Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Homeopathic pills

Hiya, I'm looking at Homeopathic pills

"Homeopathic pills are made from an inert substance (often sugars, typically lactose), upon which a drop of liquid remedy is placed.[92] Depending on the dilution,[20] when the drops have evaporated from the pills, there may be no remedy left."

The first sentence is reasonably accurate (often its the case that more than one drop is used). The second not, for three reasons.

1) It ignores the use of LM potencies that are made by letting the liquid evaporate.

2) These pills are remedies, in terms of the article and in terms of what homeopathic remedies are. So to say there is no remedy left is logically wrong.

3) There is no evidence to show that 'remedies' are any less 'remedies' when 'dry' than when 'wet'.

I suggest that the second sentence be deleted.

Cjwilky (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Factually correct. If you dilute something so much that the statistical probability of any of it being in "a drop of liquid" is almost zero, the chances of it being there after the liquid has evaporated is likewise almost zero. Your final statement is correct of course: there is no evidence that homeopathic 'remedies' work at all, wet or dry... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you misread what I said in the first two points, if not can you clarify by referring to what I have actually said about remedies :) Though then in your last sentence you agree with me about deleting it.

Cjwilky (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence needs deletion as well, in that it includes the word 'remedy' in a context where there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the liquid is anything of the sort. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Think you've misread what a remedy is, and the reference to it earlier in the article. That first sentence should stand. So, I'll delete the second sentence at the beginning of next week, that should give enough time for people to get to grips with it :) Cjwilky (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is the case that the pills are still referred to as remedies, so I just deleted the second sentence. The lack of any original substance is amply treated elsewhere in this article, so it was not really adding anything. A reference for why the remedy is thought to imprint on the pill instead of evaporating away with the water might work there, though. We had a discussion not too long ago about the use of the word remedy in this article. The lead currently defines the term as it is used by homeopaths, and the rest of the article should follow whatever standard that discussion decided. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The page looks odd - the second sentence is left incomplete rather than being removed altogether. "Depending on the dilution,[20]" is the last text visible before the next section begins. 94.234.170.94 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fact is, there's generally nothing there to start with so saying there's nothing there afterwards is kind of missing the point. Of course the ability of sugar pills to transfer the Magic Woo from the water which was once introduced to the second cousin of the mother tincture, to the human body, is so absurd an idea that no reliable source has even touched it. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Guy, thats not the point, reread my OP and refer to the whole.Cjwilky (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can suggest a rewrite which is entirely accurate: "Homeopathic pills are made from an inert substance (often sugars, typically lactose), onto which is dropped a small amount of a solution so dilute that there is often none of the arbitrarily-selected "active principle" present. No mechanism has ever been proposed by which any effect can be transferred to humans through this intermediary." But actually I'm happy to leave it as-is, since it's factually accurate and unambiguous. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The active principle is the potentised aspect which remains there. The concept of remedy is already established in the article. Firstly, the remedy is such with or without the potentised aspect - to speak in terms of other editors here. Secondly, as the potentised aspect is not dependent on wet or dry, it also remains. Within that, no one here has made a substantiated claim to support:

"Depending on the dilution,[20] when the drops have evaporated from the pills, there may be no remedy left."Cjwilky (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they have, and our sources support it. Please give us a source which indicates that the "potentised aspect" remains after evaporation, even if there is no active ingredient present. Without a source, we can't make a change. Please do not go the same route as below and try to argue against this without using sources. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess old mate, please read what I write. You say "where's your source" and rather than state the obvious "its in a bottle", lets please look at what I say rather than trying to move the discussion onto a different playing field - ie yours. I'll try again - there is an established concept in the article. The sentence in question uses that term in a way that is against what has already been put in the article. Its called logic, its not about looking up random quotes supported by whatever community happens to support it. Though if you want to go there, where is that supported?

My summary: 1) it seems the sentence is illogical withoin the context of the article. 2) There is no reference to support what is there at present. Cjwilky (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not called logic, it's called WP:V. Please stop arguing based on your experience, and start quoting sources. Wikipedia is a compilation of other sources, not a vehicle by which to expose the truth. You claim that the "potentised aspect" remains after evaporation, even if there is no active ingredient present. We don't have a source for that, and therefore cannot allow the claim to influence the content of the article. I don't care of it's true, or even logical. I care that it's reliably sourced. Please bring sources or move along.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says clearly what a "remedy", go read it. That includes the pills. Then the sentence says the "remedy" is not there when clearly it is - or are you suggesting when the pills dry they disappear? LM's are made by this very process of drying, hence the remedy is still there as its part of it. See Hahnemann for the reference. Your claim that the remedy isn't there when its dry isn't sourced either - or did I say that before and it was ignored... Cjwilky (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article defines remedy as "a substance prepared with a particular procedure..." That remedy is the drop being applied to the pill, which when evaporated, is no longer present. Your claim is that the "potentised aspect" remains. We don't have a source for that. Our current wording is cited to this paper: [1]   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The reference says what? In any case its referencing "dilution", not the whole sentence ie not the point being discussed here. You then say "That remedy is the drop being applied to the pill," when remedies are the pill that have been medicated. The drop is the medicating potency (ref pharmacies that do this helios for example). You deny the potency itself anyway, but that is how a remedy is made - using a medicating potency. The remedy is still a remedy dry or wet. Whether it is potent or not is not being discussed here.Cjwilky (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm done. Despite being repeatedly coached, mentored, advised, and what have you, this user refuses to cite sources. Until that changes, I won't be reading or responding to another of his posts.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Any claim that homeopathic 'remedies' contain a "medicating potency" will clearly fall under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) policy - and no 'homeopathic medicine' claims are going to pass that. Case closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"no 'homeopathic medicine' claims are going to pass that. Case closed." Are you wanting to disclose your personal bias here or are you claiming that statement as a proven fact? Medicating potency is a fact, whether or not you believe it has an effect. A medicating potency is put onto pills producing the remedy. Referenced below. Where are your terms referenced, if you are wanting to differ. And before you go refering me to wiki this and that, we are discussing a process here which is not the subject of medical research, nor randomised trials. Its simply terminology. Cjwilky (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a shunning may be in order before this gets any more out of hand. N^oformation ^Talk 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry the wiki article isn't good enough for you, nor the mention of a reference which I've previously cited, nor the textbooks on homeopathy that use exactly the same terms. Read back please, and if you have any serious point to add here please keep on track and make the effort to discuss the original point and not smokescreen. "To have a remedy made to your specific requirements, or the requirements of your doctor or practitioner, please choose the potency, form and size from the template below. " "This remedy has been prepared in the LM potencies and is available from LM 1 to 12 " Beyond what a remedy is, which I say again is stated clearly in the article already, what are you wating me to reference and why? Cjwilky (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles for this Wikipedia are written in ordinary English, not in the misleading jargon of homeopathy textbooks. If you wish to use words like 'remedy', 'potency' or 'medicating', you must provide sources that validate their use in a sense indicated by the ordinary usage of the term. This is all that needs be said on the matter, and I consider this debate closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll excuse your "Eglish" typo, humorous as it is, and thats not a dig ;) Sad to see you leave. Remedy has already been defined here - think thats been said 100 times before though, maybe an idea to read back. Other terms such as medicating etc can be defined if you really like - very strange if they are not already here in the article don't you think? So, thats another topic for discussion - "what is a medicating potency?" Better leave that and stick to the few topics being dealt with or nothing will resolve here, yes, no? Lets say that homeopaths that have been using the term for a long time probably have the right to use it as its a homeopathic term. A leading pharmacy such as helios that i reference equally has the right to define a term. Or is that not allowed. Maybe Ernst has a better term? If so lets have it referenced and in a way that I can read it please. Cjwilky (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think shunning is the most appropriate course of action here. If things proceed past there, then a noticeboard... but I'd really love to avoid that route if possible. (I was going to mention something when LSD first proposed it, but I still had some reservations. After the last few responses to our very simple requests, it's clear this isn't going anywhere productive)   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jess, I gave a reference, and asked for clarification. Whats the problem with that? Cjwilky (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The checkout page of an online store is not a reliable source. If you want to have a productive conversation, the first step is to read the policies which you've been repeatedly linked. Start with that one.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to hear some serious quacking. N^oformation ^Talk 09:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Poor attitude peeps :( Thats not all I said. A correct response here would be, "Yes, that seems to be the case, its isn't enough for the medicating potency issue, so lets see if we can find something in the literature that counts as a reference. Meanwhile of course remedies is already defined here." You know co-operation as opposed to suggesting bias. This isn't good enough.Cjwilky (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with accusations of bias is that most people feel that their own views are at or near the center of the spectrum of opinion. They feel a lack of bias when the views to the left and right of their own are in balance. However, if (as it turns out) you happen to be on one end of the spectrum of opinion - then you're guaranteed to find that absolutely everyone is to one side of your views, with none on the other. This seems like bias - but it's not. The plain fact is that almost all thinking, rational, skeptical people who have looked carefully at the issues behind homeopathy find it to be a complete an utter scam - devoid of any value to humanity - lacking any scientific or logical rationale. You are at the end of the spectrum of debate - and that means that you're guaranteed to find the rest of us "biassed". Tough luck. That's how it is. SteveBaker (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your theory, however you fail to see your own position within it which suggests you don't fully understand what you have said. You stand in a place of a perspective based on whatever you believe, and are at one end of the spectrum. What you aren't getting is that the views in this article are from one end of a spectrum ie skewed. Your loss.

