Talk:Homeopathy

To Do List

add explanation of healing crisis in the context of homeopathy, and how this relates to how homeopathy is claimed to work, including both the homeopathic explanation, and the conventional medical critique. add a broad-brush description of the work of Constantine Hering and James Tyler Kent and how it differs from Hahnemann, keeping the depth of coverage appropriate for a summary article. Kent is noted for "the well-known Kent repertory, on which virtually all modern practise of homeopathy is based" homeopathic hospitals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were attended by the rich and powerful as the best locations where one could get better. They were relatively clean and calm institutions that had a better cure rate than many of the mainstream clinics of the day. Of course, this was due to the fact that most mainstream hospitals of the day were filthy places where one was more likely to die of an infection rather than be cured. In this, homeopaths of that era were closer to the do no harm dictum of the Hipocratic Oath than many of their contemporaries and, indeed, many practices perfected in homeopathic hospitals are still employed today as best practices for palliative care. The fact that they didn't use the "heroic" measures in common use, such as bloodletting, powerful drugs like arsenic, strychnine, mercury, belladonna, etc. meant that more patients survived, since these drugs often caused more deaths. In many cases doing what amounted to nothing, i.e. placebo homeopathic treatment, was better than doing something, i.e. overkill with poisons, thus letting the body's own recuperative powers do the healing, which for many ordinary ailments is just fine.

'Quackery' in lead'

Shivang Tyagi (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC) on 8th Dec 2012 i Tried To Remove The Line Stating Homeopathy As Quackery For All Those Favouring It : Its Accepted Form Of Alternate Medication In Many Countries Including India. Plese Go Through These Articles First.. We Should Not State Something As Quackery Without Knowing Its Basics. Some Articles May Help Gaining Some Positive Attitude :

• understand-the-molecular-processes-involved-in-potentization
• homeopathic-potentization
• how-homeopathy-works
• 'Molecular Imprints' Vs 'Bio-magnetic' - John Benneth Debates With Chandran Nambiar K C Over Sicence Of Homeopathy

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and in particular, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). We will not accept a website run by a homoeopathic practitioner (e.g. as a source such as dialecticalhomeopathy.com) for anything except the practitioner's own opinions - if they are of any note, for which there seems to be no real evidence. That homaeopaths claim not to be promoting quackery is hardly surprising. And we are well aware that in some countries, homoeopathy is promoted as 'alternative medicine' - our article says so. This does not change the fact that it is widely seen as based on unscientific and disproven premises by the medical community, and generally considered by this community to be quackery. This issue has been raised before here by supporters of homoeopathy, as a look through the archives will reveal, and it is quite evident that the article lede complies with Wikipedia policies, is properly sourced, and states the facts, as provided by the sources we recognise as valid. A few links to a random homaeopath's website aren't going to change this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

An Exerpt From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) Clearly says that studies of experts in relevant fields should be considered. we can provide his reference in the article if it provides any direction to the article.

"Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline."

"generally considered by this community to be quackery" general considerations vary from person to person and isnt a authentic measure to considered to keep a point in front on large masses. here we have a study in above mentioned articles. would soon be providing you with more in-depth studies . I AGAIN Request to go through the articles from a neutral set of mind.

Shivang Tyagi (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

References

It may be that on balance the evidence is currently against homeopathy, and we know most editors on here consider it quackery. However, the article says "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered quackery." There is one source for this, but I wonder where in that source that is said? Anyone have access to it? Having discussed this particular point with several random medics, they all raised eyebrows and said they had heard that term used rarely. Some said it was used in more extreme criticisms. There is nothing in the world I have come across that supports this claim. I'd like to see evidence for this claim. Cjwilky (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"It may be that on balance the evidence is currently against homeopathy"? Cjwilky, you are well aware of WP:FRINGE (and WP:OR concerning your 'medics') - please take your soupbox elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The point here is re: "generally" and "quackery"... can you back that up? Cjwilky (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider reading this study  : http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Potprobl.htm

with references of this article mentioned here : http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Potref.htm Shivang Tyagi (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No. We are not the slightest bit interested in such 'studies' - only material conforming to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) can be used here - this is not open to negotiation, it is Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

