing - I am personally unimpressed by people who buy into it too easily after hearing about it. But skepticism is a fundamentally agnostic position: the skeptic can claim disbelief but cannot argue for it except after having undertaken a thorough study of the subject matter from an internal rather than arm-chair perspective. I have yet to meet a skeptic (though my sample is admittedly small) who has spent a week or two observing the work of several classical homeopaths before embarking on an assured criticism of the enterprise. Similarly, a scientific paper or two does not an argument make, and it is only through a sufficiently thorough investigation of the literature that papers can be selected for quoting - those, and not conclusions from political bodies, which are of secondary importance (just as it is unimportant whether or not Bush thinks global warming is real).

Another important aspect is to study the typical methods by which skeptics engage their subject matter (i.e. apply skeptical criteria to skepticism itself), as many of those are nonspecific to the topic, what 'may' suggest that their objections have, at times, more to do with recurrent misconceptions about reality (e.g., that it must conform to current scientific knowledge because the latter is final and non-evolving) or the process of science (e.g., that than with the topic at hand. May I recommend some interesting audio files and articles at www.sheldrake.org, specifically this page, where a well-known scientist researching ideas wilder than homeopathy presents the problems he has experienced with professional skeptics over the years; see also www.skepticalinvestigations.org, where professional skepticism is looked at skeptically (it's only fair!).

It is also important to have solid knowledge of philosophy of science prior to invoking criteria of scientific practice. Just as an example, the law of similars is not scientific by Popper's falsifiability criterion, yet the much less publicly well-known yet also highly influential within the profession of science is Lakatos' notion of "reserach enterprise", according to which the law of similars is evaluated based on its practical contribution to the discipline's development and not on its falsifiability when isolated from context. Quine has a similar model, his "web of belief". Yet Popper's popular criterion is applied as though it represents the final say about science, which it simply is not.

A note on evidence and NPOV: there is no reliable way of measuring how much evidence there is for and against homeopathy. The only simple numerical result shows that 70% of clinical studies on homeopathy show some effect above placebo, yet I don't take this number to mean much. Presenting evidence on both sides in a roughly 1:1 ratio is NPOV because it doesn't pretend to prejudge the issue for the reader. Please respect readers' autonomy by supplying them with sufficient information on each side (which is why I've argued before that a longer-than-usual article is of help), rather than attempting to be concise and prejudging the matter for them. It seems that people are afraid that this article will reflect any ambiguity about the reality of homeopathy, and want it to present a clear-cut view.

Only once the above study of both sides is undertaken should one contribute substantially to a complex article such as this. And these contributions have to be done in good faith, if you know what I mean.
Davidnortman 23:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you want to try and bring in lakatos. Couple of problems with that. First it fails to correctly describe history (for example copernicos modified his theory so moon orbited the earth rather than the sun) considering what Lakatos's thoery was based on this is a fatal flaw. Lakatos also runs into problems that his ideas force science to be defined as something that follows roughly the same historical patturns as physics for the last 300 years. Myself I'd argue that after a century of failer it may be time to give up on the protective belt and modify homeopathy's core assumptions.Geni 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to incorporate others' edits changes made after my last revert a day back rather than reverting to my own last version, but I discovered that an edit made by Mccready retained all negative clinical trials and removed all positive clinical trials that were listed in the version that I am therefore reverting to now. Perhaps an innocent error, perhaps a perfect example of how skeptics deal with uncomfortable information. Evidence? [9] - it's hard to see so you may want to visit the science section of each version in the full view. C'mon, people, we can do better than make an illegal tackle and hope not to get caught!
Davidnortman 00:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be unwise to assume that any particular editor knows more or less about the subject than any other, and we have to assume good faith in all. In any case, what we know is not the point any more than our opinions matter. What does matter is what we can verify by citation to reliable sources. If Aegeis can cite a reputable authority for the inference that the clinical experience of homeopathy under the Nazis was negative, then it should be cited and included, but I don't think he can. If Davidnortman sees specific factual errors in the current article that he can correct with appropriate referencing then he should do so, I'm sure he can. By all means include suffficient information on all sides - but by citing verifiable and reputable sources, not by inserting OR interpretation. Do not bulk revert the work of many editors over many months incorporating extensive discussion and elaborate tracking and checking of sources. Replace section by section with explanation, retaining all verifiable information, and preserving constructive contributions.Gleng 08:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To Mccready: Instead of making threats please account for your deliberate, blatantly POV presentation of the scientific evidence.

