Talk:Homeopathy

Archives

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 1 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 2 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 3 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 4 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 5 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 6 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 7 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 8 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 9 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 10 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 11 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 12 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 14 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 15 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 16 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 17 Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 18

Under dispute POV

I m surprised that the sign under dispute is removed. That means some editors dont want to accept that there is well documented opinion on the talk page different that theirs. I think that this is not respectful for the other editors and it is not in the spirit of the rules of wikipedia. The under dispute sign should be there as long as there is a dispute going on.If someone objects to this idea please explain.--Sm565 02:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to apolozise. I thought that someone from the editors we were arguing in the talk page removed the under dispute tag but actually it was another user (I think) who did not participate in the discussion and gave non reasons for the tag removal from what I see in our talk page.

I do not consider "the article seems fine" a rational explanation since we had agreed to reach a consenus in this oage before any editing. Sorry QuackGur.Please next time try to participate in our discussion. .--Sm565 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

put the wrong sign before.--Sm565 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the POV flag. It should remain until all NPOV disputes are resolved. Whig 05:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - ongoing.

Sorry, I don't have as much time to spend here as I did over the weekend. Instead of rehashing again and again the issues that I and others have with this article in its present form, I will try to make some careful edits to the article and if they are removed we can come back and discuss them here. I may be more infrequent for the next few days, but at least now with the article unlocked we can make some forward progress together instead of arguing. I want to say that I do not recognize a current group of editors to be seeking an NPOV article, but I hope we can resolve this dispute in some mutually agreeable fashion, whether that entails splitting the article into two or more, or some other solution. Whig 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. What then do you think is that group of editors seeking? Peter morrell 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

A Mainstream-Scientific POV, exclusively. Whig 05:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what are they belly-aching about? That has already been achieved. The article is 50% critique and dismissal. This was supposed to be placed in one section but it shadows everything the article tries to say. It is a goddam mess again. You can't please everyone. So what do you suggest? Peter morrell 06:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is, indeed, my point. Whig 06:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What I suggest is what I said, I'll make some careful edits when I feel comfortable with what I want to do, and if anyone objects we'll come back here. You can do the same or continue talking here. If everyone makes defensible edits, we can have a very good conversation. Whig 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

However, the mainstream science POV does not really exists. I have never seen in any major organization like WHO website or the others cited references that Science considers homeopathy as a pseudoscience. They say "controversial".--Sm565 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should not put words in their mouths. Whig 10:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to edit that text with a proper citation? Whig 10:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the POV tag again. OrangeMarlin removed it. Please stop removing the tag, it is required until NPOV disputes have been resolved. Whig 10:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't keep edit warring to get a POV tag up without being crystal clear and summarizing what POV you see with the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no edit war. Stop trying to control this discussion. Whig 16:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If one person adds a tag, another removes it and yet another adds it back then that is automatically an edit war. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Please stop being contentious, the POV tag is required to remain in place until NPOV disputes are resolved. Whig 16:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter morrell's edits

I'd be a lot happier if your first reference wasn't shitty random spammy crap off the intarwebz, not to mention the fact that this is probably giving undue weight to your point of view where it is not needed: specific examples are given elsewhere. Moreschi ^Talk 13:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your POV; where are these alleged 'specific examples elsewhere?' The only point being made is that medicine of that time employed complex mixtures. That is not part of my POV, it is simply how things were as shown by the examples given. Peter morrell 13:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's no big deal. It shouldn't be hard to find a better source for that and I hardly see how giving examples of the substances used has any POV at all. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, for finally fixing it better than I could. much appreciated. cheers Peter morrell 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, but I wish you'd ask about these things first on the talk page, because it was really confusing: It took me four readings to realise Theriac wasn't a homeopathic remedy, but Galenic medicine. And I almost deleted it again when I realised that the remaining source didn't actually cover the correct time period, and the source I had was for ingredients (luckily, I then found that interesting article I used). I am, despite my somewhat ogrish image of late, quite willing to help with finding sources and improvements to the article (it's the circular discussions that annoy me), but a little context helps in sorting things. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's OK no harm done, but thanks again anyway. It's now much better and sharper. cheers Peter morrell 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My god, people used to take opium mixed with... viper meat? I suppose Galenic medicine has many more entertaining examples of horrid "cures" like this - I just haven't looked at it in detail. Cheers, Skinwalker 15:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy does that. Uses preparations of Bushmaster viper, Opium, etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but homeopathy ONLY uses single drugs (OK predominantly) so no complex mixtures with 64 ingredients etc. Peter morrell 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Plant extracts, such as used in the initial stages of some homeopathic remedies, contain many thousands of different types of molecules. These are by definition complex mixtures. However, once diluted to 30C they only contain one type of molecule - water. I know you doubt that molecules really exist, Peter, but you can't talk about components in drugs without considering molecules. Tim Vickers 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Wikipedia has many guidelines. Sometimes these get in the way of the process of improving the quality of articles. However, in my experience, there is one guideline that never does, and that is WP:LEAD. It not only gives great advice on how to write leads, but also, implicitly, great advice on how to write articles. Almost every encounter I have had with an article in difficulty has been resolved by applying WP:LEAD. Get the article right first, and then use WP:LEAD to write the lead. The lead should summarize the article. It should cover the most important points in the article, and nothing which is not covered in the article. There should be no big surprises in the article for someone who has read the lead.

The lead of this article does not, currently, summarize it adequately. It does not cover the historical development, the various forms of current practice, the current prevalence, or the legal status, all of which are prominant parts of the article. This may mean that the article needs to be changed. More likely, however, it means the lead needs to be changed. Proposals to shorten the lead to 2 paragraphs for an 80+ K article are absurd.

My own opinion is that this article should be more strident but also more concise in its criticism of homeopathy. "Show, don't tell" is one of the key principles of NPOV. The article should spend more time describing homeopathy in neutral terms, so that the criticism of it as pseudoscience is obvious and does not require so much repetition. However, that is just my view, but I urge you to let WP:LEAD guide you. It is a great guideline. Geometry guy 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. This lead has been cut down and important information has been removed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the new Lead, ending with the sentence: "These findings, along with the proscription by homeopaths against conventional medicine and encouragement of a "holistic" approach to health, are consistent with the argument that homeopathy is a sort of quackery." is quite far off from being NPOV. The word "quackery" in particular is a loaded word, and the whole last paragraph, the longest paragraph, is anti-homeopathy.

By the way, when did encouragement of a "holistic" approach to health become evidence of quackery? Wanderer57 20:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

POV?

This is the area where ANYONE who thinks that this article has POV can summarize their reasons why. Everyone who thinks that this article is POV, please just summarize your reasons why you think that so that we can start fixing the article appropriately. POV tags aren't meant to stay forever and unless reasons are given and summarized clearly here by those who believe it is POV then the tag must go. I've read the discussions above and I can not determine exactly what changes to make to satisfy those who think that the article is POV so I request that they summarize their reasons here. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The sections on the development of Hahnemann's thought has a habit of implying that the evidence he saw was best explained by his conclusions, with a bit of peacock terminology. A more neutral, though not hostile, portrayal would probably solve most of the scientific editors' objections to the article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a problem of semantics or perception. I don't really see it that way however feel free to tweak it to make it more POV NPOV so it doesn't imply that he was correct. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to flag this comment right here, Wikidudeman is advocating POV. Whig 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake on my part. I meant to say make it more "NPOV". Sorry. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you were correct the first time. You are trying to make it come out to imply a certain thing that is not supported by citation. Whig 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also seeing some POV issues in the lead. The lead has a tendency to overplay the lack of scientific support for homeopathy, often at the cost of actually explaining what homeopathy is. This is a major problem. The last sentence in the first paragraph and the first sentence in the second one are pretty much redundant and could easily be merged or put into the same paragraph. Another problem is that it says that "the scientific community" asserts that there is no evidence water or alcohol retains a memory. This give the impression that there's such a thing as an entire body called the "scientific community" who walk lock step. A better rephrasing would simply be "There is no scientific evidence water retains memory". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam, Tell me what you think of this edit. Is there still the tone that Hahnemann was right in his conclusions? Please let me know. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(Moved off topic discussions here) Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Of ghettoes and stuff

My only grouse about the article at the moment FWIW is that there seems to be too much critique built into the flow of narrative as it goes along and yet WDM promised some time back not to do that but to place critique in a separate section, what Adam amusingly termed a ghetto. Well, I would prefer that because it seems to me that the article never really gets into second gear; it is always looking over its shoulder for the dark shadow of a criticism to come bellowing down on anything it says. It is suffocated all the way along by critique. The whole thing reads as if it is way too cautious and defensive about saying anything about the subject this article is supposed to be about. Sorry if that offends a few folks but we must try and air our grievances as that is what we have been asked to do. Hope that's OK... let's discuss it then. cheers Peter morrell 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article needs to do it's best to explain homeopathy in a NPOV manner without mixing everything that is said up with criticism. I think that articles flow better without adding so many qualifiers to sentences and without adding so many exta notes every other sentence about how most scientific studies don't support homeopathy. In my opinion the history and treatments and philosophy sections can all be elaborated on without mentioning distinct criticism of homeopathy or remind the reader that scientific studies dispute homeopathy. I think that we're underestimating the intelligence of the common reader if we need to make so many changes in an attempt to convince them of something. I think that any reader interested in the criticism of homeopathy will browse right to that section and any reader interested in learning the basics of the history or philosophy of homeopathy will not want to be reminded every other sentence that homeopathy is no better than a placebo. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at other articles on Pseudoscience and you'll note that all are treated the same way. Additionally, for reasons that I don't quite understand, separate crit sections are considered "bad". •Jim62sch• 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The article can make the medical efficacy(or lack thereof) of homeopathy clear without hurting the explanation of it's basic philosophy or history. I know that when I don't know anything about a subject and read a wikipedia article about it, If I am looking for "criticism" of the subject I will always scroll right down to that section to see it. It's very difficult to have to browse through the whole article reading each sentence essentially argue against itself just to get the jist of criticism. Both the History, philosophy and the methods used in homeopathy can all be discussed from a NPOV manner without ever touching on it's actual effectiveness. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> It's a problem with separate "critique" sections that they're inevitably separated from the subject they're dealing with, so each argument has to be restated in order to state the objections. It also means that the "pro" arguments are presented without being put in the context of majority mainstream opinion, and so contravene provisions of NPOV and NPOV/FAQ. Hiding the critique away in its own section means that it's easily overlooked, and its readers get a false impression. It's a matter of balance, but each controversial section must be put in its proper context. .. dave souza, talk 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be any "Pro" or "Con" arguments. Just "What Homeopaths believe" and then "What Critics believe". Also, As it stands, This section has no critique section. It has a "Scientific analysis" section which isn't really the same thing. Integrating the Scientific analysis section into sections like "History" or "Philosophy" wouldn't really work well IMO as it always leads to "Criticism/Reply/Criticism of reply/Reply to criticism of reply..Etc..Etc" Which makes articles totally incomprehensible. I don't believe for one second that criticism sections or even in this case the "Scientific analysis" section would be overlooked. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This article's responsibility is to present a NPOV of a practice that has been credibly and intensively criticized from an evidence-based standpoint. That NPOV requires clear statements of what critics allege is the problem at each stage of presentation, in tandem with the relevant assertions by advocates and practitioners of homeopathic medicine. WP is not a free host for putting up unchallenged hype. Thus, it would be irresponsible to put all criticisms at the end of the article.