See the answer to Q11 above. Yes, it's quackery. No, we don't says so in the voice of the encyclopedia. Yes, we do report that others say so. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wahlberg ref was previously used to illustrate the last part of "The lack of convincing scientific evidence to support homeopathy's efficacy and its use of remedies lacking active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be described as pseudoscience, quackery". I see BenKovitz changed the wording to its current version. Was this discussed? Where does the Wahlberg ref cite that homeopathy is generally considered quackery within the medical community? Cjwilky (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Q11 Above As Mentioned Demands Reliable Authentic Proof To Say It As Fraud/Quackery. Just On The Basis Of Ones Own Perception You Cant Claim The Whole Millions Of Homeopathic Doctors And The Branch As Of Quacks Without Actually Prooving Them So. You Need To Have Something To Either Proove It Wrong Or Withdrawing Such Words From Encyclopedia Used Without Neutral Consensus. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually bothered to read the article? Anyway, we don't have to prove anything, beyond what we say in the article - that reliable sources state that homoeopathy has not been proven to do anything whatsoever, that its supposed mechanism is incompatible with even elementary science, and that it is widely seen as pseudoscientific hokum by the medical community. And I've no idea where you get the idea that Wikipedia decides content according to any sort of 'consensus' of the opinions of contributors. It doesn't - it represents the sources. If you wish to promote homoeopathy, you will need to find somewhere else to do so. We don't misrepresent fringe theories as factual, no matter how profitable it would be for the promoters of such theories to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The Article You Are Constantly Mentioning Should Be Referred To Others Too.. It Clearly States About Long List Of Acceptable Sources. I Don't Know What Personally You Don't Consider Among All Those Articles Mentioned As Against The Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Here's A List Of PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL LITERATURE ABOUT THE BASIS OF HOMEOPATHY, EVIDENCE BASE, ITS RECOGNITION AND RESEARCH WORKS. KINDLY GO THROUGH THEM BEFORE COMMENTING.Some Articles Sourced From Europe & USA Based HOMEOPATHY SOCIETIES And Medical Journals. :

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/Research/basic-research/biological-models

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/Research/basic-research

http://homeopathyusa.org/specialty-board.html

http://homeopathyusa.org/homeopathy-now.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491607001051

http://homeopathyusa.org/faq.html (SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED)

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074360.htm (FDA Compliance )

http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/regulatory-status (REGULATORY STATUS EUROPE)

http://www.homeowatch.org/history/reghx.html

By the Way FOR CONSENSUS Topic : WIKIPEDIA SAYS TO EDITORS (Below FAQs 2 column ) "There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote." Shivang Tyagi (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes ShivangTyagi I think you are confused. There is no vote going on right now. Did you read the FRINGE link that AndytheGrump left you? We are not going to go through your long list of article from homeopaths. I did glance through one (http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/regulatory-status) and it is VERY outdated, it seems to just be a generic reference page that is unsourced and not reputable. I do not see what it has to do with your claim that the lede should be changed?Sgerbic (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not one of those citations qualifies as a reliable medical source. I know that homeopaths and real scientists look at reliable sources differently, but in this article, in this project, only peer-reviewed, secondary sources, published in high impact journals count. Websites, blogs, and homeopathic potion menus don't count. If you're unwilling to read Wikipedia guidelines, there will not be a good conversation here. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes read Q11. Still no indication where its shown that the medical community generally call homeoathy "quackery". For sure a few people use the word, but hardly "generally" unless you can show different. Shivang - don't worry, most of them are usually like this, stick with it :) They are correct in what they say about sources needing to be quality, just a shame they made leaps of judgement sometimes like in the case of "quackery" and "generally"in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I Have Read All Those Links And Standards WikiPedia Needs. The Links You COMMENTED Think Are Not Merely Websites Or General Blog Sites. They Are Country/Continent BASED NATIONAL BOARDS OF HOMEOPATHY . I Don't THINK Calling SUCH REPUTED Media As Baseless And Unreliable Accounts To Anything. HAVE A LOOK AT THEM YOU WILL FIND PEER_REVIEWED JOURNALS IN ABUNDANCE, SCIENTIFIC STUDIES AND UNIVERSALLY FOLLOWED RESEARCHES. "Its Shameful to claim something without proper references and than demanding Further Reference TO REMOVE IT." And The One Calling Europe Board As OUTDATED.. Homeopathy Isn't New So, HOW CAN YOU EXPECT ITS RECOGNITION TO BE OF RECENT YEARS??? ITS RECOGNISED DECADES BACK EVERYWHERE AND SAME IS BEING FOLLOWED UPTILL NOW .. Were You Expecting It Show You Recent Dates ?? That Gives You Dates Of Boards When They Were Formed And Accepted.

I Dont Think There's Any One MEDIC Here Who Can Actually Give ANY Proper Judgement Being Neutral. Its Of No Use To Argue With Non-Medics On Topics That They Actually Don't Understand. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This article always has activity--and I think that's a good thing. What isn't however, is that the lead mentions "generally considered" with respect to the quackery claim, yet only has one source for this. I'd think "generally" would entail more than one source. Maybe even from a journal that isn't rooted in soft science, as that one is. But that's just me. Seeing how so many rational, confident scientists assert there is no way homeopathy can work (despite multiple claims otherwise) I'd hope there'd be better sources to back up this view. I say view, because, like so many other aspects of the "medical community" what isn't understood is considered either alternative, complimentary or discarded altogether. Shame.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