To Gleng: Seeing that you are a physiologist, here is an illustration of what I am concerned about: Shall I go about adding references to the physiology article about the Nazi fascination with the subject matter, making it sound like physiology never was in its prime except in Mengele's laboratory, providing that I backed the facts up with references? Aegis clearly wishes to discredit homeopathy, devoting more room for something that, even if it were true (I haven't checked and will therefore remain agnostic) has no traces in current homeopathy, in contrast with the abiding influence of, say, 19th century American, early-20th-century British, and late-20th-century Indian homeopathy, to which little space is devoted except to describe the Swendenborgian connection (which is mentioned in homeopathic history books and not glossed over) - again a strategy that could be applied to discredit virtually any scientist before the mid-19th-century (e.g. Newton with his extensive theology). Besides, at best Aegis' work represents private research which is generally inadmissible in Wikipedia, and he has consistently used the strategy of zooming in on tiny points and inflating them beyond recognition and out of context in order to make homeopathy sound ridiculous, a strategy that can be applied to caricature any discipline whatever: the fact that he can refer to various references doesn't mean that he hasn't put together a picture that suits his fancy. It is naive to think that there is no creativity in putting together facts. In contrast, the vast majority of what is found in the version that existed before it was plundered exists in published work.
Davidnortman 18:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As should be clear from the history, I did not introduce the Nazi section but immediately flagged concerns about it like yours. I edited it to reduce the POV while awaiting comments and then I deleted it, with discussion and explanation.Gleng 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know who introduced the Nazi section, no worries (by now I can tell merely from the malevolent literary style). What I am concerned about is why there is any tolerance at this point toward any of Aegis' edits - rather, they should be reverted on principle, i.e. without having to consider every edit anew, just as my bulk edit was reverted on principle. Davidnortman 21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

begin Rfc on nortman

Rfc requires "For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." I will contact nortman on his userpage to begin the process and invite one other user to do the same. Mccready 18:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I made changes only to the science section to begin, as I do contribute in good faith - as my past record will show (where I often incorporated into the article opposing ideas proposed by others). At this point I think it is Mccready's onus to argue for his version of the science section over the present one (which, I repeat, was established by consensus before being "cleaned up", as it were); remember that numerically there are actually more positive results (in the clinical trials) in favour of homeopathy, so presenting negative evidence and one case of positive evidence (incidentally, a standard skeptical rhetorical device) is simply unacceptable and certainly not in good faith. The laboratory investigation section is meant to present the real status of investigation in the area - namely, that there are some unsatisfactory hypotheses about the possibility of anomalous water properties (which is hardly falsely supportive of homeopathy!) - rather than misinforming the reader through saying that there is no possibility of any mechanism of action which misrepresents not only the specific topic but the process of science at large.

BTW, I am wondering why there is no call to RfC Aegis?
Davidnortman 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we discussed what to do about Aegeis for a while, without consensus. Many, if not most, of his edits came from anonymous IP addresses, making an RFC a largely ceremonial undertaking. If his account was sanctioned (which it has been for 3RR), he would just start again from another dynamic IP. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Re davidnortman science revert: Again from the history you will see that this section has evolved through long and painstaking consensus building. You will see the efforts that I went to to retain the acknowledgement of patient reported outcmes that are in this version, you will see that I inserted the EBM evidence in support iof homeopathy, and you will see that I trimmed the trial data to feflect WP best sources only - in this case secondary sources are authoratative meta analyses reflecting consensus, rather than multiple primary sources (indiviidual trials) reflecting disparate findings. I have always tried to discuss first before revisions - the Aegeis case is a typical example, I stated an opinion and waited for support (in this case from Geni) before acting. So please revert the science section, express your view ion the talk pages, and look for the consensusGleng 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The situation is such that there is no consensus in the community about the meaning of the scientific data, so presenting supposedly "consensus reviews" is misrepresenting the situation, which is rather like what is referred to in the "Status quo" section, namely a lack of progress in understanding between the sides (for whatever reason: remember than this article's purpose is to describe rather than analyze the situation). The trials listed in the version I am promoting are indeed meta-analysis rather than individual trials, and have the advantage that within them are collectively contained references to most of the individual trials in question. Davidnortman 11:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the homeopathy article. The cloest we get to consensus here is that at a significant number of those involved will not revert on sight. I think it is safe to say your version has failed. -- Geni 11:45, 1 April 2006

Geni you were present when the version I am reverting to was agreed on and you didn't argue that the whole thing was categorically wrong-headed at the time. But now that you've got support you suddenly dismiss the whole thing en masse!? Davidnortman 19:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus here is scientific consensus. There is clear consensus that in general homeopathy effects are consistent with placebo. This is true of your citations (the links don't work) and doesn't need anything more than clear evidence that this is the scientific consensus - the AMA statement and the Lancet meta-analysis provide these clearly, and comments on this from homeopaths are referenced.