I do, however, agree that the approach of "What Homeopaths believe" and then "What Critics believe" for each significant section of the article is one suitable approach to NPOV. ... Kenosis 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how putting the "Scientific analysis" of homeopathy in it's own section (second from last) would not allows us to present it in a NPOV manner. Also, How are we supposed to put the "critics" view of the history of homeopathy? Since the criticism of the philosophy and the criticism of the treatment methods are essentially the same, they must be in the same place or we'll face redundancy. This leaves us with the option of either putting the scientific analysis in it's own section (as it is now) or putting it all in one section, either the "treatments" section or the "Philosophy" section, which really wouldn't make any sense at all. Thus the only viable option would be to format it the way it's currently formated. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes. In order to be a useful presentation and also be in keeping with WP:NPOV, pro and con, and assertions of experimental proof of efficacy as versus assertions of "no valid correlation in properly controlled studies", along with other issues involving opposing POVs, seem to need to be at least somewhat intermixed throughout the article, even in the section currently titled "Medical and scientific analysis". Remember that homeopathic advocates claim a certain degree of empirical support, critics claim "placebo" and "false hope", and, for example, both the US Department of Health and UK NHS have weighed in on this too. Last time I checked, this is already more-or-less how the WP article balances the pros and cons of this controversial practice of homeopathic medicine. ... Kenosis 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it actually true that criticism of the philosophy and the criticism of the treatment methods are essentially the same? Haven’t the treatment methods changed since the philosophy was formed 200 years ago? If they have not, that is a pretty damning statement about homeopathy. Wanderer57 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On removing the under dispute flag without giving reasons

Do you realize that removing the under dispute flag without trying to reach a consensus using rational arguments and reliable references but using banners, you totally discredit your selves ? Serious readers who will try to investigate the subject they will not take you seriously if they decide to just take a look at the talk page and see the way you argue. Unless you think that wikipedia is for middle school students who want to copy quickly some info for their homework. Please stop doing it and accept that some people disagree with you and have taken the time to explain why.Try to do the same. It is more healthy I assure you. Best wishes.--Sm565 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for middle school students. It's also for anyone else who wants it. Seriously, this argumentation you are trying to make is pointless. There needs to be an actionable dispute ongoing for a tag to be in place on the main page. Certainly there is a lot of complaining here, but no one has offered a specific dispute of wording or facts, so I think you are the one who needs to do some accepting "that some people disagree with you and have taken the time to explain why". ScienceApologist 21:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you dont read the talk page.Here is why.[1]

--Sm565 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good try, but no cigar.

User:ScienceApologist continues to remove the POV tag. I do not want to revert repeatedly. Please someone else restore the tag, so that we can continue this civil discussion. Whig 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig, Please don't encourage other editors to participate in an edit war. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Opinions on our discussion

There is nothing to discuss. It is clear that the relevant medical and scientific communities views the iodiocy of homeopathy as pseudoscience. We have demonstrated it with plenty of citations. The offered rebuttal is to third rate journals and inconclusive studies. NEXT! ScienceApologist 01:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the the Lancet a third rate journal?[2]--Sm565 07:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is noted. Whig 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss.

I have reverted ScienceApologist's edit, which not only removed the POV tag but restored the false POV claim at issue below. Whig 02:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

False POV claim

The article states, "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[13]"

I have tried to restate this claim as follows:

"Some common homeopathic potencies are inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since the statistical chance of one atom of the original substance remaining in solution is vanishingly small beyond about 11C."

Some editing may be helpful to make this clearer, but the original claim is false. Spirit-like medicinal powers was a phrase used hundreds of years ago by Hahnemann, that does not mean all homeopaths believe that today, and furthermore I have already demonstrated at least one who does not. Whig 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded this sentence. It now reads "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theorists state that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers" If you wish other references can be added showing other prominent homeopathic theorists such as Kent making similar claims, but since Hahnemann is the most prominent of all this is not really necessary. Tim Vickers 00:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Which theorists? Just Hahnemann? All of them? Cite please. It is really necessary. Whig 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have edited your language to make it factually semi-accurate. "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its original theorist stated that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[13]"

Not that it's even an accurate characterization of Hahnemann's fundamental views. He might have made some extraordinary claims, but he also made some quite ordinary ones. Whig 00:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference to Kent's views and the set of review lectures by Dudgeon. Kent's views on dilution were even more extreme than Hahnemann's. Can you find a prominent Homeopathic theorist who argues that dilution makes drugs less powerful? That is the reference you need to find to disprove the general statement. Tim Vickers 00:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have to disprove the statement. You have to prove the statement. That's the burden. Whig 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig, not all modern major homeopaths use the term "spirit-like medicinal powers" Vithoulkas for example. [3] FOr example Vithoulkas says.

Homeopathy uses a type of energy unleashed through the process of potentization . The fact is that at this moment we do not have conclusive evidence of what the nature of this energy is.

User TimVickers is right it is not consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics - if we suppose that scientists know them all. --Sm565 01:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if we took a poll and every one of us agreed that homeopathy as a whole was not consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, and I would demur based upon my reading thus far, we would not be permitted to insert that POV into the article. We could quote somebody who said that, however.

If you want to incorporate this Vithoulkas into the statement somehow, go ahead, but I'd never heard of him before you and maybe he's a quack. Whig 01:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think quacks are published by Grove Press easily. [4] but its worth looking into and decide.

However, the sentence "homeopathy as a whole is not consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics is inaccurate. Most of the meta analyses in clinical trials show a therapeutic effect. The fact that we cannot explain its mechanism does not mean that it does not exist. Take Aspirin. It was the most frequently prescribed drug in conventional medicine and until few years ago, and no one had any idea how it worked.

Therefore, it could be more precise to state that scientists cannot explain the phenomenon, or the effect with their current knowledge. But the therapeutic effect exists and it is measurable and recorded in scientific papers even with the placebo trials ( not always the best tool to test Homeopathy ).

So, I agree with you that this statement "homeopathy as a whole is not consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics" is not appropriate and it should be modified. --Sm565 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to make or suggest a specific edit to the article. Whig 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line here, is only Hahnemann can be said to have invoked the phrase, "spirit-like medicinal powers." Only Hahnemann can be attributed. If others said similar things, quote them, or paraphrase in a way that does not imply all homeopaths hold this precise belief. Whig 02:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahnemann's quote is a simple summary of his beliefs, which are shared still amongst homeopaths in general. Find me a quote of a single homeopathic theorist who does not agree with him that diluting remedies makes them more powerful. Find me a quote of a homeopath stating that dilution weakens the medicinal powers of remedies and I will agree with you that this statement doesn't apply to all. Tim Vickers 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to find a quote. You have the burden of proof. As I keep informing you. Whig 03:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Since your only objection is the attribution of these precise words, rather than their meaning, I'm willing to compromise by stating what we all agree homeopaths believe and attributing Hahnemann's reasoning for why this might be. Tim Vickers 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a negotiation. I do like your new wording better, but it still needs work. This is not the only POV sentence in the article. It's not close to being NPOV. There remain many issues which have been discussed in the foregoing talk and other NPOV issues which may not yet have been addressed. There is no consensus that NPOV disputes have ended, and you should not unilaterally remove the POV tag. Whig 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Whig. NOPV issues have not been addressed properly; potentization is the term I think.Not dilution.--Sm565 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC) --Sm565 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a first pass at it, I think it still needs a lot more work, but I hope it's an improvement, and rather than trying to keep tweaking it myself, I'd just as soon leave it there for discussion and modification consistent with the NPOV that we're striving for now. Whig 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm565, I encourage you to correct my wording if it is in error. Whig 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC): I will do.--Sm565 04:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Isnt removing the under dispute flag against the rules if consensus has not been reached?

I will do; but I have to wait for user Orangemarlin; maybe since he removed the under dispute flag wants to participate in the discussion.--Sm565 04:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No valid explanation was given for removing the flag.--Sm565 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, many many WP participants have been involved in bringing the article to its current state. Myself, I've gotten shit from both sides of the "equation" here. But the "equation" is not merely pro and con. It involves many aspects of people who depend on the handle "homeopathy" to make a living, a few who actually make a living being skeptics, researchers who may or may not actually be paid money for doing "objective" research, researchers who are definitely paid but who may or may not be "objective", and a whole host of other POV slants on the topic of homeopathy. Inserting a POV tag at this stage of the article's development would generally require a stronger warrant than mere disagreement about how the presently irreconcilable POVs are distritbuted in the article. That, at least in my view, is what the talk page is for. ... Kenosis 05:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you see that the article is not supported by its cited references and its POV? [5] [6] [7] [8] --Sm565 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked 4 questions a week ago and I did not get an answer in all of them. If someone want to comment I would like to hear your opinion. .[9]--Sm565 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Homeopathy

Template:RFCsci NPOV dispute is not being respected. 05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue on which you would like comment? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the editor who filed this has just been banned for 12 hours for edit warring. Though it might be another editor who filed this. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please investigate users conduct;other conduct issues as well; under dspute tag is removed even if there is a discussion on NPOV ; investigate if the article is supported by its citations - sources have been presented and compared with what the article claims in this page. --Sm565 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)thanks

Appendices

Can we please place all critiques into appendices? then the article can have an uninterrupted voice to speak about the subject without constant interruption all along the line. At every point where a criticism is made place a tag directing the reader to read a more balanced view and the critique by science and conventional medicine. Then the article can be read as one continuous flow of info about the subject the article is supposed to be about: homeopathy, without the numerous interruptions as it now stands. A tag at the head of the article can also advise readers to read the critique section as well as the text body in order to get a balanced view. Can we have some idea of who would support this idea? thank you Peter morrell 06:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be split in some fashion. There should be a space for an article on homeopathy according to homeopaths, and that article should also direct readers to criticism, and vice-versa. The header Homeopathy article might end up being a smaller one with mainly links to those articles. Whig 06:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea, and probably against policy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What policy? This is done all over Wikipedia. Whig 06:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear, all articles must be written from NPOV. That is absolute and non-negotiable. I am not asking for a pro-Homeopathy article. That would be absurd and as wrong as an anti-Homeopathy article. But an article which is about Scientific critiques of homeopathy can describe those critiques, and another on Homeopathy which is descriptive of the subject itself. Whig 06:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are called POV forks.