One Source That is A Book Of Wahlberg Mentioning Many Other Alternate Medicines As Quackery Not Only Homeopathy Is Considered A Reliable Source..???? Inspite Of Many Claims Otherwise Not Being Accepted !! I Really Don't Get The Users Here Want. Either They Want Their Thinking To Be Published Here Or They Just Don't Want To Accept Changes To What They Think. A Recent Edit By A IP User Was Acceptable Giving Some More Clarity To Article By Mentioning 2 Different Views Was Reverted back By Giving a "Self-serving special pleading." as comment. Shivang Tyagi (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions: (a) read the Wikipedia policies you have been told that the article must follow - including WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE etc. There is no choice whatsoever over this - it is Wikipedia policy. (b) look through the talk-page archives for previous discussions - you aren't saying anything that hasn't already been said before, and we aren't going to waste time going over the same ground again for the benefit of people who clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works. (c) Use a capital letter at the start of the sentence, and in other appropriate places, not at the start of every word - it will make your posts easier to read. If you carry on as you are, you are unlikely to achieve anything beyond irritating people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis Is Given to Words Which Actually Need To be Emphasised (U Need To Make The User Read Them).Wikipedia has other policies too. So I Suggest You To Read These Along With The Ones Suggested Above : WP:VERIFY WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV WP:CONS& WP:UNDUE You Might Have Forgotten These. Do You actually Know What WP:MEDRS Means ?? Shivang Tyagi (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

O.k. you've ignored my advice. I shall ignore your postings, and recommend everyone else to do the same, given your clear inability to either comprehend the basic tenets of Wikipedia policy, or to engage in a meaningful discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Was Going Through The Previous Archives . Consider Reading These Discussions From Archives. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_13#Quackery_category

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_13#Quackery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_17#Quackery

Shivang Tyagi (talk)

First off, when you capitalize every word, you are no longer emphasizing anything. It's just poor grammar that serves no purpose.

Second, what in those archives do you think is compelling about this specific issue (aka "quackery")? We are not going to argue the validity of homeopathy here. That's a WP:DEADHORSE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing the use of "quackery" and "generally" in the first para - don't suppose you have evidence to support that, becuase nothing I've seen here supports the use of those words. Cjwilky (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, you could just check Scholar. Or are you just saying we should drop "generally"? LeadSongDog come howl! 23:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Even using that very random method, 1300 results for quackery v 14900 for homeopathy, which puts it in the minority, and hardly generally. Cjwilky (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Used that quality google method and get 1800 for quackery and psychology, 500 with orthopedics, 900 with gyno, 1700 with antibiotics - will you be writing more leads in wiki medicine in the near future? Cjwilky (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would argue that homeopathy is the only or even the major subtype of quackery. Unlike those others though, it lacks the redeeming factor of an evidence base. Not that I expect you to accept this. The psychologists would see it as a cognitive dissonance problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone would argue that homeopathy is the only or even the major subtype of quackery." Not sure what relevance this has to the issue here? My point above is that your "evidence" looks slim ie by using that evidence you are also saying many other mainstream medical disciplines and methods (antibiotics, gynecology etc) are quackery. Cjwilky (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing substantial to back up the statement of "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered quackery." has been offered. So how about changing it to something like "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered unproven."? Cjwilky (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'quackery' claim is substantiated in the "Ethics and safety" section, isn't it? Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A few writers have used the term, but I see no evidence of "Within the medical community homeopathy is generally considered quackery." Cjwilky (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

For a "what is generally considered" source you'll probably want a news article, history-of-medicine text or similar. How about this as a starter? Alexbrn (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, thats a start. So there's 400 out of 82,895 registered doctors in Australia (2009 figure), higher now?) plus how many medical researchers and scientists? - and of course there are many other medical professions including, nurses and midwives (330,000 combined), alternative medical practitioners, health visitors. Lets say 450,000 in total. I make that 0.089% reportedly call it quackery in Australia. And Australia has a population of about 23m out of a world population of 7,000m, so Australia represents 0.33% of the world population - lets be generous and say 1% of doctors, medical researchers and scientists? So a rough guestimate would say thats 0.0009%. Got anything to add to that? Cjwilky (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it shows (taken together with the existing refs) a certain body of belief among "the medical community" about homeopathy being quackery. Would you need a "world survey" to satisfy you? Or a handful more of articles? Is there evidence of a counter-view from within that community, or is all the evidence pointing one way? Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It shows that 400 people, 0.089% of relevant people in one country choose to use it. There are 4 or 5 cites of others that use it. Thats 405 people, and a few assistants maybe. Thats not evidence for the statement in the lead by a factor of about 1000 for Australia alone, at least 50,000 to actually back up the statement. If there isn't anything substantial to back up that statement, it should be removed. Evidence pointing one way...? I think its clear that most articles mentioning homeopathy don't mention quackery - even using the scholar method suggested above, there are 52,700 results for homeopathy, and 2,340 results for +quackery +homeopathy (not many of which are saying homeopathy is quackery if you read them). This has been up for discussion for nearly 3 weeks now and no one has backed it up. Cjwilky (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the question that we need more citations from good sources that state that the medical community considers homeopathy, quackery. I've started a list of sources and it seems to be growing far faster than I expected. Should I list them here?Sgerbic (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Whilst of course evidence is what we're looking for, I'm not sure a list of 20, or 100, or 1000 in itself where the authors choose that term is evidence of the statement, especially if they include the same authors. How many have you found where they don't use that term? Cjwilky (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the terminology needs tweaking. It may be better to say "Within the medical community the consensus is that homeopathy is quackery", since it seems from the evidence there are some who hold this view and there is no sustained/significant opposition to it and so, by definition, there is consensus. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm...no. There is no evidence for that statement as you personally have shown. I'll change it temporarily to something that does reflect the real world, as opposed to planet Ernst, though it will need evidence too. Cjwilky (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually there is evidence in the links discussed: if voices are calling homeopathy quackery and there is no counter-view, then that's a form of consensus. And your edit is not only "watering-down" the article but has introduced a possibly contentious claim - that homeopathy is only "generally considered" to be unproven. Still, I'll not edit war over this. Alexbrn (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, you have put forward evidence of one pressure group of 400 out of over 400,000 in just one country. Aside from that, there are a few individuals who write about research, who are in the main part of a pressure group too. Even if you take them as independent, the bulk of writing on homeopathy within the medical profession does not use the term quackery. What does come through is that there is a majority, not a consensus, of people that consider it unproven. That is clear. There are many (but less) who assert that it is proven to have no effect. You cannot take the words of a few scientists as representing the views of the medical profession as a whole - that is making very wild assumptions for which there is no evidence. I also ask you the question that Sgerbic has avoided, how many have you found that don't use the term quackery? Cjwilky (talk) 09:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If an author doesn't mention quackery in relation to homeopathy then we can't know what they think about it - they may consider the topic too obvious to merit mentioning, or simply irrelevant to the thrust of some unrelated argument they are making. What would be needed is, rather, works considering the question and deciding that the medical profession did not generally regard homeopathy as quackery. I have found no such works. Alexbrn (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Logic is good I agree :) However, in the recent discussion here about whether choosing homeopathy means you don't choose no diagnosis, Moriori says "A follows B when a reference says so". HandThatFeeds says "asking us to make the logical deduction "A follows B" would be the epitome of synthesis". Maybe you'd like to add your voice there?