The views expressed on talk homeopathy are far from rational - check the emotive words and phrases expressed by the so called "rational" thinkers. Its also clear from ALL the evidence that there is a case for homeopathy even within the bounds of traditional medical research methods, which as you would presumably understand doesn't work with homeopathy - eg one remedy for one condition isn't homeopathy - we'll get to that later.

Cjwilky (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a believer in homeopathy, but I have to agree with Cjwilky regarding the use of the word "remedy". If "remedy" is defined as a substance prepared with a particular procedure and intended for treating patients in the opening paragraph, it doesn't make sense to claim that a homeopathic remedy in solid form "contains no remedy". The word remedy doesn't mean "original ingredient" or "cure" or even "extremely diluted liquid". It still means "a substance prepared with a particular procedure and intended for treating patients", and whether that substance is in form of a dried out pill or a diluted liquid, doesn't matter.

If anyone wants to claim otherwise, please provide sources saying homeopathic pills contain no "remedy". We have to be consistent and fair towards both sides. Johanneswiberg (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that the remedy is not claimed to be a physical substance, exactly how does evaporating physical substance from it cause it to not be there? This is physicalist bias, and also seems to be original research. Do I have things wrong here? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be a valid argument, were it not that homeopathic practitioners insist that they start off with a 'physical substance', and perform a series of actions (shaking and dilution) that result in the final preparation (the 'remedy') having 'potency' - which they insist isn't just an imaginary concept, but instead a real phenomenon. If it is real, it must have a physical presence - or if it doesn't, why is it necessary to go through the preparation procedure (or pay someone else to do it for you)? Now, homeopaths are quite entitled to use their own concept of the 'physical' to explain how their remedies work - but only within the limits of their own belief system. The problem is that they seem to want to apply their own 'physics' to a system that does not recognise their concepts, and then complain when it is pointed out that their system isn't compatible with the basic tenets of chemistry, physics, etc. Either homeopathic 'remedies' have something in them that does something, or they don't - and if there is 'something' there, we need an explanation of what it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're digressing. We don't "need an explanation of what it is" to solve this debate. We would need it if we were trying to show how Homeopathy works in order do make it scientific instead of pseudoscientific, but that is not what this discussion is about (if it was, I wouldn't be on this side of the argument).

"Remedy" applies to "a substance prepared with a particular procedure and intended for treating patients". If that procedure leads to no 'original substance' being left, that is indeed strange, but that already happens in liquid form, so why mention it specifically when it is in form of a pill?

To me it's simple. This is obviously a challenging statement we're discussing, so it needs to be backed up by sources if it should stay. Johanneswiberg (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that that the definition of "remedy" makes things quite unclear. "(A) substance prepared with a particular procedure and intended for treating patients" - does "prepared" mean "has been prepared" or "will be prepared"? This makes a ton of difference. If the remedy is the substance before preparation, then it might not be any of it left after preparation. But if the remedy is "a substance that _has_ _been_ prepared" then it is clearly there, no matter what has been done to it, whether in liquid or pill form. Johanneswiberg (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a generalist encyclopedia, we should strive to use words in their normal English meaning - but where that causes confusion (eg in a scientific or mathematical context) then we need to either:

1. Link those words to articles explaining their specific meaning in this context.
2. Expand the sentence in which these terms are use with more words to provide the intended meaning.
3. Replace those words with something less confusing.

In this case, I think we should take the third option and rewrite that part without using any of the words that carry special meaning to Homeopathists. Their usage is simultaneously ambiguous, misleading and contrary to modern scientific usage. If we need a sentence or two to describe what Homeopathists mean by the term - then let there be a "Homeopathic Terminology" section that says that. But it's certainly confusing to describe placing a "remedy" into a pill when we have RS to say that homeopathics fail to remediate medical conditions. The idea of having a terminology section to allow our readers to understand what homeopathists are talking about seems like a good way forward. SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

We're talking from their POV: we aren't talking about the concept that nonphysical = imaginary. We're talking about whether any of the remedy remains in the pills. from the POV of homeopathy, which does not depend on a physical substance, evaporation does not mean that there is no remedy left. You need to stop thinking of this in physicalist terms, and think of it more as religion. Thus "If it is real, it must have a physical presence - or if it doesn't, why is it necessary to go through the preparation procedure (or pay someone else to do it for you)?" is like asking why Catholicism needs wine and wafers. It's POV because it's inserting cultural bias and saying that the superstitions of the natives aren't real... essentially calling them savages because they don't wear proper clothes. In this case, the pill itself is a "remedy," and that has nothing to do with your concepts of reality. And re Johanneswiberg, it's obviously a "substance which has been prepared," which makes the pill a remedy. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy is not a religious belief, but a pseudoscience. And Wikipedia does take a stance on pseudoscience: we favor reliable, mainstream scientists' opinion on the subject, and just explain what the pseudoscience followers believe. There's no reason for us to favor their redefining the word "remedy" in our article, except perhaps to mention that they have altered the term for their own uses. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of expanding this article with a "homeopathic terminology" list, the topic doesn't deserve that, and I'm not sure there is consensus enough among homeopaths anyway. Anyway, as the article stands now, can we agree on removing the "...there may be no remedy left" statement? That's the best short term solution in my book, even if I'd also prefer the word remedy to be used in a way that is less POV.