There are some sound scientific principles, and some ideas that may be extraordinary enough to require extraordinary proof, contained under the heading of Homeopathy. Low potency remedies have no scientific problems. They may or may not have effectiveness. Whig 06:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of the suggestion is simply that any reader will be able to read the info on the supposed subject without interruption. The cricitisms will all still be there in undiluted or even in expanded form, but they are not getting in the way at every turn. Readers do not IMO come to this article principally to read all the critique or at least they come to read principally about homoepathy and any valid critique there is should not be distracting them from that priamry task. Currently that is exactly what happens: nearly every sentence is shadowed by a criticism. That interrupts the flow incredibly. Peter morrell 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The current formation of the article is ideal. A section for History, A section for Philosophy, A section for procedures of treatment and a section for scientific analysis. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tim Vickers 15:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So, Tim, you agree that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will stop it sinking? No way; until these crits are moved the article will never flow and the basic gist of homeopathy is continually interrupted by crit. Until that stops the article is a useless hybrid that no-one will enjoy reading and be only be thoroughly confused by. It cries out for it. Peter morrell 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter the best we can hope for is that everybody is equally unhappy! Some will be unhappy that criticism is included and some will be unhappy that criticism isn't the only thing. Let's focus on what we can realistically achieve here, an article that gives a reasonable balance between the two. Tim Vickers 16:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. Any other subject on WP you care to choose will give info about the subject in the title all through. This does not do that. It is a mess and one reason it is a mess is that it cannot even speak about the Main subject without numerous apologies, cautious deferential statements and shadowed by crit, it is crowded out by crit, choked to death by it all the way through. Read the goddam thing it is not an article about homeopathy it is anti-homeopathy and should be retitled as such. It's pathetic. Open your eyes. You're so soaked in science you just don't see it. thank you Peter morrell 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We are all a prisoner of our viewpoints, I'm just as guilty of this as you are. However, in a contentious subject such as this, we have to explain both viewpoints. We just cannot have an article that only takes the homeopathic view. Tim Vickers 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what part you're talking about Peter. As far as I can tell, the ONLY section which mentions the scientific analysis of homeopathy is the scientific analysis section. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There are critical comments scattered all through. If you can't see them, I will post them up later on. Peter morrell 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding a fair way to represent all sides

I suggest: Not critisim in the beginning.

1.Homeopathy definion what it claims to be.

2.history

3.technical ( provings preparation)

4.Clinical studies. A table with all metanalyses stating its findings including its sourced critisism.No comments from the editors.

Labaratory studies. The same table. (Beneviste research.....etc) no comments report findings.

5.Separate critisim section in this form: ( safety concerns...) Many scientits say:. Homepaths claim ......

Many scientits say:. Homepaths claim ...

6.Popularity -countries practiced....

happy ending( kidding) I think it is fair and NPOV. --Sm565 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's also against WP:UNDUE. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

we will give you more space if you want.....70% more in every paragraph.(Even if prominence according to citations cannot be established ) many scientists say 70% homeopaths say30% Homeopathy needs only a few statements to explain its objections. As long there is not censorship in anything. Do you agree?--Sm565 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

70 30 I meant in the critisism section. The description of the phenomenon does not fall into WP:UNDUE. Critisism does. There is nothing to be afraid of if you have strong arguments the facts in a table and more space to argue . Peter. whig?--Sm565 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in general agreement, censorship is a strong word, not everything is encyclopedic. But I think in this case there is a strong tendency to suppress alternatives to the mainstream scientific POV. Whig 08:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Imagine if we allowed only scientific POV on religious articles? My goodness. Even if there is an aspect of spirituality to homeopathy, all the more reason it should have spiritual viewpoints represented in that case. Whig 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to pass judgment on homeopathy. We are just supposed to document it fairly. Whig 08:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Censorship : I tried to proposed adding objections from homeopaths and they refuged. I don't see any solution.

They just want an article saying :according to science homeopathy is fraud and no one is allowed to add any objection in the criticism section because it would be WP:UNDUE. What I proposed is fair I think. --Sm565 08:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're asking we remove criticism of a fringe theory from the lead and every other section until the last, and in that last only give it about 2/3rds of the section. And you think that's fair and NPOV. See, this is why we're ignoring your NPOV tags. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

1.They are not NPOV tags but under dispute tags. That means there is a discussion going on in which you participate or you are predending to participate.Not only you but everybody. If you do participate, removing the under dispute tag the same time is completely unethical and disrespecftul, whatever your credentials are.

You have no excuse.

2. I suggested : you write the whole article, you state the facts only studies findings etc...without comments , and in the critisism section give to Homeoapthy 30% of the space to explain its objections assuming there will be no censorship. Give even 20%. It is enough.

if you want critism in the introdustion give to homeopathic view 20% even less to object in this form. Homeopaths claim that..... You object even that. We dont live in the Dark ages. Even if you regard Homeopathy as a "fringe theory" its objections are an essential part of the information you give to the reader.You should not hide them otherwhise the article is incomplete. These are obvious things we should not be talking about. .--Sm565 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in here, but you cannot define something by what it claims to be (point 1). That is the antithesis of NPOV. A neutral definition is required, and in a contentious topic, that would include the fact that it is contentious. Danny 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me state two things:

1. The Lead MUST summarize the article. If the article contains a section on the scientific analysis of Homeopathy then also must the lead.

2. I don't know what you mean, Danny, by saying we define homeopathy not from how it defines itself but from some other definition. There are no other definitions. If you mean we should not define homeopathy as "effective" if it defines itself that way then I agree, however if Homeopathy defines itself as a 'philosophy of treating likes with likes and involves high dilutions to produce substance' then that's how it must be defined as that's what it is. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please do not edit war. Try to discuss changes, I'll be blocking those who are disruptive on this article. Thanks, Mercury 12:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're uninvolved. Please don't hesitate to block edit warriors, even if they don't violate 3rr because a lot of them seem to measure their reverts so that they don't, essentially attempting to game the system. Editors may STILL be blocked if they continue to edit war even if they do not violate 3rr. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not secret that I have blocked in the past for 2RR, disruption includes edit warring among other things. I'll be monitoring this article as uninvolved. I encourage healthy discussion, but I'll try not to protect an article that folks are attempting to improve for GA/FA. I'll do my best to stop disruption other ways. Mercury 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are so uninvolved and even-handed in this matter, as you claim, then precisely why did you block the editor you did and not others? It takes two to edit war, surely? why not block folks from both sides? Peter morrell 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the only technical violation of three revert rule that I saw. However, no one is entitled to exactly three reverts. Consider its me, turning on the electric fence. Mercury 01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He will. However Whig violated 3rr.

• 18:05, 9 October 2007
• 18:37, 9 October 2007
• 19:23, 9 October 2007
• 21:30, 9 October 2007
• last edit

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well he has had plenty of time now to chew it over, so who else has he blocked? answer: nobody. So you were incorrect WDM not for the first time. Peter morrell 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No one has been edit warring since he has been blocked. So It seems to have solved the problem. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well taping someone's mouth sure makes it go quiet but has the problem been solved? not really Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

When they're causing the problem, it does. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK let's tape a few more mouths and PRETEND we have a civil discussion and a good article. Dream on. Peter morrell 04:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Overly Broad Criticism?

Earlier I tried to raise the issues of whether Hahnemann’s views are representative of modern homeopathic practise, and of how much diversity there is in modern practise. I think these are relevant to the NPOV discussion.

For example, IF SOME modern homeopathic treatment uses low dilutions and does not depend on the idea of the “memory of water”, then all of homeopathy should not be criticized as being based on this idea.

However, I see in the article, in the Medical and scientific analysis section:

“Homeopathy has been unsupported by scientific research since its inception. The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations, which would often leave none of the active ingredient (no atoms, ions or molecules), is inconsistent with the well observed dose-response relationships of conventional drugs. The idea that the water contains the "memory" or "vibration" from the diluted ingredient is also counter to the accepted laws of chemistry and physics. Thus critics contend that any positive results obtained from homeopathic remedies are purely due to the placebo effect, where the patients subjective improvement of symptoms is based solely on the power of suggestion, due to the individual expecting or believing that it will work. “

“Thus critics contend...” only follows from the preceding sentences in the case of highly dilute preparations.

To try to be very clear, I am NOT saying lower dilutions are effective. I don’t know if they are. I am saying that spreading a critique over an area of homeopathy where it does not apply is careless and leads to statements which are not-NPOV. Wanderer57 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter would be a good person to answer this, although all the modern homeopathic approaches I have come across use hugely diluted preparations, I don't know if there is a tiny minority of modern homeopaths who use remedies in undiluted or slightly diluted (10-fold 100-fold) levels. Peter? Tim Vickers 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What % of homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted? Based on my reading, I would say the vast majority. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Many modern homeopaths use the LM scale (such as LM1 LM2 LM3 etc) which are all below the Avogadro limit so your precious theoretical molecules are actually present. But many use 30c and above and they are pure space! does this help? both views need to be stated I think. Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, doesn't LM5 hit the Avorgado limit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, dunno, please show us the maths on that one Adam. thanks Peter morrell 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

50000^5 = 312,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 3.125 * 10^23. Which is near enough the Avorgado limit for there to be a good chance of no molecules remaining. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted earlier, I have a supply of tablets that are sold as a homoepathic treatment for insomnia. They are lactose containing 3X dilutions of three other ingredients. Wanderer57 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a good source on this, it states:

"The problem is that most homeopathic remedies are diluted out of molecular existence."

Milgrom LR (2007). "Conspicuous by its absence: the Memory of Water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy". Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 96 (3): 209–19. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.002. PMID 17678819.

I've cited this in the article. Tim Vickers 21:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear

Adam your latest edit...what does it mean? According to Avogadro's number, there are only 6.022 × 10²³ particles per mole, with a mole of substances used in homeopathy ranging between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. Comparing the level of dilution to the number of molecules present, the chance of any molecule of the original substance being present in a 15x solution is very small, and the chances of a single molecule of the original substance remaining in a 24x or 12c dilution would be roughly 1 in 2 billion. please enlighten us. it reads much worse than before. Peter morrell 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to make sure not to confuse the common reader. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam I will contend that you have no idea what you are doing and are completely out of your depth here. This sentence is meaningless twaddle: A mole of common substances used in homeopathy ranges between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. please explain what you are up to. Peter morrell 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what he's trying to say, but bringing in moles and Avogadro's number, while more rigorous, isn't going to help the average reader. Also aren't we talking about 15 sequential 100-fold dilutions in 15C, rather than a 15-fold dilution? Tim Vickers 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rigorous? please, Tim, that is rather gratuitous I think. I have tried to correct the problem. 24x is equivalent to 12c and 6c is 1,000,000,000,000 dilutions = 12 zeroes. does that now clarify? thanks Peter morrell 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, now! I agree the sentence could be improved, but "meaningless twaddle" is a bit harsh. Wanderer57 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of general 'sweetness and light,' OK I withdraw the twaddle word! however if you read what he wrote, esp. the grams stuff, well I'm sorry but it was a bit unintelligible to put it mildly. Mischief now managed. Peter morrell 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, 6C is six successive 100-fold dilutions? Is this right?