The bigger picture here is that using quackery is inflammatory, it isn't a word most of the medical community use, it is a word skeptics use and we know skeptics have a mission (eg the skeptics on here, nearly all the eds, search for negatives not positives for homeopathy because they have already decided, it would be heresy to do otherwise) - its not NPOV. Cjwilky (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, without looking at the specific debate, WP:SYN has always seemed pretty clear to me: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The only place where this is any wriggle room here I think is topic sentences and ledes, where the need to summarize has an unavoidable element of synthesis - but such must be done uncontroversially. As to quackery, if something is called quackery, WP should neutrally relay that. Alexbrn (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about WP:SYN, and if you're genuinely supportive of that I'm sure you'll add your voice below to support what I said? Quackery, yes, some people use that term, but its not mainstream amongst the medical community, not by a very very long way, and there isn't evidence to support its use as was. Cjwilky (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So in the mean time my list of the medical community calling homeopathy quackery grows. Possibly Cjwilky you are using a different definition of "mainstream" than I would use? We have a WP page for every term so far I've seen, what is the guidelines for this term?Sgerbic (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt it does - how many hundreds out of the millions of people in the medical community have you evidence for? Mainstream in the context I just used it would mean the significant majority way the medical community calls it. This is less than a consensus, as per the statement that was used. Consensus means with agreement of all. You also didn't answer my question to you. Cjwilky (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity (especially on Wikipedia!). However, unfortunately there is no consensus on what single definition consensus should have, so on reflection it's a problematic word to use in the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears we have some quality sources which call Homeopathy quackery. More could be furnished, I'm sure, but the single dissenting editor has already said that no source would be sufficient. Cjwilky, I'm sure you see why this is a problem; discussion and collaboration cannot continue in this way. I think it's time to let this conversation die and move on. There is clearly consensus. If you have additional concerns, you may wish to raise them at another venue, such as RSN or DRN. If you try beating this issue any further, I imagine you'll very quickly hit WP:SHUN territory, which is really no good for anyone. Please drop the stick and move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice try Man Jess :) More than one dissenting editor above, and no evidence to support the claim - just a few scientists referring to homeopathy as quackery... though you know the score. I've said that giving souces of individuals calling it quackery does not amount to it being generally referred to as that. I've also asked for evidencee that it is the case that its gerally called quackery, and I would of course accept that. And as has been said before, using that term is inflammatory, certainly not POV. You know the score here too. So, what you say above is untrue.

As everyone knows here, this is a sensitive article and should be dealt with properly. Playing team tag with a group of editors is not the way forward.

Whilst we're still discussing this, I'll change the wording to something that is accurate, though really has no place in the lead. Cjwilky (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, but inserting your own WP:OR won't work. And incidentally, wouldn't the fact that only a very small (i.e. diluted) proportion of scientists have explicitly called homoeopathy quackery make their arguments more effective... ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Cjwilky, since you were edit warring just earlier today, I would strongly suggest not editing the article against consensus as you've indicated above. Because of your comment just now, I'm going to warn you about edit warring on your talk page. Hash out your changes here first; don't try to force your content in.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this - I think Cjwilky is right, per WP:RS/AC: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" (my empahasis). That seems clear. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

We have a bunch already. Here's more:

• The Oxford Companion to United States History: After 1847, when regular doctors organized the American Medical Association (AMA), that body led the war on “quackery,” especially targeting dissenting medical groups such as homeopaths, who prescribed infinitesimally small doses of medicine. Ironically, even as the AMA attacked all homeopathy as quackery, educated homeopathic physicians were expelling untrained “quacks” from their ranks.
• The Encyclopedia of New York State: Prominent voices in the medical community warned patients against the "quackery" of homeopathy.
• Supersense: Why we believe in the Unbelievable: Needless to say, the scientific community regards homeopathy as supernatural quackery.
• The Sage Age: While Benveniste's findings might be seen as a boon for homeopathic practitioners, it is mostly considered quackery in allopathic based fields of science.