@BeCritical Yes I thought that's what it meant, thanks for changing the article to make it clearer. I hesitated because I'm new here and I'd rather ask a stupid question than perform an even more stupid action. Johanneswiberg (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I also am not sure we should have a list of terminology. I prefer we just explain it within the text, so that there is no confusion. We should make it clear when "remedy" is used in the homeopathic context that it does NOT cure anything. But thirst. Homeopathy is a good remedy for thirst.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we change the line to replace 'remedy' with 'original ingredient' or something along those lines. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take a stance on anything- that's basic NPOV. And science is a series of specialties and sub-specialties and thus has no "mainstream." If there are people within a specialty who use the wrong methods I can see how you could say they are not mainstream in their field, or pseudo scientists. And then there can be people who are not trained in a scientific field but make statements which concern a field of science, which might be pseudo scientific statements. Then you would favor the sources from within the field in question, but of course never take a position. But anyway, why don't you use the word "preparation," instead? Or is that a term otherwise defined? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're 100% wrong about the concept of 'mainstream' being alien to Wikipedia. The policy most relevant to this article is WP:FRINGE - which uses the terms "mainstream" and "mainstream science" no less than twenty times in describing how we handle topics such as this. We are strongly encouraged to take the mainstream view on fringe topics. So that's what we do here. We accept mainstream references as reliable sources of truth and sources from the homeopathic community merely as statements of what the homeopathic community claims. The term "pseudoscience" takes it's standard dictionary definition as a field that makes claims of a scientific nature ("This procedure produces a bottle of stuff that will cure people") yet fails to use the scientific method. SteveBaker (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The concept of "mainstream" is not alien to Wikipedia, but is alien to science. We are encouraged to present the POV of reliable sources per WEIGHT, presenting the scientific consensus in any given field. However, Wikipedia's use of "mainstream" is highly specialized, meaning the scholarly or scientific consensus in a given field or sub-field. And by definition the opinion within a specialty is far from mainstream. If you look at FRINGE, you will nowhere see, I think, that Wikipedians are encouraged to write from a particular viewpoint. If so, then we need to do some reconciliation with NPOV. Tell me where we are encouraged to do more than present the most reliable sources and the scientific consensus in the field or sub-field? And I would prefer not to speak in terms of truth versus claims, that's religious talk. Editors who are willing to say that Wikipedia "takes a stance" on anything are unlikely to understand the basic concepts behind "mainstream," which is scholarship and sourcing. That's how I took the statement above, as saying that we disregard specialization and take a stand, so I explained what mainstream means. For a fuller or better expressed explanation, see WP:MAINSTREAM. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." - this guideline is robustly supported by ArbCom case lore. We must NOT present the position of the Homeopathist pseudo-scientists as equally important when compared to the scientific consensus...the "mainstream views". That is indeed Wikipedia taking a firm stance on how we present pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On how to present pseudoscience, not on pseudoscience itself as Hand That Feeds You said. This is also nothing more than the regular policy applied to pseudoscience. And where do you get that "importance" thing? I've heard of WEIGHT and prominence, but not "importance." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE are indeed the correct policies to invoke here, along with the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Wikipedia does not treat pseudoscience as equal to mainstream scientific fact or practice. If homeopathy practitioners misuse the term "remedy," we should point that out but not use their definition ourselves to describe the practice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That depends on whether the passage is attributed. You guys seem to be very vehement about defending a position which has not been challenged. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 13:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"...hasn't been challenged." You might want to read through the archives, as well as Cjwilky's arguments to use the homeopath's version of what "remedy" means above. People have been arguing a pro-homeopathic stance for a long time, so forgive me if I'm a bit defensive with regards to the actual science of the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey no problem. I know it's been challenged, but not by me. I only challenged that WP is allowed to advocate for any side of any argument. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Right. We don't advocate, but we do favor mainstream scientific opinion when it comes to pseudoscience & fringe theories. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I've always hated putting it that way. That's the result of our RS policy, not a bias. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Per Guyonthesubway's proposal, would changing "remedy" to "active ingredient" work? If not, would adding an additional sourced statement which made it clear that the pill is not a remedy in a conventional sense of the word work?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It would if we were discussing active ingredients, but as the article makes clear, there aren't any anyway. I made an edit and changed it to "homeopathic preparation," which seems like it works to me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This works for me; let's not complicate things, the article is long enough without it. Johanneswiberg (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The tricky problem with homeopathic pills is that the homeopaths have been saying all along that dilution is the key - and that water retains some kind of 'memory' or 'imprint' of what was diluted and that (it is claimed) is why all of this nonsense works. When you add one of these super-dilute water droplets to a sugar pill, the water will soon evaporate and be gone. So even if you buy into the whole explanation that homeopathists offer as to how this all works in liquid form - you are left wondering how the 'memory' of the water remains after it's all evaporated. If there was any trace of the original ingredient, then it has actually become more concentrated by this drying action - so shouldn't the pill cease to be effective?

So I think there ought to be something meaningful that should be said here about what the heck the homeopathists believe is going on here. Are they now claiming that the lactose in the sugar pill ALSO has 'memory', just like the water did? Since we're talking about a crystalline solid - the idea that the 'shape' of the original active ingredient is still there is even more unlikely than it is in liquid form.

There is more to this issue than just finding the right words to say what they did here...although that is also important.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with your thinking. Then of course, this isn't the only question that comes up with the "water memory" hypothesis - it's not really a good explanation because it raises more questions than it answers (Why would dilution make it more potent? Why shake the dilution?). If we can find a reliable source that adresses these questions as well as all the strangeness in the homeopathic pills, I'd love to include it. But I think without it, it'll be WP:SYN at best. Johanneswiberg (talk) 06:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"...you are left wondering how the 'memory' of the water remains after it's all evaporated." The hearsay of lactose? Brunton (talk) 08:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Haven't you heard of nanocrystalloids? Isn't it obvious that they function just like silicone crystals, water can store information just like a data chip! Shake it and put it on lactose and you get milkshake and chips. Simple. Johanneswiberg (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL, interesting analysis, reminds me of the Talmud (taking nonsense tooooo far logically). I do agree that saying that needs a source though, and hope there is one :P. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 06:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

=D If you haven't check out Bandershot's videos on YouTube and you'll see how, sadly, reality is worse than any parody can possibly hope to become... Johanneswiberg (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change to first paragraph

I propose changing:

Homeopathy (/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ ; also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.

to

Homeopathy (/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ ; also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo - that is to say, scientifically, it has no validity whatsoever.

It ought to be made a bit more clear just how silly this stuff is "according to science" (quoted material put there to satisfy woo-wooists who I assume are monitoring this talk page, else there would be no controversy). Thoughts? Egg Centric 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that your proposed addition is sufficiently encyclopedic in tone or entirely appropriate to its proposed position in the lead. Brunton (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

While the sentiment you express is appreciated, the extra content is not strictly true. The argument that the treatment is no different from a placebo is a statistical one and therefore there is a vanishingly small but still existent chance that there is a difference between the treatments. The leader is perhaps not the area where such subtleties can be explored, so I recommend it be left as it is, in the interest of the strictest accuracy. Acleron (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

To be explicit: Placebo is (for most medical conditions) a little better than no treatment at all. If someone has a splitting headache, and you give them a sugar pill and tell them it's a Tylanol, they tend to feel a little bit better (but not as good as if you'd given them an actual Tylanol because that drug works better than placebo). But the sugar pill only works so long as you don't TELL the patient that it's a sugar pill. It is most likely that this mechanism is what gives homeopathic treatments a slight edge over no treatment at all - but that MECHANISM isn't proven. The statistics only tell you that the stuff works no better than placebo - but that alone doesn't tell you that homeopathy works by the placebo mechanism alone.

Consider that there are plenty of mainstream drugs out there that do actually act to improve the condition for which they are intended - but which none the less do no better than placebo. If you give someone a sugar pill for their headache - and tell them "I'm giving you a sugar pill - it doesn't do anything to help your headache" - then their headache doesn't get better. However, there are drugs out there that do actually work at about the level of a placebo, even if you tell the patient that they won't. This might be important, for example, if the patient is unconscious and won't get that psychological boost that you'd get from a sugar pill.

Another odd thing is that people report side-effects from placebo too - vomiting, dry-mouth, etc.

So while it's clear that statistically-speaking, homeopathy doesn't work better than placebo - the evidence that it does nothing at all can't be shown statistically. That knowledge comes from the basic fact that the stuff is just water and all of the bullshit about 'imprinting of water molecules' is demonstrably not true. (See MANY prior discussions, above). It is hard to prove a negative though - and the harder the scientific community tries, the more outlandish, elaborate and ultimately, unfalsifiable, the homeopathists' explanations become. So basically, I agree with Acleron - I think our lede is about right.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do that. That would be rubbing it in. Really, the first para shouldn't talk about efficacy at all. Would you like to improve the third para, to tell specific facts about the observed results of homeopathy? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree! According to WP:LEDE:

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Since the single most important thing that everyone should know about homeopathy is that it doesn't actually work - this needs to be very prominent in the lede. "Rubbing it in" is Wikipedia policy - and it's a good way to write an encyclopedia. Many people looking up a topic like this should be able to find the most three or four most important facts with the least amount of reading. The fact that homeopathy is a complete scam needs to be right there front and center because most people won't read the entire article. SteveBaker (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You haven't included any controversies so far. Read below. Several people have said that not only me. Why?--George1919 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

SteveBaker - To say the single most important thing here is to state homeopathy doesn't work is wrong on two counts. First there is evidence on both sides - check it out or maybe you're blind... its available ton the net. Whether or not its academically as gold standard as other sources is not the point - there is evidence. The main standards here use sources that have preconceived ideas about homeopathy - ernst and the sceptic journalist bloke. Both scientifically prejudiced - ie they take a side, they don't have open minds and base everything on evidence.