1C = 1:100 2C = 1:10,000 3C = 1:1,000,000 4C = 1:100,000,000 5C = 1:10,000,000,000 6C = 1:1,000,000,000,000

The problem with using a "24x" is that some people might read that as 24-fold, since "x" is commonly used in chemistry to denote concentration/dilution (in this usage a 2X solution is two-fold more concentrated than a final 1X solution). I removed this to avoid the dual meaning. If we stick with just explaining the "C" notation this might be less confusing to the reader. Tim Vickers 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about the mole/Avogadro sentence either. A non-specialist isn't going to understand that a protein, for example, is going to have a higher molecular weight than a simple salt, even after reading the mole and Avogadro's number articles. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tim, for each centesimal potency you need two zeroes on the scale so 4c is indeed 100,000,000. I thought you were the chemist! ;-) cheers Peter morrell 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If I could just put 1:1e10 that would be simple, it's working it out into numbers I have problems with! Are we all happy with this bit? Tim Vickers 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I explained this all VERY carefully on the talk page of the draft in the sandbox. And it was summarily rejected. But it can all be made quite clear if necessary. I still think it belongs someplace in Wikipedia to make this disgusting dilution nonsense more transparent.--Filll 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I get tired of basically swimming in molasses and getting caught in an unproductive morass. --Filll 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A foot note with the mathematics would be a good solution. Allowing readers who want to see where the conclusion comes from read it while not scaring away the rest. Tim Vickers 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the article need to cover all the different notations for dilution? There seem to be a lot of them. Wanderer57 23:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (I agree about the molasses - some dilution would be good.)

I agree completely. If we do nothing else in this article but very very carefully explain, once and for all, what X, D, LM, C, etc potencies mean, and how they relate to regular scientific understandings, we will have accomplished more than any of the thousands upon thousands of nonsense articles on homeopathy that litter the internet. I think if we can just make this mumbo-jumbo clear, it will stand us in extremely good stead. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and a reference manual for all kinds of people all over the world. We are not supposed to be shills for pseudoscience and promoters of incoherent nonsense.

It would be extremely valuable, IMHO, to straighten out these matters of confusion, even if they seem overly technical to some. Because the first thing a scientist or regular pharmacist or a doctor wants to know is, what the heck do those potencies and this nonstandard nomenclature mean? And how do they relate to each other, and how do they relate to what is common knowledge in science? And of course readers cannot easily find anything except confused mumbling from people deeply steeped in mythology and magic, who are almost purposely not explaining it clearly. So let's make some unique contribution here. Let's correct this lacuna in exposition. --Filll 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I know WDM will disagree, but I think this is another prime candidate for a supplementary article. Always with the understanding that the main article refers to the supplementary article and only summarizes its content, so that redundancy is minimized. I think explaining the nomenclatur and giving details on various dilution and succussion procedures is definitely too much detail for an overview article. On the other hand there is plenty of material available and sufficient interest to justify a separate article (perhaps a short one, but more than a stub). --Art Carlson 08:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly believe that it would be enough info to be it's own article. I think that this could all be explained in a single paragraph if done properly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do dilutions make things work better?

Do we have any sources for why homeopaths believe that dilutions make things stronger except for the Hahnemann theology? I mean are there homeopaths who actually claim to understand the physical mechanisms behind water memory? Or do they just take it on faith? And if they take it on faith, do they admit it? ScienceApologist 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it reduces the toxicity of the remedy. Beyond the Avogadro limit, effectiveness may be an extraordinary claim, but otherwise, not so much. Whig 01:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't not taking the remedy at all be the logical conclusion of that argumentation? ScienceApologist 01:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps at high enough >11C dilutions, yes. At lower dilutions, what's the physical problem? Whig 01:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a logical problem. If your goal is to reduce the toxicity of a remedy to its lowest level, then you wouldn't give the remedy at all. Otherwise, there must be another goal in mind. What is it? ScienceApologist 01:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just sophistry. The goal is to provoke an allergic response, but without overtaxing the body's ability to cure itself of the toxin. Whig 01:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an optimization problem that needs a boundary condition or external parameter to solve which you have glibly summarized as "without overtaxing". The problem is what determines the amount of allergic response that is too "overtaxing"? Does the homeopath endeavor to measure allergic responses or does the homeopath use another method of optimization? Obviously it's not the optimization considered in most of medicine otherwise this would be the article on effective dose. ScienceApologist 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of this argument, I neither know nor care. I am not making any claims about effectiveness or optimization theory. Whig 01:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, you've conceded it is no longer a physical problem or a logical problem, only an optimization problem. Whig 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't conceded anything. What we have is a dead end in your argumentation. Basically, according to you, homeopaths are trying to optimize the benefits of an allergic reaction without measuring the response or relating the amount of the toxin to any sort of response. Instead, the bald assertion is made that their method works through the mechanism you propose without any evidence or argumentation to back up the claim. Therefore, it is clear that your attempts to argue this point are nothing more than a smokescreen for ignorance. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A reminder that this all original research and so not very relevant. Do we have a reliable source that discusses homeopaths saying this? If not, it doesn't matter. JoshuaZ 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not OR. This is just simple math. Whig 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There has been no math mentioned in this section. You are beginning to sound like a one note samba. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And as far as finding out what homeopaths themselves say, you won't allow us to quote them because you don't consider them a reliable source. Catch 22. Whig 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopaths are reliable sources as to what they believe, but they are not reliable sources in describing reality. ScienceApologist 13:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What role does the intention of the homeopath have in influencing the effectiveness of the remedy? -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever: "I have often had physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with the wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy." [10] Dr James Tyler Kent MD (1849-1916) Homeopath. Peter morrell 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He was apparently unaware of the value and purpose of blinding....;-) A real experiment would have (and practically always have) proved differently. -- Fyslee / talk 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC/User in regards to participant in this Talk

Since I have been named in an RFC involving discussions here in Talk:Homeopathy, it would be good to let participants know in case they have any comments to add. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2. Whig 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oliver Wendell Holmes on homeopathy

Very interesting reading:

• Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions, by Oliver Wendell Holmes

also

• Hahnemann's Homeopathy, by Dr. William E. Thomas, MD

-- Fyslee / talk 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these considered primary or reliable sources? Whig 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The article by Holmes definitely is. -- Fyslee / talk 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly notable. Whig 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Fyslee / talk 01:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV under dispute

I think that NOPV issues have not been addressed properly. Examoles : [11][12] [13]

It is obvious that there is not consesus here and therefore the under dispute sign must remain on the article. I will mark the article

* and I will ask Mercury to protect the flag since it reflects the reality in the talk page. I m sure he will do it.

Best wishes.

• The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article

--Sm565 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, Mercury you have to intervene and restore the under dispute flag and take further action as you said. User gave non reason for removing the flag and did not answer the specific questions. --Sm565 07:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note explaining why I will restore the POV under dispute flag

I will ask again the editors who disagree to respect that there is non consensus in the article. I will give another example. There are many exmples explained in the talk page. If the editors read they will see that the sources dont support what the article says.[14] Please make sure you read the example. --Sm565 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You have NO support. Please note the following WP:TEND, WP:POINT, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. You especially have not developed a full understanding of NPOV. Any further tendentious editing, slow edit warring, making a point or violating NPOV will only serve to lessen your impact on this article. I would suggest you get a consensus to place a tag. One editor placing a tag (along with another one that quit doing so immediately after being subject to a block). So take a deep breath, and stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin just made two reverts of the POV tag. Whig 07:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

he did not reply to my questions either. I mtrying to discuss here. I wonder why he disagrees with the above example. Adam agreed with me.

Please Mercury ask him to participate in our discussion before he reverts something.thanks--Sm565 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so much agree as didn't think it worth fighting over. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think if you check the history log, Orangemarlin has made additional reversions in the past 24 hours. Whig 08:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

POV: 1

This article is totally POV. You have to be more objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftilos (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it odd that a brand new user, Naftilos (talk|contribs), immediately after registering, made four edits: 2 to Talk:Homeopathy and 2 on Homeopathy regarding the subject of a current dispute? Those four edits occurred over a span of twelve minutes and no edits have been made since. I'm sure it's just a coincidence and we'll be seeing a lot more from Naftilos. — DIEGO ^talk 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith, Diego. —Diego's sockpuppet 08:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's it, you were on your last warning the pair of you, you're blocked for that. - User:Diego's admin sockpuppet 16:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is one of you guys a ventriloquist? Wanderer57 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes happens.I remember another user quackgur or something who did the same. We never heard of him. I dont remember you either the last montth- I dont see you anywhere in the talk page.--Sm565 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether you "remember" me or not, or whether I have made comments on this talk page is irrelevant. I am obviously not a new user. I didn't create myself 30 minutes ago just to immediately make an edit to an article that is in the midst of an edit dispute. By the way, User:QuackGuru has made 3688 edits in the last 10 months (but only 1 on Homeopathy), so he hardly compares to User:Naftilos, who made 4 edits in 12 minutes (all on Homeopathy or Talk:Homeopathy). User:QuackGuru had a long edit history before and after his random edit on Homeopathy. In your experience, is it usual for new editors to go straight to the talk page of an article, make a comment (using terms like "POV"), then immediately insert POV tags in an article, then stop for the day? — DIEGO ^talk 09:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well....you just appeared after him without giving any reasons at the right time as well. Where were you the last 2 moths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't just "appear", and I did give a reason. User:Naftilos literally just appeared. This user did not exist 2 hours ago. Homeopathy is on my watchlist and I noticed User:Naftilos's suspicious edit, which I immediately reverted. Why was his edit suspicious? Because it was out of character for a new user (I checked his contribs before reverting). The editing behavior was odd (i.e., registration followed by an immediate cluster of edits that display rather advanced knowledge of Wikipedia (POV tagging, etc.) and a clear opinion on the article (which just happens to be the subject of an edit war over POV tags), followed by silence from the editor. If you don't think that is odd, fine. But please don't imply that I have no business pointing out questionable edits on a talk page (in the interest of maintaining neutrality and the integrity of the consensus process) just because I haven't previously been involved in any discussions on this article. I think people deserve to know if something potentially fishy is going on. I simply don't have time to get involved with any homeopathy discussions. I'm too busy rubbing HeadOn^® directly on my forehead. — DIEGO ^talk 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it odd at all. Somebody interested in Wikipedia and homeopathy wanders by and watches the circus a while, in particular the POV tag that comes and goes. He decides he wants to put in his 2 cents, so he opens an account to do so. Maybe he had already been editing anonymously for a while. Perfectly natural, but neither here nor there. --Art Carlson 10:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right Art. There could very well be an innocent explanation for this. I hate to jump to conclusions, but my BS alarm is going off, so I have requested a checkuser to clear things up. [15] Feel free to add any additional insights you might have. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 20:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

under dispute POV: 1

I think that an adminstrator must intervene and protect the under dispute sign here.It is obvious that there is not agrement. Maybe another administrator must intervene. [16] --Sm565 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile the under dispute flag must be there until we decide about the changes.

Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]

I think this is a not accurate. Some metanalyses conclude that "The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo."[17]--Sm565 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with the confidence interval set to 95%, one would expect about 5% of studies to show such a result by chance. Cherry picking a positive result is flawed science. And even in this cherry-picked study, you've failed to quote the remainder of the conclusion: "The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies." And you've failed to note that there was no effect when the data was restricted to the methodologically best trials. Results that fail to convince researchers from the "Center for Compementary Medicine Research" publishing in the "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" are not going to convince anyone else. - Nunh-huh 09:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It is unethical to hide published studies. Just show them all and allow to the readers to decide. We dont live in the dark ages. Dont you think?--Sm565 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unethical, is selectively quoting an unfavourable study in order to misrepresent its conclusions... just as you're doing here. Unethical, would also be trying to present a skewed scientific consensus in favour of homeopathy, by loading that article down, with studies of dubious rigour, when properly conducted tests show at best minor positive results well within the bounds of what could be expected on purely statistical grounds... just as you're doing here. I find, that you're in a rather poor position to pontificate to others about "ethics".  – ornis⚙ 09:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot present all studies, so we must present only those that are most significant. Editorial choice is not "hiding" anything and is not unethical. As per your question, I don't live in the Dark Ages - mostly because of the rather thorough job that empiricism has done on the superstitions propounded then, and the significant progress made since vitalism hampered scientific understanding - and real hiding was going on. As to whether you live there - you'll have to decide that yourself. - Nunh-huh 10:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what seems to be "cherry-picking" to one person is "presenting only those that are most significant" to another. How can we decide on the most significant? We don't want to do "original research". Wanderer57 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just wrong. Looking for only positive results-Sm565's procedure-is cherry-picking by anyone's definition, just as looking only for negative results would be. - Nunh-huh 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Studies that are published in the most reputable publications, have the most citations are generally more notable. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Would the use of the particular journal's impact factor be an acceptable way to objectively guage which studies to include (i.e., which ones are most notable), while avoiding any perception of cherry picking? Just a suggestion. — DIEGO ^talk 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Double yes. We need more rigor in this discussion to keep from going around in circles. I would like to see - on the Talk page, not necessarily in the article - a table of all reviews, meta-studies, and statements from professional organizations, including the wording of their conclusions, any potential conflicts of interest, impact factors or other measures of respectability, and any other indicators of quality. When that is on the table, it should be easier to come to an agreement about what to include and how to summarize the state of the debate. (Individual studies would be too numerous and too difficult to evaluate, i.e. we need secondary sources, not primary sources.) --Art Carlson 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing to note: negative results are much more difficult to get published than positive results. One should always expect publication analysis to be skewed towards positive results in the literature. We need to be able to characterize what a secondary analysis for a topic that had absolutely no legitimacy would look like (it would not have zero evidence in favor of it as pointed out). Thus, we should have a control standard for a similarly poorly-considered medical claim (e.g. faith healing). ScienceApologist 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The article on publication bias presents this nicely. I believe there have also been a few studies of publication bias specifically concerning homeopathy, and I expect any decent review or meta-analysis to confront this problem, so we shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources. I have zero problem with stating that x% of double-blind studies have shown a statistically significant positive effect of homeopathy over placebo and citing whatever information we have on publication bias. I am not afraid of letting the reader draw his own conclusions (even if half the time the git will get it wrong). I also hope this would be the kind of presentation that we could get consensus on. --Art Carlson 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

about boxes

I deleted this box:

because it relates to writing about fiction. Homoeopathy may well be idiotic, but it's not fiction. Please don't go in for silly point-scoring in this way. PiCo 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but it's also the nearest box I could find to the problems in that section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made some edits to that section that I think solves the problem anyway. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it helps the problem, but I'm not sure it's completely solved. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What specific problems do you see with it? I read it and don't see any POV or suggestion that he was right in his assumptions or conclusions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bach flower remedies

I notice the article on these products is in the "homeopathic remedies" category. The article doesn't discuss these products, should we add them or are these not really homeopathic and the article miscategorised? Tim Vickers 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Note - I see Peter has written an article on this link. Tim Vickers 17:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my this is a difficult one! Strictly speaking they are not the same thing for a number of reasons: they are not proven, they are often used in mixtures, they are not potentised. That essay was requested because the German Govt were thinking of re-classifying BFRs as homeopathic (not sure if they ever did that) and so I was asked to see if I could 'construct a rationale' for their recognition as homeopathic remedies. This I did and found the case fairly convincing for the reasons I give in the essay. However, many homeopaths disagree with my appraisal of that topic and believe them to be different. So take your pick. Hope that clarifies. Peter morrell 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We could add them as a sub-section in the types of remedy, with a note that their classification is controversial. The article should cover this, if only that the two are commonly sold in the same places and people may be confused as to the difference. Can you hunt up any good sources of homeopaths arguing that these remedies are not homeopathic? Tim Vickers 17:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you could find them just as easily as I can. Besides I am busy right now. I don't think many homeopaths actually have a very strong view about this. In fact they are probably assumed to act by initiating the same self-healing mechanisms that homeopathic remedies and acupuncture do. cheers Peter morrell 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go. Tim Vickers 21:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You could slim down that "flower remedies" section a bit though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tim Vickers 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Miasms

The section on miasms isn't very clear to me - I'll still left wondering what exactly a miasm is, and how it operates. I gather from it that homeopathy regards misams as the fundamental disease-causing agent; if this is so, it needs to be stated, together with a description of just how it's supposed to cause disease. PiCo 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The miasm is an inferred or imputed entity and is usually described as 'a defect in the vital force.' Do you want refs for that? thanks Peter morrell 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, can you rewrite it a bit. I just read the section and it's a bit confusing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to explain it as clearly as I could, but I guess I failed. Perhaps Peter could clarify it a bit. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look at it a bit later on. thanks Peter morrell 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

POV: 2

Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]

is not supported by the studies. Not accurate. See above why. Sentence should be modified. --Sm565 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You made this false assertion above, where your claim was pretty much demolished. Repeating it for a second time lower on the page isn't going to make it truer. - Nunh-huh 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm, with all due respect, please stop repeating yourself after your arguments have been refuted. You've been doing this on ANI and other places. We're willing to work with you, but not listening to other editors' objections isn't going to get you anywhere.

Also, if anyone hasn't read it yet, I suggest reading this closely. This essay contains the reason why the majority of the editors here are insisting that the scientific view be given prominence. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Zicam

In my opinion, the sentence is not presice, the sources are there. I will come back to it.

My question is: according to the version of the mainstream view which is adopted in the article 2x dilutions have any effect on cells or not?--Sm565 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I found a good source to deal with this, it states:

"The problem is that most homeopathic remedies are diluted out of molecular existence."

Milgrom LR (2007). "Conspicuous by its absence: the Memory of Water, macro-entanglement, and the possibility of homeopathy". Homeopathy : the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. 96 (3): 209–19. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.002. PMID 17678819.

I've cited this in the article to support the sentence - "However, homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where there are no molecules from the original solution left in the final remedy." Tim Vickers 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is minor issue in comparison with the reading of the sourses but if the article adopts that 2x "dilutions" have no effect on cells then the Zicam issue contradicts this whole point of view. If it was the 2x dilution which caused the damage then voila a tiny example that 2x dilutions might have an effect. Therapeutic or the ..opossite. If it was the mechanism of the bottle which caused the damage then the example is totally unrelatated if additonial explanation is not given. Perhaps I miss something here. objections? --70.19.106.170 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)--70.19.106.170 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely true that if the large majority of homeopathic remedies are chemically identical to water, there must be a small minority that are not so diluted. Considering the toxicity of the substances used in preparing homeopathic remedies, the generall excellent safety record of these products probably reflects how rare these "non-water" products are. Tim Vickers 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont disagree with this. Just the way it is written implies that the medecin caused the problems something highly impropable -accordign to chemistry. Shouldn't for that reason the sentence be rephrased or .....vanished?

If 2x dilutions could have an effect we could ask for our million from Randi - right?) --Sm565 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A 2X dilution is just a 1:100 dilution, enough to take a 10 mM solution to 100 uM. That's nothing surprising - I do 1:100 dilutions in the lab all the time. I've moved this material to the first paragraph where there is an introductory sentence to give it context. Tim Vickers 20:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The absurdity of it all

Tim Vickers, I have made some slight wording changes to make it more clear. Of course when dilutions of a substance are made, all the original molecules of the substance are still present in the whole mass of water used to make the dilutions, but there is basically too much room "in between" those molecules to have much of a chance of any of them being in a small dose of the remedy made from the dilution.

Now to illustrate the absurdity of the situation I'll just grab a number out of the air. (I should probably say 10 marbles, but I'll be generous and say 100 marbles.) We're basically talking about 100 marbles thrown out into space which then distribute (dilute) themselves in random orbits in an area encompassing the content of a sphere the size of the orbit of the moon around the earth and they fly around at random in that space. Then we take a thimble, close our eyes, and stick it up in the air hoping to catch one of those marbles, and then we empty the contents of the thimble into a bucket. What chance is there that a marble will fall out of the thimble into the bucket? Is it impossible? No, because there really are 100 marbles flying around somewhere out there. Is it likely? Well, when hell freezes over and the sun has burnt out, maybe by then it will have happened only one time.....;-) It's about the same chance (except on a much larger scale) of winning the lottery. Someone who buys a lottery ticket and someone who doesn't buy one have about the same chance of winning, but the one who doesn't has absolutely no chance, while the one who does has a chance in many million. But with homeopathy the chance of getting even one molecule can hardly be calculated, it's that far a shot. And to top it off, if even one molecule of the strongest poison known actually was in the remedy, what effect would it have. Zilch! (Remember that I am just illustrating here, so don't shoot me for some inaccuracies. Few illustrations stand on all four legs.)