Even homeopathic sources admit that the scientific and medical communities see homeopathy this way:

• Muscle, Smoke, and Mirrors, Volume 1: The healing solution would apear to only contain water along with some mysterious echo pattern that left the scientific community scratching their collective heads and therefore rejecting the practice as quackery.
• dialecticalhomeopathy.com: Nothing to wonder scientific community dismisses homeopathy as ‘fake’, ‘superstitious beliefs’ and ‘quackery’!

And, of course, there's a boatload of other sources backing up the quackery label:

• nelm
• randi.org
• quackwatch

The source we're using now is fine, but if we must add another, the Oxford Companion would be fine.   — Jess· Δ♥ 09:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, play the games here and keep on with your perennial tactic of POV tag team edit war and bullying. You have a cheek to suggest the edit war is from me. I discussed it here for over three weeks without evidence of the statement, and its others who decide to leap in and change the article without discussion - desperate measures, and for what reason I wonder? You've a lot of face to lose is the issue, not genuine evidenced based discussion. The consensus most definitely is not supporting whats there currently - Man Jess.... that you can't acknowledge that is very poor show and against wiki ways, and you know that. I'm away for a while, will get back to sorting this shambles of a talk page when I'm back. Cjwilky (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar I think. Researching this (and I looked quite hard for a source) it seems part of the problem is that parts of the "medical establishment" are - or have been - all-too-woolly in their approach to homeopathy. Skeptics and scientists agree on quackery, on the other hand -- why not just stick with stating their consensus view? Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Alex, I don't get it. We are stating the consensus view. You're talking about the current version of the page, and not a past version, right? You said we needed sources directly stating it, and I provided that. What's insufficient about those sources, and what "consensus view" are you proposing we change it to?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not entirely convinced – isn't the whole thrust of Wahlberg's piece that in the UK the medical community is becoming increasingly contaminated by CAM thinking ("The mobilization of CAM in the UK continues to gather pace today"). Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We already had several sources that say homoeopathy is regarded as quackery. We now have a bunch more here. It is perfectly adequately sourced. Cjwilky, the consensus is clearly against your position. Brunton (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Boy, some of you are desperate (jess) to the extreme to keep your quackery in the article! Brunton, you are summarising from your POV, it is not the consensus here and the refs are not convincing, and read what else is in this talk section... explain how you come to your conclusion?

Apart from Alex, you are all just putting one side, and so its clearly a POV.

The Oxford ref - does that mean we should qualify the lead as being wiki's opinion on homeopathy in the 19th century? Ooops, no.... the second ref is in the first decades of the 20th century. But then with Supersense, you've nailed it - a cognitive psychologist says so. No refs from him that I could see. The Sage Age refers to quackery in allopathic science (again, he says so, no refs) - not quite the medical community is it? Then another two refs claiming the scientific community (no mention of the medical community), next "they foster the encroachment of quackery in medicine" (again, doesn't back up the statement does it), and then the "boatload" of POV skeptic sect refs - randi, quackwatch (erm.....) - which have no validity here.

If the hardline skeptics here can't come to a reasoned take on this, we need help from someone who isn't a skeptic (do they exist on wiki?) or a mate of your selves in some way or another. Shall I request help? Cjwilky (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior and rhetoric are obnoxious. Consensus is obviously against you, yet you persist in arguing points that were refuted multiple times. If you continue to disrupt this article I will request arbitration enforcement under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. Skinwalker (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

re "Shall I request help?" — I'm not entirely sure you wanted to phrase it that way ;-> But yes. Could this be as simple as a RS question: i.e. "is the Wahlberg source sufficient to support the text in the article"? Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I posted a query here. Let's see what the wise ones say. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Skinwalker, if you're going to start accusing, please be specific.

Your argument about consensus being against me has no legs - maybe you'd like to be constructive and suggest some? You haven't contributed here. It seems you've just chosen to pile in for some grievance you feel, and merely added to what I say about the bully boy tactics employed by some skeptics in this article, as well as other articles on the skeptic mission noticeboard.

Yes, I'm calling a spade a shovel here. I'm not the only one who's done so. Others have given up due to bullying. Its about time something was sorted here. And just to be clear, I'm not claiming every skeptic is a bully, many have been positively helpful, many are constructive even though they are one sided - thats to be expected in a debate. Though it has to be said that very few if any have contributed evenly. The tendancy is for them to always look for one side of the argument. That is not being a sceptic, its about having an opinion and looking from there.