Second, the most important thing here is to describe homeopathy, that is an encyclopedic function. Its use is massive throughout the world. A section on its efficacy is also important, but balanced unlike it is now.

Further, for you to say "it doesn't work" is a gross misunderstanding of science. The science I assume you support is a process, probabilities, never an absolute, and always open to the fact that evidence comes and goes. Anyone who looks at all the evidence for and against homeopathy would be a fool to flatly say "it doesn't work". Cjwilky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

Until you produce some usable sources that support your case, you are contributing nothing. Balance would imply there is evidence on both sides. Produce some, or move on. Thanks. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve, thanks for pointing me to WP:LEDE. Contra what I said above, I'd agree with mentioning the controversy in the first para, including homeopathy's poor showing when held to the standards of ordinary science. The controversy is indeed one of the most important facts about homeopathy. Rubbing it in, though, is not appropriate on Wikipedia. We summarize the facts; we don't go beyond the facts to humiliate people who hold stupid ideas, even if the facts show that they deserve it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe

Homeopathy (/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ ; also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, and there is no convincing scientific evidence to support the use of homeopathic treatments in medicine.

or

Homeopathy (/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ ; also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo, and there is no convincing scientific explanation how or why remedies might work.

?Bulwersator (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go for the second one. "There is no convincing scientific explanation how or why remedies might work" presumes that there is something there to explain. There is no good evidence that this is the case. And there are perfectly valid scientific explanations for the apparent effects: placebo effect, spontaneous recovery, regression to the mean, reporting bias, confirmation bias... Brunton (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Placebo?

Several editors have pointed out that the interpretation of the collective way of the scientific evidence depends on who interprets the evidence.' Skeptics say it is all placebo' (Shang), Linde objects : it is not all placebo but ( while is not proven as a therapy) there are some conditions for which Homeopathy is effective ( according to available evidence) , Homeopaths say it is effective for more conditions but the trials are not designed properly to detect efficacy. --George1919 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources? Brunton (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As you very well know after Shangs publication which concluded that Homeopathy does not work better than placebo, Linde and Jonas objected to the Lancet stating that there are conditions that homeopathy works better than placebo (even if it is generally not proven as a therapy). They cited their own research (peer review meta-analyses) in their letter to the Lancet which is also cited here to support this sentence. The same research that the current article cites and of course misrepresents saying that the scientific consensus is that Homeopathy is only a placebo therapy. Wikipedia is supposed to report all the notable controversies but currently reports only the skeptical point of view.

You have also locked the article so an editor who does not agree with this "view" cannot edit it - so it looks stable and great. The biggest joke is its status as a good article despite the objections you can read in the archives. --George1919 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to be a little more specific about which of Linde's papers you intend. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Have to fully agree with you George, and the evidence of the bias is the lack of any effort whatsoever of editors here to give a true balanced opinion. If they have access to the details of the research they ignore what doesn't suit their preconcieved perspective, evidenced above in the discussion about dilutions. But do give the detail of the source and we can progressCjwilky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

Balance would imply there is evidence on both sides. Produce some, or move on. Thanks. (is there an echo in here?) Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Albrecht,H. Schütte,A. 1999: Homeopathy versus antibiotics in metaphylaxis of infectious diseases: A clinical study in pig fattening and its significance to consumers. Alternative Therapies 5(5), 64 - 68

Aslan S , Findi M, Kalender H, Celebi M, Izgur H, Handler J 2000: Verbesserung der postpartalen Fertilität von Kühen durch Pulsatilla miniplex. Wien Tierärztl Monatsschr 87(12), p 359-362

Beceriklisoy,H.B. Özyurtlu,N., Kaya,D., Handler,J., Aslan,S. 2008: Effectiveness of Thuja occidentalis and Urtica urens in pseudopregnant bitches. Vet. Med. Austria; Wien. Tierärztl. Mschr. 95(11+12), 263 - 268

Berns D 1997: Untersuchungen zu Fruchtbarkeitsstörungen bei Kaninchen in Intensivhaltung und deren Beeinflussung durch zwei homöopathische Kombinationspräparate. Biol Tiermed 14(4), Thesis [THESIS Berns, D.]

Camerlink,I. Ellinger,L., Bakker,E.J., Lantinga,E.A. 2010: Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in the case of Escherichia coli in diarrhoea in neonatal piglets. Homeopathy 99(1), 57 - 62

Day CEI 1986: Clinical trials in bovine mastitis using nosodes for prevention. Brit Hom J 75, p 11-14

Doppenberg MJA 2003: Caulophyllum en aflammeren - een casuïstisch effectonderzoek. Louis Bolk Institute, Driebergen, NL, Diploma thesis

J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Dec;61(12):1197-204. Epub 2008 Oct 1. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. Lüdtke R, Rutten AL. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18834714

etc etc Cjwilky (talk)

First of all: per WP:MEDRS we're trying to use reviews wherever we possibly can. Having said that, there are two problems with this list: single trials don't carry the same weight as reviews, and only one on that list is a review (it's also the only one that deals with humans). That review isn't really positive for homeopathy, too (I often wonder if people who cite it have actually read it), it only tells us what we already expected (and what the review they "re-did" already said) - smaller, less rigorous tests tend to be more positive. It doesn't say that homeopathy isn't placebo. --Six words (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, and here was asked to provide some evidence that it does work. I have done that.

"Shang's negative results were mainly influenced by one single trial on preventing muscle soreness in 400 long-distance runners." That is what is said in that review, not exactly the same as you have just said is it? Its a valid criticism of Shang, 100%.

For a bunch of editors, however good meaning, at wiki to think they can review the reviews with the aim of coming to a definitive "fact" of it works or doesn't is taking it a bit far when it is not a cut and dried issue. IMO, with the fact that there is evidence on both sides, there should be more of "the jury is out" on this, with a section going into detail about the research in a proper way. Discussion on the evidence itself, the inherent problems with much of the research (ie homeopathy is by its nature individualised and most research on homeopathy uses blanket remedies or combinations, especially the larger trials), and the hierarchy of that evidence is important of course, but for editors to come out saying it doesn't work when there is evidence that it does, and to fill the article with duplications of such commentary, displays bias. Cjwilky (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