There is also I think consensus that patient reported outcomes are favorable; inserting this is controversial as this is as expected from the placebo effect, but nonetheless it is fair to acknowledge these. In this respect the later version is more pro-homeopathy than the older version.

However while there is consensus that in general homeopathy is no different to placebo, it remains possible that there are individual exceptions. The EBM evidence addresses these for all cases where thaere has been EBM analysis, and it includes the one pro homeopathy case that I found.

Leading with theories of water is highly misleading as there is the implication that these might "explain" homeopathy; they don't and although it is said that they don't this does not come through clearly; if they don't provide an explanation why mention them, except to confuse the issue? These are also not secondary sources.Gleng 13:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus that homeopathy is placebo: this is the view of the mainstream scientific community (the consensus of one side of teh debate) but not only do enough scientists think otherwise, but consensus here ought to be societal rather than scientific: the side that says homeopathy is placebo is one side of a debate in which there are two sides that comntinue to disagree and which both need representation. Using Cochrane/Bandolier is unjustified given that: (i) it is not widely agreed upon within medical science that the EBM framework is the gold standard, (ii) not all studies are indexed so there is bias in reporting (similar to publication bias), (iii) in my understanding those reviews focus on clinically relevant studies, whereas the important first question in current homeopathic research is whether there is any effect at all (which requires studies of high internal validity and where a clinicaly insignificant result is relevant is statistically significant) and not whether the effect is clinicaly relevant (which requires studies of high external validity [a study cannot have both high internal and external validity at the same time]) - so those reviews will miss the studies of the first type which are precisely the best pro-homeopathy clinical evidence, and (iv) the abstract/summary/conclusion section of the studies are more informative and just as reader-freindly as the reviews.

It is absurd to cap the section with an AMA statement, which is by definition not a NPOV entity. Makes much more sense to use a potentially neutral source such as an independent researcher as in my version.

As for the Lancet meta-analysis: it is a complete sham, I am still scratching my head over Lancet's motives for publishing a truly substanard paper - it feels like desparation that despite everything homeopathy refuses to throw in the glove on the scientific arena. I suggest that you read it before talking about it because it is obvious to anyone familiar with meta-analysis methodology that the conclusions it draws are unsupportable; there are actually good papers against homeopathy out there, but this is one makes a mockery of EBM.

Your point about the order of laboratory/clinical is well taken: I switched the order of clinical and laboratory evidence; the links used to work and instead of reverting help would be appreciated in restoring them, as they do refer to the most if not all of the meta-analyses in the most authoritative literature - they could be fixed in time so please don't use that as a reason to revert.

The end result of this article should be a description of homeopathy saying what it is (however absurd-sounding) and presenting the scientific objections - just like works of history can write about a subject such as a dead religion without once saying anything about the veracity of the beliefs; not a constant "here is what they say and why it cannot be" polemic (which is POV by definition). The single quotes around law of similars, etc. are just such examples. I should also note that large parts of the early sections of the article consist of stuff that I personally wrote (content which is somehow totally agreeable to you, so it is not content you have an issue with) yet edited just enough to put a negative tilt on homeopathy.
Davidnortman 19:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hang on. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am completely confused by this particular thread. Homeopathy exists. That is fact. Wikipedia records faits accomplis. I hadn't realised that any entry in Wikipedia needed to be scientifically proven, in order to appear. For instance, there is a page on witchcraft that remains completely unscathed. Voodoo is a widespread practice. It has a page that is not besmattered with the blood of wikipedian conflict. There seem to be no bodies in the gutter, on either page. What is it about homeopathy that stimulates such aggression and opposition? Why is it not in order to record homeopathy, just as, say, witchcraft or voodoo has a page? I don't think ANY system of medicine should make claims in a forum such as Wikipedia (NPOV) or have I got all this wrong? In view of this, is there any way in which the dust on this issue can be allowed to settle, with the page just detailing homeopathic theory and history, without any claim or implied claim? There is no harm in recording the fact that the whole business of homeopathy does not achieve consensus. There is nothing unhealthy or unclean about differences of opinion. Would my proposal allow a way forward? Does it need a rewrite, to satisfy the criteria that I propose? Please remember that, in any war, there are winners and losers. Why does there have to be a fight? Ballista 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is that homeopathy is confrontational vis-a-vis conventional medicine and by extension the scientific paradigm that underlies it (a paradigm which no longer serves most other sciences and has long been abandoned in non-classical physics).Davidnortman 19:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Mm - may have a point there, except that I believe there are a great many folk out there, using homeopathy, who are entirely non-confrontational. However, when there is a suggestion that modern 'scientific' medicine is 'EBM' (evidence-based medicine), it should be remembered that it is possible that only about 20% of it is. Is there no way forward, in which this article on homeopathy can be constructed in a purely factual (NPOV - the spirit of Wikipedia) way, such that both 'sides' can accept it? Wikipedia would be poorer without it. Is there such a thing as a 'taboo' area for Wikipedia (as long as it is neither illegal nor obscene)? Ballista 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