Thanks Alex for doing that, will check it out :) Cjwilky (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As someone who's waded through many a meta-analysis, I don't actually differ from the conclusion that homeopathy=quackery. However, I am not convinced that it is sensible, necessary or appropriate to include such a sweeping line as "the medical community considers it quackery" in the lead. I'm not sure it is necessary because the rest of the article is sufficiently well-edited that readers are quite capable of reaching their own conclusions. I doubt that it is appropriate as it appears to push a point of view - one with which I happen to concur, but this does not set a tone concomitant with sober neutrality. I am concerned that it may not be sensible because its inclusion could reasonably be seen as discourteous, and that seems likely to inflame editorial tensions as well as presenting a written style out of place in an encyclopaedia. Could we perhaps move on from the argument about who's most right and edit this one line in the interests of Wikipedia's quality? John Snow II (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In general it is a good idea to pursue less loaded and more neutral formulations in the lead. I.e. the lead should state that the medical establishment/academic medicine disregards homeopathy and considers it as a part of "alternative medicine" but there is no need to use the term "quackery" as such. A good comparison might be to look up homeopathy in some encyclopedia/medical reference work, I'm pretty sure the term quackery won't be used there at all (see for instance: Britannica lead). We need a similar encyclopedic language here and not sourced polemics for or against homeopathy.

Another thing to consider is that the term "medical community" is dangerous as in different publication/sources the term might be used differently (which may not be transparent to readers without background knowledge in the field). The medical community in the sense of practicing and publishing (university educated) physicians contain a significant number of people using alternative medicine (for complimentary treatments, for placebo effects, "holistic" approaches and occasionally even because they "believe" in it), who are hence unlikely to use the term "quackery". However if you restrict the "medical community" to the conventional academic medicine (in German: "Schulmedizin"), then the term is more appropriate as a general view of the community.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful response, Kmhkmh. Would you or other editors like to collaborate on arriving at a better wording? My broad sense is that any discussion of quackery could simply be moved to a later, relevant part of the text (perhaps detailing how homeopathy has been critically received by conventional medicine). John Snow II (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I may be able help in proofreading or commenting on suggestions, but I don't have time to actively participate in a larger rewrite myself and this topic isn't really my primary area of expertise either. I agree with you that the term quackery if other editors insist on it should be handled in a later section but not the lead. In addition I really recommend some of the involved editors here to look up homeopathy in other encyclopedia to see what less polemic and more neutral description (including) criticism looks like. People need to able to take step back from their personal convictions about homeopathy and focus on writing an appropriate encyclopedic article rather than insisting on the article reflecting their personal convictions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just an additional note. The subject of this question ("quackery in the lead") is apparently covered by the FAQ (see question/answer 11) already and supposedly some earlier consensus of editors. Interestingly enough the answer is no, essentially for the reason I outlined above as well (no inflammatory language, neutral tone).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, not precisely. The FAQ entry documents that we shouldn't, ourselves, call Homeopathy quackery, but that we should document how it is seen (i.e. quackery) within the scientific and medical community. For instance, "Homeopathy is quackery" is not appropriate. "The AMA considers homeopathy to be quackery" is. I appreciate you both contributing to the topic, but this issue has been worn down so much with so much repetition, I doubt anyone is going to read or respond to more messages in this section. Would you mind starting another section so we can start discussion fresh? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The point being raised is that it isn't good to have an inflammatory term in the lead, and actually the references don't support the current use, thats an extrapolation you have made Jess. This issue has not been processed. If you look above you can see how it goes - discussion followed quickly by the skeptics claiming a concensus has been reached when in fact it hasn't. Par for the course in this article, unfortunately. The preceding sentence does say enough, the quackery sentence is not adding anything, and makes the article look one sided from the off. Cjwilky (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the FAQ a bit differently as otherwise it would just reiterate the basic rule for source and WP:OR/personal opinion. Note something not being sourced has no place in lead or the article to begin with, the same holds of personal opinion of an WP editor. So it seems rather pointless to point out that his is true for the case of inflammatory language as well, as it obviously holds for any language.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of whats been said above by John Snow and Kmhkmh above. The lead is inflammatory, very badly sourced and the discussion of this by other eds is negligable. It seems some eds have a mission to keep such words in the lead, their editing is far from neutral. And then they will revert in tag team ANYTHING they don't "like". Cjwilky (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Lead (again)

Hi guys
A while ago, I wrote about a few impartialities and discrepancies I found on the lead. And later, I didn't have time to further evaluate my point or keep the conversation up. But now what I see, the topic has been completely changed and prolongated to such an extent that I've had hard time to read all of it!!!
I'm writing the same subject now in a new section as the topic has been changed completely in the previous section I'd opened. So, first I'm pasting here the same thing I'd written. But please let's not go off-topic, the homoeopathy = placebo, quackery etc. need their own research, which I haven't done.

Hello
I noticed few discrepancies in the lead. To be more clear;

• First of all, the first paragraph in a lead should be about the article (or practice here) itself, not on others' opinions about it. The opinions of others (especially the scientific community) can be (must be) expressed in the lead. But not in the first paragraph. If not done so, it contradicts several principles such as:
  • WP:STRUCTURE - Article Structure: Care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
  • WP:WEIGHT - Undue Weight and
  • WP:IMPARTIAL - Impartial Tone: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone.
• There is another point. I've partially read and went through the sources supposedly claiming that Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. This is stating opinions as facts. The Turkish Wikipedia article on homoeopathy, using more or less the same sources, approximately says: No scientific or clinical evidence has been found suggesting that homoeopathy has any benefit other than the placebo effect. This is also what the sources says. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy say this:

(17 reviews, 11 of them independent) failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo.