@SixWords - Forgot to add, Lüdtke R, Rutten AL. the results state "Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo". My understanding of science is that translates as it has been shown to work. (Note the statement of does or doesn't work would be an inaccurate interpretation, as is the case with all papers) Cjwilky (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You weren't asked to provide sources that show it works (no single trial can do that) but to cite sources that support the view that the mainstream view in science isn't that it's placebo. The article doesn't say that everyone agrees it's placebo, but that this is the mainstream scientific view (the sources so far suggest that this indeed is the case, but if you have newer sources showing the opposite please cite them; primary sources aren't acceptable per WP:MEDRS).
I don't think I've misrepresented what that Lüdtke&Rutten review showed, but I guess we're reading it from different perspectives, and no, I don't think pointing out that one study was so darn negative is a valid criticism at all. Shang didn't perform that arnica study, homeopaths did. Homeopaths also claim(ed?) that muscle soreness can be treated with arnica (even though at least two studies before that big one suggested otherwise). You can't criticise someone for including a good quality study that fits the inclusion criteria just because it happens to show that the intervention isn't equal to but in fact worse than placebo treatment. Inclusion criteria (as well as exclusion criteria) have to be defined before you start the analysis, not afterwards, or you'll end up confirming your own biases. Also, excluding that large trial wasn't even enough to change the outcome. Basically, Lüdtke and Rutten were trying out what you need to do to get a different result (in this case either remove one high quality study and change an inclusion criterion - patient number - a bit, or change that criterion a bit more to include six more studies). By the way: that review didn't really show that there was a significant effect beyond placebo but - as I said - that if you include the smaller studies you can find a significant effect beyond placebo. It doesn't show homeopathy≠placebo, a result they explicitly state in their conclusions (‘Our results do neither prove that homeopathic medicines are superior to placebo nor do they prove the opposite. This, of course, was never our intention, this article was only about how the overall results—and the conclusions drawn from them— change depending on which subset of homeopathic trials is analyzed.’); you should really read more than just the abstract. --Six words (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is there is evidence, and most of what I wrote stands. I can cite primary research. What this does is show that there is disagreement. Some people choose to interpret things one way and others another way. There are those who view research in a heirarchical way and I see Wiki does that too. Its a perspective. Its of course dependent on who is writing the reviews and what they see or choose to see. The abstract clearly states the there was a difference with homeopathic treatment. We can both acuse each other of cherry picking, and you can acuse the authors of that review of cherry picking. I can say that most research into homeopathy doesn't use the basics of homeopathy in its methodology therefore it isn't research into homeopathy. Its all a big discussion and is being discussed. Sceptics have a vested interest in it being concluded in a certain way, thats bias. The fact is that there is evidence out there that shows homeopathy is effective, and there is an interpretation that denies this. There is evidence to show homeopathy doesn't work, and there are discussions that criticise this (eg the issues with research in homeopathy - see the bit recently removed by a sceptic in the article!). Two sides, therefore we need this in the article. Cjwilky (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't “accuse the authors of cherry picking”, they openly state their goal was to show that one could come to a different conclusion if one changed the analysed subset (you did read the title, didn't you?). It's not our goal to interpret primary sources (WP:PRIMARY, WP:MEDRS) so while you of course can cite them here, they won't be included in the article. Of the two sides, the homeopaths' side is the minority view, so it is presented as that (WP:WEIGHT). --Six words (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be doing your fair share of interpretation there :) The bias in the article does not reflect the balance in which homeopathy is an accepted form of medicine. According to WP:PRIMARY I can cite primary research "to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source" and they can therefore go in the article - unless you have something that over rules that? Cjwilky (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:MEDRS. Primary sources carry a lot less weight than secondary sources; in very rare cases they are allowed because a finding may be important but so new that no secondary source has been produced on the subject yet, so they may be included (for a while). That's the exception and not applicable here. --Six words (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, according to some evidence published in different journals, it works. Shang's meta study concluded that homeopathy is only placebo. Later it was criticized by linde and Jonas who ( while they agree that the evidence for homeopathy is not robust and it is unproven and implausible) objected to this conclusion ( Homeopathy=Placebo therapy) stating that their own research found that there is some evidence that homeopathy is effective for some conditions. This very notable controversy is censored from the article since some editors religiously believe that linde and Jonas agree with Shang that homeopathy is only placebo while they themselves (Linde and Jonas ) state that they don't. "If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered." http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67878-6/fulltext, Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 393-399. PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12614092 --George1919 (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We're back to the old argument about the Linde letter. The phrase "If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence)" is not a statement that homoeopathy works better than placebo, just that there is some evidence that it works for some conditions but not for others. The limited positive evidence for homoeopathy is outweighed by the negative evidence, which tends to be of better quality than the positive evidence. The letter starts with a statement that homoeoapthy is implausible and the evidence for it is not robust, and includes a comment that Linde and Jonas's frequently cited 1997 analysis "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". To use this letter as a source for a statement that homoeopathy works better than placebo involves both cherry-picking and misinterpretation. By the way, in 2010 Linde was quoted by Der Spiegel as saying , with respect to his earlier finding that homoeopathy is superior to placebo, ""We can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated, since the positive results could be due to errors in the studies." Individual studies with positive results alone didn't "amount to convincing evidence for homeopathy"" (Hans Adler's translation from here; original German:""Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein." Einzelne Studien mit positiven Ergebnissen allein seien "noch kein überzeugender Beweis für die Homöopathie"."). Brunton (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That homeopathy works better for some conditions than others really proves nothing because placebo works better for some conditions than for others. What you have to ask is whether the recovery rate from homeopathy is statistically different from placebo for each particular condition. SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Note, though, that they don't actually say that homoeopathy works for some conditions but not others, merely that there is some evidence that is works for some conditions but not others. and that's not the same thing, so it doesn't support the view that is being claimed. Brunton (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Brunton this is no news. Linde Jonas have said before that their study was qualified and the evidence is not conclusively convincing and robust. That does not mean that they concur with Shang that all is placebo.

No one said that linde's works proves homeopathy but definitely its conclusions differ substantially from Shang's. Otherwise they wouldn't have objected to Shang's study.

They expressed their objection to the Shang's Conclusion that homeopathy is only placebo. This in undeniable. It is a fact. They have stated it clearly in the Lancet but in wikipedia this fact and other criticisms on Shang's study are censored in order to make the case Homeopathy = Placebo stronger. This is misinformation and bias ; the inclusion all the prominent controversies on the subject which are verifiable in reliable sources is not misinformation and bias.

Several other people have objected to this funny article. No one takes it seriously since editors who disagree with its point of view have been blocked or discouraged and the same time they keep it locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George1919 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this is not news. We have gone over this ad nauseam. The letter doesn't support a statement that they have concluded that homoeopathy works better then placebo, because it doesn't actually state a conclusion about the effectiveness of homoeopathy. It is a specific comment about whether the conclusions of Shang are adequately supported by its methodology; the objection to shang's conclusion is in terms of the particular analysis in Shang, not of anything else. To use it to support a statement that they have arrived at a different conclusion to the Shang team would be a SYN.

The fact that homoeopaths don't like the article, or feel paranoid about it, is not an actual reason for changing it. Brunton (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

lawsuit

http://boingboing.net/2011/08/17/homeopathy-multinational-sues-blogger-over-statements-that-its-mythological-curative-had-no-active-ingredient.html Guyonthesubway (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Regulation section misleading

The simple fact is that homeopathy has been in catastrophic decline in Britain ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8729588/NHS-spending-on-homeopathy-prescriptions-falls-to-122000.html ) and only one third of the Primary Care Trusts still offer it. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12492742 )

I don't think that the article reflects this; it treats the Evidence Check 2 as being rejected, despite the rapid rejection of homeopathy by the PCTs the government deferred to. 86.177.224.179 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand the precise nature of your problem here. As far as I can see, we have accurately reflected the current situation at the NHS. Could you point us to the precise section of our article that you find fault with? Alternatively, you could Be Bold and edit the article yourself. SteveBaker (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to imply a causal relationship between the report and the decline, you'll need sources for it. Neither of your links supports a causal relationship between the publication of the "evidence check" report and the rejection of homeopathy by the PCTs. The BBC link says that "[o]f the 72 [PCTs] that did not [fund homoeopathy], 10 had stopped funding it in the last four years." The Telegraph link shows that the decline in prescriptions has been going on for 15 years. There is certainly a huge decline, but it seems to largely predate the report. Brunton (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Homeopaths like to claim that EC2 was "rejected"; actually the report is there and used by PCTs in forming judgements on spending but the Government declined to mandate the recommendation that funding be discontinued, instead leaving it to PCTs, the majority of whom have indeed adopted it. 130.117.82.3 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If we are to include a statement that the majority of PCTs have adopted the recommendation, we need a source that says that. The mere fact that the majority of PCTs don't fund homoeopathy is not enough, especially since at least 62 (and possibly more) of the 72 PCTs that said they didn't fund it were already not funding it 3 years before the report was published. Brunton (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Misleading definition