What homeopathy does is violate the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics, as well as the modern scientific observations of dose-response relationships that have been demonstrated by pharmacologists. "The dose (still) makes the poison." Interestingly enough, in everyday life and in every other area, believers in homeopathy follow these rules of logic. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to function, carry on a normal conversation, pull up their own zipper, or balance their checkbook. But when they are talking about homeopathy, they suddenly suspend their logical thinking and enter a metaphysical fantasy realm where all things are possible, including the impossible. Go figure. -- Fyslee / talk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Homeopathy has not discovered a mechanism which could completely explain its theurapeutic effect. This is a fact. The effect exists though. Scientists discover aspirins mechanism some years ago but tt was the most frequently prescribed drug in conventional medicine.

Homeopathy would not become more and more popular if it were only a placebo effect. Many people use it after they have used conventional medecin. The problem is that it is not regulated and it is not practiced by Mds or licensed prectitioners - the only way in my opinon it would protect homeopathy from quackery.

Even most of the metanalyses which are cited in the article call for more researsh since they find a positive trend. If something is a sort of quakery how scientist suggest further well designed reasearch? Do they recommend the same for ....astrology?

sm565 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.106.170 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

sm565, I will comment on your last mention of metaanalyses. The explanation for such puzzling conclusions that are contrary to the actual results of the study, or at least are noncommittal, is rather simple. The studies are usually performed by believers in homeopathy (at least the many studies I have seen) who are reluctant to simply admit that the experimental results did not confirm their beliefs, so instead of "telling it like it is," they mention some vague "positive trend" (which is statistically insignificant and meaningless, otherwise they would write a totally different conclusion) and suggest further research. It is rare for believers in pseudoscience to actually admit defeat, but it does happen on rare occasion. -- Fyslee / talk 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is possible that a psychosomatic effect can be greater than ordinary placebo. Whether due to the power of suggestion or belief, or whatever. I am not saying that this is explanatory for the purported successes of homeopathy, only that it is one possible consideration. Whig 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between a psychosomatic effect and a placebo effect? Cheers, Skinwalker 20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference, but some placebos may be better than others, i.e., more prone to produce a beneficial placebo effect in some patients. Nor am I contending this is the case for homeopathy, only that it is a possibility. Please see placebo for more on the subject. Whig 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Magnificent editing

This is very nice work, Peter. Whig 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Placebo effect and annimals

There have been no rigorous scientific demonstrations of therapeutic effects of homeopathy in veterinary medicine and a German review of homeopathy in veterinary medicine has stated that the medical effectiveness of homeopathy in higher dilutions is not verified and that giving an animal a placebo can play an active role in influencing the owner to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[86] [87]

How possible is this? Placebo by proxy? I guess telepathy could play a role.... I read the sources. My opinion is that if there is no rigorous studies for whetevever topic - it is more honnest to write nothing or state there are no studies available .Right? --Sm565 21:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read about tendentious editing. It's getting close to requesting you be blocked from this article. If you want to participate, you cannot repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You have not brought one valid point to this article. Please STOP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is one valid pointOrangemarlin. [18] If the majority of the editors believe that I dont contribute to this project- please feel free to ban me for ever. best.--Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC) One more : [19]----

The Owners imagine that the homeopathic remedy is working because they interpret imagined changes in the animals behavior or disposition as being related to the remedy that the animal was given. For instance if I believe in homeopathy and give my dog a homeopathic remedy, I might imagine changes in the dogs behavior and thus interpret these imagined changes as being the effect of the medicine. This is actually a HUGE reason for the success of homeopathic medicine in other animals aside from humans and I think that this info should be in the article in one way or another. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim. Not serious studies no comment.--Sm565 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was edited - by Tim I think - "The use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is regarded as controversial, as there have been little scientific investigation on if it has any effects in animals and current research in the field is not of a high enough standard to provide reliable data.[87] Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[87]"--Sm565 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists. I m almost sure that most of the editors would consider this sentence unsupported. Did you read the source? [20]--Sm565 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on introduction sentence

These sentences below are included in the conclusions of 3 out of 5 the metanalyses cited in article. I would like your opinion on this:

[21] 1. "This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.". 2.Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. 3.Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.

1.How the introduction, which summarizes the results of the metanalyses on homeopathy", reflects these suggestions? 2.How these suggestions about replication of existing promising studies are compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a pseudoscience not worth researching. ( Before you answer please consider that no such suggestion for astrology (or other form of quackery we know of) has been recorded in any scientific journal or metanalyses.)--Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments and/or answers

The words are "homeopathy" and "researching", if you can't even spell the subject you are trying to discuss, I see little point in taking you seriously. Tim Vickers 23:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind suggestions. I did correct them. Feel free to comment on my english. I always want to learn. Now, if you have an answer or comment on the real question, please let me know. --Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

--Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As a tip for learning, you still have three different spellings of the word homeopathy in the above paragraph. Try reading through it carefully. Tim Vickers 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

not me; that I just copy and paste from the original studies. I will correct them though. Thanks again.I really want to know what everybody thinks. It is not attack,you know.I have proved that I respect everybody here (I cannot claim easily the opposite ).Best. --Sm565 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You changed it to "homeoopathy" - but apart from that you're almost there Tim Vickers 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done! Tim Vickers 23:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me you dont want to give an answer to the real question. You dont have to.--Sm565 00:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone spells perfectly. When spelling errors exist in the article text, they need to be corrected. When spelling errors occur here in Talk, they might be mentioned in order to prevent the error from being replicated in the article text, but otherwise it is not constructive to mock and disregard editors for their spelling. Whig 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I m sure Tim did not intend to be unkind. Whig I would like to hear from you too. BEst--Sm565 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As he said, Sm565 is grateful for any correction of his English, which is not his first language. It is doing people learning a language a disservice to ignore their mistakes and deny them the opportunity to learn. The reply to your question Sm565 is that the introduction does indeed summarise the results of the metanalyses. These comments are not part of the results so they are not summarised. Tim Vickers 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

They are part of the conclusions even more important.

Do you think that if the specific scientists regarded homeopathy as a sort of quackery they would have suggested in the conclusions more research using phrases promising studies and positive trend?--Sm565 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Accepted. I had the sense before that Sm565 was feeling underappreciated. I hope his participation will continue to be welcome. Whig

Double negation is confusing. The question is whether it is appropriate to include in the summary, and whether it is inappropriate to exclude. Whig 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)::thanks.

I think we cannot say that homeopathy is quackery. We can quote someone notable who called it quackery, however. Whig 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that in the introduction the metanalyses summary should be rephrased in order to include this conclusions ( promising studies positive trend request for more research) as well. Otherwise the sentence's meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy which is false- according to the actual studies. Opinions ?--Sm565 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I think whig has the skills to propose a version like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm not totally clear on what Sm565 is attempting to have this sentence say, I have asked him to follow-up with me on my Talk page, so we don't clutter this forum with markup on a single sentence that may need rewriting. Whig 01:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is sad. It is embarassing. Homeopathy is pseudoscience with no and I mean NO scientific or medical evidence to back it up. Nothing. Nada. To try to pretend otherwise is just pure nonsense. So stop playing word games in a language you do not understand and please go away to harass someone else.--Filll 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not obvious pseudoscience, particularly at lower potencies. Whig 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That "homeopathy deserves further study' is an opinion, not a conclusion. It's what researchers say when they fail to achieve the significant results they would have preferred. It's filler; it's verbal throat-clearing; it's not a conclusion of the study; it's meaningless, and would seem meaningful only if someone were desperately searching for support for his position rather than actually understanding what the study means. - Nunh-huh 01:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy"? "Further research on homeopathy is warranted" "Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies" is a verbal throat-clearing ???? which is included in the final conclusions? Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions sentences for others forms of quackery? Examples?Please ?--Sm565 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was no need for any study whatsoever to say "we should study homeopathy but not in the slipshod manner we've been doing it." An opinion, not a result. Almost every study with less than earthshatteringly conclusive results suggests further study is needed. It says nothing whatever about the matter being studied, only about the inconclusiveness of the published study. - Nunh-huh 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

inconclusiveness? Then the summary must state that: We have no clue whether it is working or not.--Sm565 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit of a truism to say that if you are going to study homeopathy then at least you should design your trials properly. Tim Vickers 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You refuse to read the CONCLUSIONS. "is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy" It is a suggestion which is clear. "Promising studies".It does say something. But you didn't answer:

Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions for further research for others forms of quackery? Examples??--Sm565 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem intent on reading conclusions that simply aren't there. And the study did not address quackery, so your final questions are...peculiar. - Nunh-huh 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't there? [22]

It is one of the current article's conclusion that Homeopathy is a sort of quackery based on these results. You just refuse to read the conclusions of the studies. [23] I just have not heard scientists to waste time on studying any form or quackery and after that to suggest further studies and in their conclusions to use expressions like there is a poditive trend is legitimate case for research and promising studies. Have you?--Sm565 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The study you are citing was not designed to test this article's conclusions. I've read the studies "conclusions", and they say nothing of any significant import. And yes, scientists suggest further studies whether or not there are positive trends. - Nunh-huh 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientists suggest further studies on any form of quackery ? Writing about "positive trends" and "promising studies" ? Examples? --Sm565 05:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting further studies is not a pronouncement upon efficacy. That's the answer to your question. Repeating it won't make it a more sensible question. - Nunh-huh 06:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that it is a pronouncement upon efficacy. I said that the suggestions of the conclusions for further studies because of the findings of positive trend and the considerations that there is "legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy" should be included in the summary of the meta analysis, otherwise the meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy and it does not reflect what the conclusions of the studies really say.

And of course these conclusions do not support the final statement in the introduction of the article:

The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.

because no scientists would support further studies on subjects which are a sort of quackery. --Sm565 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting original formulation, but of doubtful validity. The study you're citing is in fact part of the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy. The statement you're quoting is, simply, true. It doesn't say "the absence of a scintilla of supporting data on efficacy", it merely says "the lack". - Nunh-huh 07:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can homeopaths tell water from remedy?

Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis. Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jul;90(3):126-30. (link)

The answer is that 60% identified the correct bottle while 40% identified the wrong bottle. The results did not differ significantly from what you would predict from chance. Unfortunately the sample size is rather small. Do people think we should include it? Tim Vickers 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that a statistically significant result or not? Whig 02:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

From the summary:

“ In this study a promising trend was observed that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. A multi-national, large-scale trial will be required to investigate this phenomena with adequate statistical power. ”

Whig 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, 75% in this trial would be the 95% confidence interval. As I said, this is within the range you would predict from pure chance. Tim Vickers 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The result was no different than a guess. Whig 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A very inconclusive result. If I wanted to use this study to argue in one direction, I would mention the "promising trend". If I wanted to go the other way, I would point out that more than 80% of the homeopathists approached stayed out of the experiment. Wanderer57 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps 80% of homeopaths know they would just be guessing? Tim Vickers 02:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted. And we were doing so well with consensus. :) Whig 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot use this study in any direction, it has no statistical significance one way or the other. Whig 02:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not really true. It does demonstrate that the effects of homeopathic medicines must be marginal, as the paper says the best we can say is that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. Tim Vickers 02:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No. They failed to reject the null hypothesis, but they did not confirm the null. (This from my wife, a statistician). Whig 02:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think all three of us agreed that this was not a significant study and was not worth including. Couldn't we just leave it at that? Wanderer57 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I just found it deeply amusing that homeopaths apparently can't do better than flipping a coin when trying to identify these "highly potent remedies". Must have come as a bit of a shock to the four out of ten who confidently identified a drug only to be told it was water! Tim Vickers 03:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are still asserting the null hypothesis. Whig 03:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, of course. If you fail to show a non-random effect then Occam's razor applies, the simplest explanation for results that you would predict from chance is that they are the results of chance. That's pretty standard, ask your wife. Tim Vickers 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I already told you what she said. You are mis-stating. Whig 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It says plenty. Except for those who want it to say otherwise.--Filll 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you want it to say? Whig 03:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I follow William of Ockham. And I think the 80% figure is significant as well.--Filll 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The study wasn't statistically significant. If it holds some personal significance to you on account of some allegiance, then fine. Whig 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the 80% (actually 82.4%) is significant. And even statistically significant at some reasonably impressive confidence level. However, I would have to study the matter more to say anything more conclusive.--Filll 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you are POV-pushing if you think you can make a statistical wash significant. Whig 04:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You are confused I am afraid, and this is bordering on trolling.--Filll 05:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dose-response relationship

Yesterday someone added "the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics" to a paragraph about the dose-response relationship. Today I removed it and two people have reverted me.

Chemistry/physics are relevant in explaining why there is probably no active ingredient left in a homeopathic remedy, but this paragraph is about how homeopathy says that more diluted solutions are more powerful. The scientific concept that contradicts this is the fact that dose-response relationships are almost always positive, which is a concept in pharmacology, not chemistry or physics. --Galaxiaad 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Is he by any chance a physicist? Whig 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

He is an MD, but who cooperates with, consults, and quotes physicists as necessary. -- Fyslee / talk 07:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So we cannot take him as a primary source on physics, at any rate. Whig 07:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We can use the reference which quotes an outstanding physicist. -- Fyslee / talk 07:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

By citing to that physicist, as quoted by Barrett, certainly, as long as he is a trustworthy source. Whig 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting note about Barrett while we are on the subject, when he was payinh himself to act as his organization's own expert witness while suing a Homeopathic remedy manufacturer, the judge, in conclusion, had the following to say of Barrett's alledged expertise with Homeopathy: Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at which point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr. Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs ... As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area ... Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. [24] The proceed was from Section IV, Subsection B of this document. For more enlightenment on the credibility of Barrett in the world of Homeopathy, see Section IV, Subsection C where the judge states that Barrett's testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Would someone like to support his credentials against this charge? Whig 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should cite peer-reviewed articles in respected scientific journals to support all the factual statements made in this article. Opinions can be cited to individuals only if these individuals are notable. We can cite Barratt for opinions, but not facts. Tim Vickers 15:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

New Study on Homeopathy in 2007

Please read and comment on this study.I think it could be used.

Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting

Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [25] Best.--Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's interesting. I'd like to hear objections. Whig 06:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd like to hear objections to a non-blinded, non-randomized clinical study in which the outcome is determined by the patient's self-assessment? Seriously? - Nunh-huh 06:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-assessment is a pretty good indicator with some conditions. Lack of blinded control and other issues make this a difficult study to use, but rather than eliminating it altogether, we might critique its methodology. Whig 06:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-assessment in this case includes assessment of children by parents. Self-assessment by unblinded patients who choose their treatment based on their beliefs about its efficacy is meaningless. It's a worthless study, and even its authors note that they can draw no firm conclusions about the efficacy of homeopathy based on their data. Nunh-huh 06:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a fair objection. Whig 07:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, bringing up non-randomized, non-double-blinded studies is just a waste of everyone's time. This one wasn't even single-blinded, and was inconclusive, to boot. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage Sm565, which means taking his contributions seriously. Even if they don't pan out, giving him the reason his proposal was rejected was very helpful to maintaining a good dialogue here. Whig 07:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent > Who are you to encourage anyone? This sort of worthless nonsense spewed on the talk pages ad infinitum discourages real productive editors and destroys Wikipedia as a project. You have made it evidently clear you do not know the rules of NPOV, you do not understand Wikipedia, you are unwilling or unable to be able to learn about WP and NPOV, you do not know science, you do not know scientific protocol or medicine or really anything except how to troll and make other more reasoned and reasonable editors disgusted with your antics. I would ask you to please try to control yourself here and give it a rest. Or better yet, please edit something else.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the way to help is to discourage indiscriminate posting of junk studies. He'd be better off if he could distinguish junk studies from meaningful ones, and agreeing that we need consider only double-blinded randomized studies with statistically significant results would seem to be the best way to achieve that. Continually bringing up worthless studies as though they were meaningful isn't going to make anyone more likely to take his contributions seriously; in fact, it seems more likely to have the opposite effect. - Nunh-huh 07:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with this statement.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that double blinds are the only valuable studies. With that said, when the authors of a study are not confident in the outcome, it is probably not very good. Whig 07:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Do not embarasss yourself Whig further with this kind of nonsense.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

When someone is apparently unable to tell good studies from bad, adopting the position that only double-blind studies are worth considering would keep the noise level down, and thus be worthwhile, even if someone more scientifically literate might be able to tell which other studies might have yielded good data. - Nunh-huh 07:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> It is reaching the point where Whig's comments should be summarily removed from the talk page on sight because of trolling concerns.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I presume everyone is educable, if they aren't trying to disrupt. And we can always use more good contributors. Whig 07:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent> You are among those who is disruptive here Whig, sad to say.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, not everyone is willing to be educated, and we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to be tutors to the unwilling. We would be glad to welcome good contributors, but people who are scientifically uneducated and yet continue to make ill-founded objections on the basis of their misunderstandings of what useful evidence might be, it must be said, are not those good contributors. - Nunh-huh 07:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To Sm565, if you don't have a reasonably good basis to believe that a study is credible and clearly indicative of some outcome, positive or negative, it is probably not useful. Whig 07:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion: 1 The limitations of the study are stated by itself. It is not a discovery. 2. It is not the editors job to evaluate metanalyses according to the methods used. The study falls into the wikidedia critiria for sources.I think. (Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and scienceand) It is large, and published in a respected publishing house.[26] All writers are scientists employed by universities. Why it should not be used? --Sm565 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh..... Q.E.D. - Nunh-huh 07:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

On reconsideration, I think Sm565 is correct. It is a large study, therefore notable. Whig 07:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do not know science, please do not make such worthless comments.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Largeness and notability are not equivalent. Largeness makes a study more likely to pick up on smaller treatment effects, therefore a large study which fails to desmonstrate such an effect is in fact less supportive of those who argue for that treatment's efficacy than a small study which also failed to demonstrate any effect would be. - Nunh-huh 07:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You continue to evaluate a paper as you are assigned to accept it or not for publication. This not our job here. Since the paper is accepted and qualifies with teh criteria of wikipedia it should be included and criticized it if you wish. But we cannot reject it. It qualifies. We have no excuse other than we dont like the results. --Sm565 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that your POV has blinded you to reality.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot possibly include every study ever published, and so we absolutely must determine what is important to include. An inconclusive study is not important. That we do not "like" the results cannot possibly be the reason, as there are none. - Nunh-huh 08:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel qualified to disregard this study, however. I would await a more detailed analysis. Whig 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you are unqualified, you clearly have no business being here at this article. Please edit something else. Or just wait until you are eventually the subject of administrative action. Please do stop trolling.--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are unqualified to assess the science, you can accept the authors' word that no firm conclusions are possible. There is no need to reference this study, as other studies which actually draw conclusions are available. Wikipedia articles are not compendia of inconclusive studies, as such studies elucidate nothing. - Nunh-huh 08:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Our goal should not be to support or refute the claims of homeopaths, but to document those claims and how they have been tested with what results. Obviously we cannot use every study, but large international studies like this deserve perhaps some discussion even if they are ultimately inconclusive (and it should then so state in the article). Whig 07:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No - Our goal is to present what all the sides say and report all the qualifying supporting studies with its criticism. This is an objective approach which is common sense. Anything less than that is not appropriate.

Wikipedia articles are not compendia of inconclusive studies, as such studies elucidate nothing. - Nunh-huh 08:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It qualifies according to the written critiria. What else more clear could be added? .--Sm565 08:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What written criteria? Just because it doesn't qualify for automatic exclusion does not mean it should be included. Whig 08:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I take Nunh-huh's point, it is inconclusive. So it does not merit inclusion. Whig 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the criteria. [27] Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications--Sm565 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are adequate sources, and if this study had generated a result that was not inconclusive, it might merit inclusion. Whig 08:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The study has a conclusion whether we like it or not. Include it and criticize it. Exclusion cannot be justified according the above criteria.--Sm565 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [56] Best.--Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How much clearer could the authors be? The study draws "no firm conclusions" "about the efficacy of homeopathic treatment". It therefore cannot be used, as you wish to, to support the efficacy of homeopathic treatment. - Nunh-huh 08:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Although no firm conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy of homeopathic treatment... Whig 08:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not part of the conclusion. No study reports firm conclusions even the negative ones.The say we found insufficient evidence far way from firm conclusions. It is a study with a positive result, it qualifies and there is no excuse to not report it with its criticism. --Sm565 08:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition. This is not a "firm conclusion" but it is reported.--Sm565 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do me a favor. Can you take this to my Talk page, and you can try to persuade me there? Whig 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would do that.But U think it is very clear.--Sm565 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss it. And moreover, the overall problems with this article right now, which are in my opinion still vast and not remotely worth fighting over a single study unless you think it is the most important study ever that absolutely must be included or the world will end. Whig 08:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow .--Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Excess crit