• Now, there is a huge difference with this and saying "Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective". Please improve the lead. --Universal Life (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The available research fails to reject the null hypothesis (in this case, "homoeopathy doesn't work better than placebo"). That is pretty much equivalent to the plain English statement that we have in the article, although you will never get a scientific paper putting it in those terms because a null hypothesis can never actually be proven. Brunton (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I agree that the lead needs work. But, we need concrete proposals to improve it, and I'm not totally sure how to do that. With respect to the ineffective and implausible bit, that isn't just an opinion (as in something attributable to only one group or source). Our sources support it broadly as the current scientific consensus; the difference between "homeopathy is ineffective" and "homeopathy has no benefit beyond placebo" isn't clear to me, beyond the first being a plain English statement of the second. Therefore, I don't see a benefit to changing from the first wording to the second, except to decrease our accessibility to a layman.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing I don't like is the repetition. For instance, the ineffective / implausible bit is explicitly repeated in the 4th paragraph. How can we avoid that? Both mentions seem important given the surrounding context, but we shouldn't be saying the same thing twice in the lead alone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Concrete sentence as to how to improve the lead. No scientific or clinical evidence has been found suggesting that homoeopathy has any benefit other than the placebo effect. This is way better and neutral sentence than: Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. for reasons I stated above. By WP:BOLD, and rather more, as a means to improve WP, I'm going to make the necessary little change to improve the lead, some one sentences that needs to be changed, clear as water. --Universal Life (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't do that. I said why I don't agree with that change above, and you haven't addressed what I said. Please gain consensus first. I'll add something new to my objections too: your change removes content regarding the scientific plausibility, and I'm not sure why.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've already changed it and I see your comment just now. I did not deliberately intended to remove "scientific plausibility" but I haven't seen any sources citing such a thing, I might have missed. However, the sentence "Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible" is definitely violating WP:NPOV and it also comes the jurisdiction of stating opinions as facts. Do you agree? --Universal Life (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hang on... let's get something straight first. "Opinion", in this context, is a reflection of the sources. If the weight of the scientific community agrees that homeopathy's postulated mechanisms of action are implausible, then it is not a mere opinion, and per bullet 3 in YESPOV, "avoid presenting uncontested factual assertions as mere opinion." That part of the lead is reflecting the content found in the "Evidence" section, which is rife with sources. That Homeopathy violates fundamental principles of science is important, oft-cited, and must be included in a comprehensive summary of the subject.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Scientific research has found homoeopathic remedies ineffective." This is an opinion or rather a biased way writing the truth. I'm a scientist and an academician myself, I went roughly through the sources, but only the ones in the lead, claiming that sentence. No source has such a claim but a similar one perhaps not so strong, saying that they couldn't find any benefit other than the placebo effect. See the quotation up in blue, other scientific articles have similar writings.

Putting it simply, found no effect/benefit more than placebo or couldn't find any effect/benefit more than placebo is not the same as found it ineffective. By this I meant opinion, perhaps I should have said WP:OR. We can not interpret the sources, as it's done in this article, in the sentence above.--Universal Life (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources are in the passage I cited above... as I said above.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I got that already. What I'm saying is found no effect/benefit more than placebo and found it ineffective are not the same thing. Do you see the logic? --Universal Life (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I responded to that above already. So did Brunton. Those are the same thing, as far as I can tell. The placebo effect is not an effect due to the Homeopathy, it's an effect due to the patient receiving "treatment" in general. To say, in scientific language, that homeopathy works no better than placebo is to say, in layman's terms, that homeopathy is ineffective. We have lots of sources saying that, and it appears to be the collective weight of the scientific consensus (as discussed so much above). Like I said already, "I don't see a benefit to changing from the first wording to the second, except to decrease our accessibility to a layman."   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and we should prefer lay language. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no source for showing clearly that the sentence about sham in the lead is held by the whole community - sham being an emotive and strong word to use. The one there isn't enough by a long way, its just an opinion of the autors and the ref they give for this doesn't support what they say, AND they are not even scientists.

That one body has after 1847 used the word quackery, has no weight for being included in the lead - thats an historical issue to put in some other section. James Randy is as credible as a Jam Sauasage - please lets not have his irrelavent POV reference in here. Maybe Mahatma Ghandi is a nore relevant person for quoting in the lead? Cjwilky (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• I share the qualms about the current lead. While there is nothing untrue in it, it seems to try too hard to debunk, rather than just reporting facts. It's almost as though we had in the lead of the Jesus article:

Most Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died sacrificially by crucifixion to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return. The modern scientific consensus is clear that virgin births, miracles and resurrections are not possible. Belief in the impossible is often a sign of mental illness. Christ's followers have been responsible for countless atrocities including murder, torture and child abuse.