Without taking side in the debate on homeopathy, it strikes me that the first sentence of this article gives an incorrect definition of homeopathy, when saying that it uses "highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient." Correct me if I am wrong (or perhaps this has been debated before, as I am a newcomer here), but it's not the highly diluted preparation itself that is believed to cause the symptoms. This would be prone of saying that healthy patient taking the homeopathic treatment would exhibit the symptoms exhibited by the patient. This is wrong, and contradicts the fact that some homeopathic drugs are actually given to healthy subjects as preventative treatments. There is one intermediate element missing here. Furthermore, some of the substances used in homeopathic preparations are not simply believed to produce the symptoms under consideration, being toxic, they are actually proven to produce such symptoms. The definition should therefore read: "...using highly diluted preparations of substances that cause or are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient." Dessources (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the current definition is correct. See the source cited in the article to support the statement that almost all modern "provings" are carried out using ultradilute remedies, or the Organon, aphorism 128 where Hahnemann himself advocated proving remedies using the 30C potency (Hahnemann did originally "prove" his medicines using actual doses, but he was also using those same material doses to treat his patients). Look at some of the "provings" available on the internet: all the ones I've seen use the diluted remedies. Part of the homoeopathic paradigm is that symptoms are part of the healing process, and to be encouraged (see also the many complaints from homoeopaths that orthodox medicine makes the patient worse in the long run by "suppressing" symptoms). Intensifying the symptoms is therefore claimed to aid healing. It may be wrong and contradictory, but it's the way homoeopathy is. Brunton (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. In the early stages, Hahnemann used regular doses of substances to derive their properties as remedies, and this was the extent of my knowledge. Are we sure that the remedies in the homeopathic pharmacopeia comprise only substances which have been subjected to proving at very high dilution levels, and do not include substances which were subjected to proving at regular doses, the toxicity of which would not be believed, but known in such cases? If not, the definition could still be slightly misleading.

Dessources (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The basic principle of homoeopathy is that disease can be cured by a remedy (whether diluted or undiluted) that causes similar symptoms to those of the disease. The dilutions are a later subsidiary idea. I've often seen it claimed by homoeopaths (in the course of their arguing that the absurdity of the dilutions doesn't matter) that there are still homoeopaths who don't use diluted remedies. Brunton (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What you say does not fully match the definition of homeopathy given at the beginning of the article, which talks about highly diluted preparations causing healthy people to exhibit the same symptoms as those exhibited by the patient. This is confusing and would perhaps need some clarification. Dessources (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

While the diluted remedies are not, strictly speaking, essential their use appears to be a defining characteristic of the way it is practised. And the "law of similars" certainly states that it is the remedy used to treat the patient, not what it is made from, that is supposed to produce similar symptoms. Brunton (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What I am aiming at is that, while the use of highly diluted preparations to treat diseases is an ontological characteristic of homeopathy (together with the "law of similars"), the substances used in those preparations are not required to be highly diluted in order to produce the same symptoms on healthy patients: they can also be used at regular doses to produce such symptoms on healthy patients. The identification of a substance and the place it occupies in the pharmacopeia does not require that the substance be highly diluted to exhibit the symptoms present in the disease on healthy subjects. High dilution is not an ontological characteristic of the proving process. If it were, probably more than half of the substances in the pharmacopeia would have to be removed. I would think it is much more difficult to provoke a specific symptom - say migraine headache - on a healthy patient with a homeopathic preparation which has zero amount of the active substance than it is to have such symptom disappear in a sick patient after the administartion of a homeopathic. Simply because the placebo effect probably works better as a remedy to make symptoms disappear, especially with those symptoms which have a high propensity of disappearing spontaneously, than as an agent that provokes highly specific symptoms (or signs). Simply because the target, in the former case, is wide and universal - return to a state of good health - while in the second the target is very narrow and is unlikey to be reached simply by chance.

Dessources (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What is proved is the remedy, not whatever the remedy is made from. We have perfectly adequate sources for the statements that Hahnemann advocated proving at 30C and that most modern provings are carried out using ultradilute remedies. Check out provings that are reported on the web, for example here. And have a look around for the many examples of homoeopaths challenging skeptics to prove ultradilute remedies themselves, for example here - the claim is certainly that the diluted remedies will cause the proving symptoms: "If you accept the challenge, then you will experience what a substance at 30C potency (Yes that is dilution with 1 and 30 sets of 00 in front of it) can do." Brunton (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the original poster for starting the thread. I too found the opening paragraph confusing, initially thinking "Why would we treat healthy people to cure sick people?" That's not what it means, of course, and the fact that there are good responses on this talk page shows that the lede can be rewritten to be less confusing. Maybe bring the law of similarities right up front, or provide a simple example.

I'm not saying it's "right" or "wrong". I'm just saying the paragraph made me shout WTF out loud. Co149 (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Homeopaths claim that proving with ultra dilute preparations causes symptoms in healthy people, but as you point out they also say that the same preparations can be used prophylactically. It's the topic that makes no sense not the article. Acleron (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is indeed a part of this madness. The question is how we explain this self-contradiction without Wikipedia also seeming to be self-contradictory. The whole topic of homeopathy is madness (eg, how can the body know what trace (or even absent) chemicals in the water are a part of the intended medicine and what are original trace impurities - or minute amounts of the materials use in the containers and tools used to prepare them?) We cannot use the article to try to make sense out of nonsense. In the end, you just have to say "This doesn't make much sense - but the homeopathists say X and not-X at the same time". SteveBaker (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidence

What about this one that states "There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus after abdominal or gynecologic surgery. However, several caveats preclude a definitive judgment." Yes it mentionions its not definitive, but then neither is much, if any, of the research that is cited here to show homeopathy doesn't work.
Barnes J, Resch K-L, Ernst E. Homeopathy for postoperative ileus? A meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 1997; 25: 628–33
Whilst I'm here the reference number 5 in the article concludes "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." (my emphasis)
That doesn't support the statement in the article "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo." and so I suggest it is removed at least in that context.
Cjwilky (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be the study with (to quote one of its authors) "the important caveat that the only reliable trial of good quality in our meta-analysis was clearly negative."

As for expecting "definitive" results that show that homoeopathy doesn't work, well you won't find that. For an effective treatment there should be consistently significant results in favour. All there is going to be for an ineffective treatment is studies that overall fail to achieve significant results, particularly for the better quality trials. You won't get a definitive conclusion. Brunton (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

From previous discussions in talk above, it was made clear that the conclusion is what we go by. The conclusion is as I quoted.

Definitive results is not the issue - its about whether it supports the statement or not. It doesn't. "not convincing enough" for recommendations, as said above, doesn't say its no more effective than a placebo. Maybe other studies are clearer, that one isn't.

Cjwilky (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. The article doesn't say that homeopathy is definitively proven to be better than placebo - so the null hypothesis holds - that being that homeopathy is no better than placebo. SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It states there is evidence, and how many things are "definitively proven"? But go on, what about the second part of what I say re the reference in the article.

Cjwilky (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

From your extract, it says that the evidence is not convincing. When you add up all the studies that have been done, from which the genuine conclusion is 'Not convincing' then the statement 'not better than placebo' is surely indicated. After all, what else can you say? That it IS better than placebo? Acleron (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course what one wants to be able to say is "Intervention X is safer, less costly, and more effective than any alternative intervention known, including the current gold standard Y." But we don't even hold "new" drug approvals to that standard (consider evergreening), let alone homeopathic "remedies". Realistically, the statement "not better than placebo" could better read "indistinguishable from placebo effect", which is more to the point. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