This article STILL contains vast baggages of criticism and this needs to be trimmed back to a bare minimum IMO. The title of this article is homeopathy and that is what it should predominantly be about NOT one long skeptical rant from the true believers of the 'american church of science,' which is very clearly what it has become. thank you Peter morrell 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm British. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A useful comparison might be found with the article Intelligent design. Jefffire 11:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter, after months and months here, I am afraid you do not really understand Wikipedia yet. Because of the WP rules for WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, [[WP:UNDUE}] etc, this article HAS to have a large measure of criticism. In fact, according to some interpretations of the rules, it might need to have the same proportion of criticism as there is in the medical field. That is, the overwhelming majority of the article should be written this way. From the POV of science and conventional medicine. Sorry. --Filll 14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• No, this is quite wrong. The article should not be a criticism of anything, but an objective assessment of facts. Not the facts of "why I think homeopathy is quackery" but about homeopathy: what is it? What do the practitioners of homeopathy say? What do the detractors say? What is the proposed method of efficacy of homeopathy? What does classical medical science respond to that? If you are writing a criticism of homeopathy, then you should not be editing this article. You should be contributing information about homeopathy. docboat 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Brian, some good articles to have a look over to get an idea of how Wikipedia treats these controversial subjects would be Intelligent design, Holocaust denial and Animal testing, these articles follow the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, with the section of this policy on undue weight being particularly important. All the best Tim Vickers 15:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on intelligent design is a good example. It does reveal the position of the Discovery Institute, but it also makes it clear what the mainstream view is as well.--Filll 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK for comparison, why has the article on medicine got no endless pages of critique of its methods and concepts? it should have; let's be fair. Peter morrell 16:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what the WP:UNDUE deals with. If most of the reliable sources about subject X are not critical then most of the article should not be critical. However, if most of the reliable sources on X are critical, them most of the article should be critical. Tim Vickers 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The significance of statistical significance

There is a misconception that came up again and again in the discussion above. There is no way even in principle for a study to prove that homeopathic remedies have no effect at all. A positive result can state with a certain degree of certainty that remedies have an effect. A negative study can only say with a certain degree of certainty that the effects, if there are any, are not larger than such-and-such. It is meaningless to say that a negative result is not statistically significant, you can just say that the sensitivity is too small to be of interest (e.g. in comparison to other studies that are more sensitive). Because of this, if remedies have no effect, studies will always be fluttering near the current level of sensitivity - proponents will always see a promising trend that justifies larger studies, and opponents will see the results as consistent with the null hypothesis. (The way I see it is, the studies have gotten sensitive enough that, if there should prove to be a barely measurable effect, it is so small as to be clinically uninteresting. It would be a scientific revolution, but to discuss that we have to get into the chance that the world has been built in such a weird way). The consequence for the article is that we need to concentrate more on the sensitivity of a study than the results (given that no studies show block-busting positive results.) In most cases we are spared evaluating individual studies (primary sources) in this way because there are several reviews and meta-analyses (secondary sources) available. --Art Carlson 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. To be more precise if something is "statistically significant" this is just a way of saying that the results are unlikely to come about by chance. You can work out exactly how unlikely any one particular result will be and when the results cross this border they are deemed "significant".

For example, take tossing a coin. You can work out how likely any one string of heads or tails will be. Toss the coin twenty times, if a head is +1 and a tail -1 then the numbers will follow a normal distribution centred around zero. Statistics says how likely any other result would be. If 95% of the numbers will fall between +2 and -2 then we call this our 95% confidence interval. Getting a +5 might be a one-in a-hundred result, and random, but would be "statistically significant".

So to test if the coin is really random, you toss it 100 times, add up the numbers and say "My null hypothesis is that this result is random." Then compare the number you get to the confidence interval and say "The result is +1, my null hypothesis is not disproved, since the results are not statistically significant." Alternatively, you can say "The result is +100, this result is statistically significant and my null hypothesis is disproved, the result is not random. Hey, I wonder if this is a two-headed coin?" Tim Vickers 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you toss the coin a hundred times and it comes up Heads 60 times, does that confirm or refute your null hypothesis? Whig 17:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If your 95% confidence interval was 55 times, a result of 60 refutes the null hypothesis and you can say with 95% confidence that the coin is biased. Tim Vickers 17:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And if you tossed the coin 40 times and got a result of 24 heads? Whig 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends what the confidence interval is, smaller numbers of tests give wider confidence intervals since there will be greater random variation around the mean. This is why small studies man little. Tim Vickers 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Live NPOV dispute

This article is not NPOV. Asserting the POV tag is not vandalism. Whig 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

correct.with all the respect for the other editors.--Sm565 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have protected the page for a day due to revert dueling. If consensus is achieved prior to one days time, let me know. If revert warring continues, I will issue blocks to prevent disruption. I'll not continue to protect and protect.
• I looked, and I was unable to find... has RFC, or mediation, any form of dispute resolution been tried here? Mercury 17:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum - Please keep in mind that if clear consensus has been established, and folks are editing over consensus, this is also disruptive and blockable. Mercury 17:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you assume anything like that looking at the talk page?--Sm565 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As a second admin looking over the page, there appears to be a single editor who is using the NPOV tag as a bludgeon to have his views adopted against consensus. Raymond Arritt 18:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they are 2 at least.--Sm565 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a nice civilized discussion just consensus has not been reached. --Sm565 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(To the group) Can anyone link a discussion where consensus has been achieved? Mercury 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(Whig) Why are you adding weasel words, and particular reason you going against the manual of style? Mercury 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I accidentally clicked the wrong button and never meant to revert Whig's addition of the NPOV tag as vandalism. The real discussion is over the wording of the one sentence in the lead, which has been explained as containing weasel words, which I reverted once and which Whig continued to add. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is often described" vs "many scientists describe"

Both are weasel words. I was trying to make it apparent, in order to fix this language. It needs work. Whig 18:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. This is an NPOV dispute. Every edit that I make must be taken in the context that I am trying to point out the inherent POV of this article in order to replace it with something conforming to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Where weasel words are used, I will make them more obvious. This is homeopathic editing, perhaps, but if it causes the sentence to be properly analyzed and discussed and fixed, then it is effective. Whig 18:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you try to word that with active voice and make is less opinionated? I think that may solve one issue. Mercury 18:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Making them (read: the weasel words) more obvious, instead of fixing them, is not good, fix them, but don't make them worse, more obvious. To do so, is disruptive. Mercury 18:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not disruptive. It is correct editing practice in my opinion. Whig 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So if I am understanding you correctly, to deliberately go against a content guideline is correct editing practice? Mercury 18:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The content guideline is already being violated. I did not violate it. Whig 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But as you state, you are making the weasel words more obvious. The equates with aggravating the already existing problem. And aggravating existing problems is disruptive. Mercury 18:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, I disagree. Whig 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"I disagree" is not a helpful or constructive response. Raymond Arritt 18:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to help you understand that I will block you if you are disruptive, and I see your making the weasel words more obvious as disruption. Mercury 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. What will be my recourse? Whig 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To avoid this, try the options in the dispute resolution. Once blocked, your recourse will be explained to you on your talk page, if you choose that path. Mercury 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see current RfC. I would be interested in your comments. Whig 18:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My only comment would be, please take in what everyone has to say, right, wrong, indifferent. If it applies, it is useful insight to your editing behaviour. The RFC is designed to give you some outside views, so that if you need to change, you will. I won't comment directly to the RFC. Mercury 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We have been trying to summurize the metanalyses conclusions objectively. --Sm565 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"is often described"

Do we at least have general agreement that these are weasel words? Whig 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it passive voice? Mercury 19:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Here is the full sentence:

“ The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.[22][23][24] ”

Whig 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may suggest, without getting involved into the content itself; "Reference so and so describes Homeopathy as quackery" "Reference so and so questions the efficacy" so that you are attributing the opinion or action to a particular reliable source. You may want to balance out opinions, to add balance, so as to adhere to a neutral point of view. I'll say again that I am not up on the content here, I'm just offering a style suggestion. Mercury 19:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mercury. I agree with you completely. Whig 19:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Both "often" and "many" are weasle words unless the source says exactly that. How Often? How Many? These variables aren't defined and thus are ambiguous. Does "Often" mean 50% of the time? 70% of the time? 99% of the time? Does "many" mean a lot? Does it mean most? Does it mean 99% of scientists? What does it mean? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. Whig 19:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the article is full of this kind of broad and often inaccurate generalization, as multiple editors have pointed out. Whig 19:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

So fix it.(when it's unprotected) And cite the relevant guidelines in the edit summary. If it's reverted then take it to the talk page and explain your reasoning in details. Don't call people who revert you "abusive". Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is abusive to revert my change when it did not cause a violation of the stated policies. Whig 19:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. You need to AGF. Your revert also was reverting into a weasel word so it was also unjustified. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to explain to Whig that calling other editors "abusive" in edit summaries isn't constructive. Do you want me to stop discussing policy with him totally or just here? The discussion is actually relevant to the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not see this thread being particularly constructive. I think we can all agree that edit summaries are not the best place to directly communicate. The preferred method, is to use the article talk page, or the editors talk page. But this thread seem to be degrading in constructiveness, with all respect. Mercury 19:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

form of quackery ?I have also argued against that above. It is not supported by the conclusions and suggestions of the cited meta analysis.--Sm565 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As I keep telling you, it is not for us to say whether it is or is not. We are only supposed to quote or paraphrase and cite to notable people or organizations who have said things one way or the other. Whig 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. If someone calls it quackery then we say "is sometimes described as a form of quackery" and then cite who called it quackery. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not "is sometimes" Try "such and such describes" active voice. Mercury 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how many describe it as such. If we can find dozens of people who call it "quackery" and they can all be referenced, we can't say "Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D, etc, all call homeopathy quackery." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

We could also find dozens of people who dont call it "quackery" but a succesfull form of alternative therapy and they could also all be referenced. Call it controversial and be consistent with wikipedia's description. --Sm565 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that would be serving two opposing point of views, making it neutral. So long as all sources are reliable. Mercury 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you.If you can stay to moderate the discussion I see a consensus very soon. --Sm565 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I might can do that. There are other players who might not be online yet, would like to see them contribute here. Additionally, as soon as we are done with this aspect, we need to address the POV tag issue, as a separate issue. I may extend protection for that as well. Mercury 20:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fair. --Sm565 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As you say, "is sometimes described" is a subjective style. Perhaps "14 references describe...[12][13][14..." It might be best to balance that point of view however. Just a style suggestion. Mercury 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Reliable sources

(outdent) There are no reliable sources that describe homeopathy as a "successfull (sic) form of alternative therapy". Any version of the article that describes homeopathy thusly would be in gross violation of NPOV and undue weight. I am willing to address some of the pro-homeopathic editors' concerns, but I cannot agree with this line of reasoning. We need to take the same approach to this article that has worked on articles like Intelligent design and Global warming, for example. Skinwalker 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that I agree with Mercury's proposal of naming exactly who makes allegations against homeopathy - e.g. the NSF, the FASEB editorial board, contributors to The Lancet, etc. Weasel words are bad, mmkay. Skinwalker 20:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is one [28]