This would also be true and easy to source, but it would probably be considered undue weight on an article about a religious prophet. Likewise, I think the lead on this article has to take account that this too is a faith-based subject more than a scientific one. --John (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can find good cites for "homeopathy is a faith-based subject, not a science-based one" ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you've changed my words slightly. Did you mean to do that? --John (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You were arguing for treating homoepathy as faith-based rather than scientific, so DG's minor paraphrase doesn't really change your meaning significantly; the sort of source he suggests is certainly what would be necessary to justify that approach. The article treats homoeopathy as a system of medicine, as is appropriate. Brunton (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me what I was arguing for, that's always appreciated. In fact the change of emphasis significantly changes the meaning of my words. Don't do it again, please, with or without quote marks. Why would we call it a system of medicine, when it is (quite correctly) part of Category:Obsolete medical theories and displays Template:Pseudoscience? It very clearly isn't, in the modern age, a system of medicine.--John (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but it is presented as a system of medicine and therefore needs to be treated as one here. Once you have persuaded these people, for example, to stop promoting and practising it as medicine and start practising it as a religion, then perhaps we can treat it as a religion here. Brunton (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• How does the current lead fit with the FAQ, Q11? --John (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Quantum

Hi all,

I added a specific refutation of quantum physics as an explanation for homeopathy. It doesn't really fit in my mind, too much detail in an odd place. Any suggestions on where it could go instead, or should it simply be removed? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to me to discuss this in detail if we have also discussed the QM explanation in detail first. With only a brief mention in the article, I don't know if a full refutation is warranted. The addition seems a little out of place, I believe for that reason. So, to my mind, the question becomes whether the QM explanation is due more weight in the article. I've heard it enough that it seems intuitive that it should, but we'd need good sourcing to afford it that weight. If we don't explain the QM thing, then I would prefer to replace the full refutation with something shorter, perhaps beginning with "For instance...", to more directly link it to the sentences before. What do you think?   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The "quantum" explanations are really just speculative, at best. Brunton (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. But are they "notable" enough an explanation to include in the article?   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

And that's also my concern. I've encountered "quantum" in skeptical websites, it seems to be at least one of the explanations du jour among homeopaths, but perhaps my experience is skewed. Is there another page that goes into more detail? Another option could be to simply reduce it from "quantum doesn't explain homeopathy because..." to merely a note that quantum mechanichs doesn't explain homeopathy, period. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I hit a Restricted Page on the source, but to be clear - does the source say that QM doesn't apply to homeopathy, or just that it isn't macroscopic? If you are taking a general source that QM doesn't apply to macroscopic scales and using it to make an argument here, that's probably impermissible original synthesis, even if it happens to be right. (More or less - I think QM does affect macro scales in some important ways, but it's kind of a matter of semantics) Wnt (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is specifically about homeopathy. It's explicit, WP:OR is not an issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The quantum explanation is not speculative, it's delusional. Seriously. Have you read the source paper that proposed "patient - practitioner - remedy entanglement"? It displays a total lack of understanding of physics, quantum or otherwise. It is a perfect example of pseudoscience in that it looks like science only as long as you know absolutely nothing about the supposed subject. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Quackery or fraud?

I think the biggest question in many people's mind about homeopathy is whether the practitioners really believe in it. For example, a company like this offers 150 products starting with an A, available in concentrations ranging from 3X to 30X, 3C to 30C, also five others - and each of these also in a liquid dropper bottle form. Assuming A is average, that's 26 x (28+28+5) x 2 x 150 = 475800 products! That's a lot of shelf space, a lot of hazardous material shipping fees for the original compounds used. I know nothing about that particular company I mention --- it would, however, be most convenient to run a business of that general description using a water tap, a big bin of sugar pills, and a custom label printer. It is, after all, frequently argued by opponents of homeopathy that every possible homeopathic remedy must already be present diluted in tap water... isn't it?

On the other hand, there was a case of [1] in which Hyland's Teething Tablets turned out to contain dangerous amounts of real belladonna. This might be taken to indicate that some practitioners believe in the practice after all (though for this, a single product, the advantages of cheating would be much less). On the other hand, a person might wonder if something like this could be a different kind of fraud, namely, providing an effective but unapproved medicine under the guise of it being safe tap water; if it works, after all, there is repeat business. But again, I don't know anything about that manufacturer.

Do any editors here have more news references about other-than-standard homeopathy preparation methods of either type? Wnt (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what your point for the article is here? Cjwilky (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the word "quackery" has been the object of much discussion above. More to the point, I was hoping someone would have more refs that we could do something with. I should stick the Hylands Teething Tablets bit in somewhere but if I had more maybe it could be a section, etc. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I find myself agreeing with Cjwilky. Hell has frozen over. Perhaps the Hylands material can be used, but I don't understand the relevance to the article of Wnt's other suggestions. Skinwalker (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Aye. Although: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/08/fda-raises-serious-concerns-about-uks-nelsons-homeopathics.html Guy (Help!) 16:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There's certainly no shortage of FDA warning letters for non-compliant homeopathic products. See non-compliant homeopathic warning criminal site:fda.gov and take your pick. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that is a good set of keywords - thanks! Wnt (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)