New research (rational skepticism)

research by the Indian institute of technology quoted in the Times of India new peer-reviewed research on the mechanism of homoeopathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.66.65 (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither newspapers nor primary studies meet WP:MEDRS, do you know if this was dealt with in a WP:SECONDARY study? N^oformation ^Talk 19:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The work mentioned in the newspaper was: Prashant Chikramane "Extreme homoeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective" (doctoral thesis). The same title is on doi:10.1016/j.homp.2010.05.006. It has attracted the usual up and down reactions from bloggers and from inside the homeopathy walled-garden journals. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The journal Homeopathy' is almost certainly not a reliable source. They've published some frankly bizarre stuff. 86.** IP (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yeah, didn't see it was published in a WP:FRINGE journal. N^oformation ^Talk 02:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

whatever be the reliability or credibility of the journal homoeopathy, this article certainly has an anti-homoeopathy tilt to it. even if it's discredited as a system in countries with large pharamceutical lobbies like the UK and the US, at least wikipedia should be a forum that shouldn't allow such obvious biases including how the article is classified - 'obsolete theories' etc. but then, that's a systemic problem with wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.66.151 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no one here is being paid by Big Pharma. The article is not biased -- it's accurately reflecting the peer-reviewed research published in reputable medical journals. In the Wiki article on Gravity, we do not create a false balance by referencing both major journals and a fringe journal dedicated to the study of how gravity is really caused by faeries (and reviewed exclusively by people who believe in such.) Similarly, we cannot rely on the circular logic of relying upon a fringe journal dedicated to promoting homeopathy in order to evidence that homeopathy works. If you can find strong studies in reputable journals, please add to the article. Otherwise, complaining about bias just amounts to sour grapes.JoelWhy (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not "new research". It has been discussed at least twice here already. See the archives, here and here. Brunton (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya i got that it's not new research from leadsongdog's comment my bad. the reason i mentioned pharmaceutical lobbies is precisely what you've mentioned about circular logic - these journals are published and circulated with a system that's wholly run by them and for them. if you can dismiss the million-dollar market that homoeopathy has in developing countries, for example, the same logic could be used to dismiss the research done in universities in the west with obvious industry-funded intent, like you said to the best of your knowledge you wouldn't know. It's good to raise doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.79.119 (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and perhaps you're being paid by Big Homeopathy; it's good to raise doubts, right? (Did you realize taht a great many homeopathic companies are owned by the same companies that own pharmaceutical companies? and, that many others are owned by other multi-billion dollar corporations?) In any case, your analysis is incorrect. While many studies are industry funded, many are not. The studies funded by public grant monies are, what? Part of some vast conspiracy? Moreover, reputable journals use the scientific method. The studies can (and frequently are) reproduced with similar results. Psedoscientific studies, on the other hand, do not hold themselves up to such scrutiny. When their studies are replicated by disinterested parties, the results routinely fail to overcome the null hypothesis.

Regardless, if you feel this article is biased, find studies in reputable sources to site.JoelWhy (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Developing countries tend to be quite gullible when it comes to this kind of thing. Their governments frequently care little for human rights and for the benefit to their people - needing only to produce the illusion of good governance to stay in power. Homeopathy offers them a way to tell their people that they are getting good healthcare - while 'treating' them with nothing but bottles of water and sugar pills. Poor educational standards makes it hard for their general public to understand why things like homeopathy are not going to help them - so they unknowingly go along with the charade. This is a deeply evil thing. Another example of this was the ADE 651, GT200, Sniffex and Alpha 6 devices. These are variously "explosive detectors", "drug detectors" and "ammunition detectors" that were sold to many developing countries. These devices work (or rather don't work) based on the principles of dowsing - another ridiculous pseudoscience. These devices sold for between $6,000 and $60,000 each and were well known not to work by the governments who bought them - but they were cheaper than real explosive/drug/gun detectors and work from 'static electricity generated by the human body while breathing' so they don't even need batteries! Callous disregard for the lives of their people made that a real deal for the governments who bought these things in the teeth of solid science that shows that they don't work worth a damn.

If any modern 'big pharma' drug was shown to be as ineffective as homeopathy has repeatedly been shown to be - they would be pulled off the market. Just this year, the FDA pulled 500 different prescription cold and flu medications from pharmacy shelves because they had not been shown to be effective. The homeopathic cold and flu "cures" do not fall under the FDA's remit - so they remain there. The fact that homeopathists continue to peddle their $15 bottles of water and $27 sugar pills on the shelves of Walmart and Walgreens, despite that exact same level of evidence of inefficacy, is proof that they do not follow the scientific method.

Precisely because of this kind of organized bullshit generation by pseudo-scientists and their knowing/unknowing victims, here at Wikipedia, we have rules about how we deal with subjects like this - they are enshrined at WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Those rules do not allow us to accept research results from the kinds of organizations that support homeopathy because they do not follow the scientific method or follow the peer-reviewed publishing policies that we require in order to use their results as reliable sources. If there is a problem, it is not with this article, it's with the kind of encyclopedia that Wikipedia is. At this point, you stand precisely zero chance of getting Wikipedia to be a different kind of encyclopedia - so the perceived bias against homeopathy is a part of the bedrock of this site. In truth, the only way to get the kinds of information you seek into an encyclopedia is to go and find a different one with other standards for writing about these kinds of fringe topics. SteveBaker (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It exists - Wiki4CAM. Of course, you can only edit it if you're a CAM practitioner, which should give you some idea of its reliability and neutrality... Yunshui 雲水 14:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm - I dunno - it doesn't have an article on the hot topic of Rumpology and it's applicability to diagnostic medicine.  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Belief"

Hello everyone, it's McPhee here again.

I notice in the first line it says "Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations **that are believed** to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient."

Perhaps we could change this so that instead of saying "that are believed...", it reads as: "that some people believe..." or even "that they [the practitioners] believe..."

Because, not everybody shares the belief that homeopathy actually does anything. The way the first paragraph is written implies that mankind as a whole has some sort of belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy but doesn't have the evidence to prove it yet. I think we need to remove the ambiguity and make it clear that only some people believe in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.47.23 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch, you are correct.JoelWhy (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I'm re-reading the sentence, I believe it needs additional changes. It states "practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient." If I am not mistaken, this is inaccurate. The practitioners believe the substance being diluted causes "healthy people to exhibit symptoms..." They don't believe the diluted preparation cause those symptoms.JoelWhy (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I used to think, too, because most texts about homeopathy start with Hahnemann's original 'discovery', and then never get around to explaining such fine points of modern practice. But it is a fact that homeopaths nowadays use the diluted preparations on healthy people. This practice was started by Hahnemann. I forgot where I found this information in such a clear form that I couldn't continue to entertain my illusion on this point, but it's in the talk page archives somewhere. Hans Adler 09:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• JoelWhy, that sentence is confusing because it blends two things: (1) the proving and (2) the final remedy. It's simply an awful sentence.

• Hans, yes we do base our information about provings on one RS, to the exclusion of lots of other RS to the contrary. What do we do? This has been a problem in the article for a very long time. I mentioned this a long time ago and then dropped it. There's apparently a conflict within the homeopathy world about provings. One source we use and give a lot of weight, makes the proving and final remedy identical (both are ultra diluted). Other sources make it clear that the proving is undiluted and used on healthy individuals, and the symptoms caused are recorded. Then a highly diluted remedy is prepared and given to sick people who have the same symptoms that were caused by the original, undiluted, substance used in the proving. That makes sense from a homeopathic POV. The other scenario (both are the same) doesn't makes sense since an undiluted substance used in a proving isn't going to cause any dramatic symptoms to even record. So how can this be done at all? I know I'm asking for logic from within the illogical worldview of homeopathy, but what to do? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we can resolve part of the confusion by not mentioning provings in the first paragraph. We are alluding to it and that muddles the waters. Provings aren't used to "treat" anyway. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I always have difficulty with text that asserts someone's belief, especially when it is a belief in something widely held to be impossible. How can we enable a reader to verify an assertion of a subjective belief? At most they can verify that the belief was claimed, but never that it was held. As some actor says regularly, "everybody lies". LeadSongDog come howl! 20:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

(That would be Hugh Laurie as Dr Gregory House)