a)To DavidNortman. See WP policy on sources. Accuracy is not the issue - any interpretation is OR; the issue is authority and verifiability and they don't come more authoratative than Lancet. As evidence of a consensus view of the medical establishment I can't think of anything clearer than a policy statement adopted by the AMA. These are best verifiable sources for clear consensus by any standards. Consnsus means consensus, doesn't mean that there aren't dissenters - there always are. Criticisms of the Lancet study from homeopaths are clearly referenced. EBM is EBM, I agree that much conventional medicine isn't suitable for analysis and much is not verified (obstetrics and much surgery for instance) but for pharmacological treatments this is a gold standar to aspire to. It is not everything -scientific basis is another - on this homeopathy doesn't register. As for my edits being POV - well maybe, but I've weathered a storm of criticism for pro-homeopathy edits, so give examples.

To Ballista; I think I agree with you. So long as the article is built on good verifiable sources I don't see a problem; certainly I can see no reason why homeopathy shouldn't be described fully, objectively and sympathetically while avoiding claims to efficacy that can't be verified, and avoiding implicit claims of acceptance by science and conventional medicine that can't be verified as representing consensusGleng 20:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that AMA statement doesn't represent consensus within the medical community but an opinion statement by a powerful organization (but that's just my opinion, I admit), the context of the article is wider: if you want an AMA statement then it has to be presented together with statements by scientists that are cautiously positive about homeopathy (such papers, both individual trials and meta-analyses, have appeared in the Lancet and BMJ but don't seem to be referenced in Cochrane from my brief search, probably because they are not high-priority for clinical relevance as explained in my previous post). Claims to efficacy are just those: claim, not proof; by removing the positive references provided you obscure whatever evidence does exist for those claims. The quote in the Status Quo section is a faithful representation of the status quo in the debate because there is a debate going - just as it is imperative to do so in an article about creationism even though you and I both probably agree that there is a clear winner in that debate). There's that quote by Voltaire to the effect that "I may not agree with you but will stand up for your right to present your view"; the pro-homeopathy people in the history of this entry have done that, but the skeptical side regularly refuses to allow the same right to the other side, hence the accusations (repeated herein by myself) that the article is hijacked by the skeptical camp. Davidnortman 21:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the Voltaire quote; again, it should be obvious that I have persistently inserted pro-homeopathy evidence where it is relevant and verifiable (the Bandolier study on flu and the patient reported outcomes were my insertions, as was my insistence on acknowledging that some individual trials have favoured homeopathy despite the meta analysis evidence. Where there are good verifiable sources then I back inclusion, so long as the consensus view isn't misrepresented. The AMA statement is a policy statement adopted by a vote of the membership. It's a clear declaration of a consensus view from the nedical establishment. Find a contradicting quote of similar authority and I'll agree it should be deleted. As for the article being hi-jacked - basic WP policy, assume good faith. Everyone has a POV, everyone is trying to be neutral, we learn by discussing, from each other. But this section has gone through very detailed argument and analysis, you can't unilaterally cancel this.Gleng 22:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, regarting the recent reversion, why isn't the "law of similars" a theory? Also, why can't one say "yet" regarding homeopathy and scientific evidence? It is true that there are not enough studies yet to really evaluate. Please explain? elizmr 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That was me. The law of similars can't be regarded as a theory as it does not follow the principals of a scientific theory. At present it would probably be regarded as conjecture. Additionally the inclusion of the word 'yet' implies that proof of homeopathy is only a matter of time. Without trying to impose my POV, this may not be the case as it is possible that homeopathy will never proven. Thanks for taking to time to talk about it. Jefffire 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't get why it doesn't follow the principles of a scientific theory. The theory is that treating a sick person with a constellation of symptoms with a homeopathic remedy which caused the same constellation of symptoms in a well person is something that can be tested. elizmr 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To be considered a theory in the scientific sense is very different to being considered a theory in lay language. In science a theory is well supported and accepted by the community. The law of similars is not supported by the bulk of the evidence as it stands and the scientic consnsus is that it is pseudoscience. For these reasons it is innapproriate to call it a theory. Jefffire 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I disagree that a theory has to be well accepted to be a theory but the use of the word is unimportant. I rewrote my previous stuff without using the word theory. The exisiting paragraph was hard, I thought, for people to follow who don't know about the subject. elizmr 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, well done. Hopefully it won't get reverted on sight. Jefffire 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)