Anyway...in this case it is not at all clear that the practitioner 'believes' that the homeopathic treatment will work...who knows? Maybe they're just in it for the money. Selling people water at $20 a bottle is a profitable business...and it's quite possible that the practitioners don't believe it for a moment. The only people who are certain to believe in it are the patients - what motive would someone have to going to a homeopathist and drinking their expensive water if they didn't believe in it? So (IMHO), we have evidence that the patient is the "someone" to whom we're referring - and the practitioner is the one whose true beliefs are unknown and unknowable because their actions could be those of someone of good moral character who genuinely believes that they are curing people - or someone of despicable character who is syphoning money from the genuinely sick and the gullible. So the strongest statement would have to be that the patient believes it, that mainstream science does not believe it and that we don't know about the practitioner's beliefs. SteveBaker (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You could change "believed" to "claimed". As in, "practitioners claim the substance being diluted causes healthy people to exhibit symptoms..." (or, something along those lines.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If we really want to tell it like it is....we could write "that practitioners tell patients".....;-) OK, maybe not THAT snarky, but it's the truth. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hard to verify though, as it's privileged communication, isn't it? How about "Homeopaths teach that..."? LeadSongDog come howl! 06:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer "claim" in this case. It is what they're claiming, and that claim is wholly rejected by the academic community, so WP:CLAIM shouldn't be an issue. "Teach" implies, in some small way, that they're imparting knowledge, as opposed to asserting claims.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I also Like "claim" Tal Galili (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What if we were to change it to something along the lines of "According to practitioners..."? This removes the potential bias charge of the word "claims" yet makes it clear to the reader that it's an assertion made exclusively by the homeopaths. I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to defend homeopaths (and, if I do, I will make sure to say three Hail James Randi's before I go to sleep tonight) but there's really no need to give them ammunition for a bias charge. They're trying to cure themselves with magic water, so the facts pretty much speak for themselves.JoelWhy (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The latest change uses "practitioners claim to treat patients..."...but that's not right either, surely. They actually do 'treat' them - it's just that the treatment doesn't work. Their claim is that the treatment will work. We could say "practitioners claim to effectively treat patients..." - but I don't really like that either. SteveBaker (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I just had a wild thought...can homeopathy effectively treat dehydration? Take a small drop of water and dissolve it in a hell of a lot of water, then have the patient drink it!  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. Remember that the homeopathic remedy is made from a substance which, in large quantities, produces the symptom—not cures it. For dehydration, you'd want to start with something like salt, or ethanol. You're right, though, that the homeopathic preparation of salt – with sufficient dilution and administered in adequate volume – would cure dehydration, and it's a wonder that such a product isn't already in stores. Homeopathic preparations of alcohol, meanwhile, are already available over-the-counter—visit your local bar and ask for any mass-market American lager. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah: Miller-Lite - a homeopathic C6 dilution of alcohol and beer-like flavorings with a dash of undiluted artificial colouring to make it look more like urine. SteveBaker (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm - you're right though. A small drop of water, diluted in a hell of a lot of water would simply dehydrate the patient even more than they were before! I think I'm getting the hang of this new wonder-science. SteveBaker (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been done http://www.hominf.org/aquanova/aqnointr.htm. You just can't make this stuff up, well you can I suppose Acleron (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So, how does a homeopath treat someone suffering from water intoxication (i.e. over consumption of water)? Since the cause of the illness is water, do you treat it with diluted water? I think my brain is about to explode...JoelWhy (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably with diluted espresso. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, wait, you're right! Now for that headache, how about some diluted ice cream? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

[reply to TenOfAllTrades]: "Remember that the homeopathic remedy is made from a substance which, in large quantities, produces the symptom—not cures it." No, it is the remedy itself that is alleged to cause the symptoms, not whatever it is made from. Brunton (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

See, for example, the "proving" that Acleron has linked to above. Brunton (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Brunton is correct, it's the preparation after dilution but many are coincidentally the symptoms of the original material. But I do wonder what a 200C dilution of vacuum will do. https://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=linkrem&sku=vacu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acleron (talk • contribs) 05:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! The results of combusting brown's gas in homeopathic dilutions?! That's a fringe theorist's wet dream! Brown's gas is what you get from the electrolysis of water (see Oxyhydrogen) and it's just a stochiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen - but that doesn't stop the crazies from claiming all sorts of bizarre properties for it...98% of which end up in you being able to run your car on water. The idea of homeopathic browns' gas reaction byproducts (ie water, dissolved in water) is just too good to miss!

I bet that's what they feed the Aliens at Area 51 on to keep them happy while they're being forced to participate in faked moon landings with Elvis (who, of course, is in hiding after a certain incident on the grassy knoll). I suppose that's what keeps their Indigo auras in top condition.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidence-based homeopathy???

A recent article in the BMJ The NHS is right to fund homoeopathy generated a lot of responses, one of which was entitled Rational Homeopathy? http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2642?page=1&tab=responses (It’s about two-third down the page)

It describes a specific clinical scenario (dealing with anxiety when weaning a diabetic patient off some of the drugs she may not need anymore) where using a homeopathic ‘remedy’ may benefit the patient. Both doctor and patient accept that they may be dealing ‘only’ with a placebo effect, so no deception is involved, and if it helps the patient to stay off the drugs, its use should surely be justified as a perfectly ‘rational’ and evidence-based intervention?

The author of the response (me) finishes with a flourish:

Homeopathy is part of the rich medico-cultural tradition in Europe. It's safe and (in this scenario) its use is evidence-based. Why stop it in the NHS? Why smash a butterfly on the unfeeling wheels of legislation? Why drive patients into the arms of quacks?

I have shown this response to a number of science-minded friends but we can’t fault its reasoning. Should I add a note on this specific possible justified use of homeopathy to the WP article? Sleuth21 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is "No". It's a reader response (I have written them for the BMJ too, but I wouldn't consider them eligible here...), so it's not a RS, much less a WP:MEDRS. Adding it here would amount to adding your OR in a primary source to the article. That's why we require secondary sourcing. Your logic is also somewhat flawed, since, as you write, "no deception is involved", ergo you won't elicit a true placebo effect. Otherwise congratulations on getting your response printed. I recall getting lots of editorial help from them with my responses. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a more reliable source which says much the same (I'm sure I've stumbled across it somewhere), that could be a good anchor for a mention in this article. Almost by definition, a placebo does still involve an element of deception, but if it actually helps patients... bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see something like this being added to the article on placebos, but here? I'm not sure. I mean, replace the word "homeopathy" with the phrase "reiki healing" or "witchcraft" or "spiritual healing by developing a psychic quantum link with a peanut butter and banana sandwich", and you'll end up with the same conclusion -- placebos may help, so what's wrong with that? Well, there's nothing wrong with that, but it has nothing to do with the homeopathic "remedy". It's just a placebo. And yes, placebos in different forms may have more or less impact (e.g. injected placebo tends to lead to stronger reactions than in pill form.) But, it's still a placebo.JoelWhy (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, homeopathy is one of the most widely-recognised forms of placebo; many millions of people think it works. Whereas a typical patient is unlikely to take you seriously if you prescribe quantum entanglement with a variety of food products. (And one of homeopathy's louder supporters does like to use lots of sciency-sounding words like "quantum" to get around that irksome lack of evidence). bobrayner (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if it worked as a placebo after the doctor has obtained informed consent to administering it - why should the NHS pay a homeopathy manufacturer $20 for 5 fluid ounces of water? If the placebo effect is all that it takes then why not fill little 50 cent plastic bottles with tap water and save $19.50 per "treatment"? If it turns out to be ethical (and legal) for a doctor to prescribe a placebo - then there are vastly cheaper ways to do that. Suppose we have doctors prescribe Orange TicTacs instead of homeopathic pills? Buycheapr dot com sells 24 packs of 50 tictacs] for $16. I'm sure they could be made much cheaper than that. That's about a penny a "pill" - contrast that to most homeopathic pills that cost around 25 cents a pill. Homeopathy sucks...even as a placebo. SteveBaker (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but Steve—it's already been demonstrated that more expensive placebos are more potent that less expensive ones. The study found that $2.50 sugar pills were more effective than ten-cent sugar pills at controlling pain. I believe that there are also studies showing increased efficacy brought about by nice packaging. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - but 24 cents a pill buys some pretty fancy packaging. Besides, this is prescription medicine - everything comes in identical orange pill bottles. If you have a fixed amount of money to spend on convincing the patient, you REALLY don't want to spend any of it on pointlessly diluting ingredients. Hence a true placebo will always be cheaper than a homeopathic treatment. 02:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original suggestion (above). Here is a rephrased suggestion:

The clinical scenario mentions no active treatment but specifically discusses the discontinuation of unnecessary medication. Obscure theories describing an effect beyond placebo of homeopathic ‘remedies’ are not part of the argument in this context – certainly not the memory of water or ‘quantum wave vibrations’. Of interest is only the placebo effect of homeopathic ‘remedies’ which is well established (refs. available). It is equally well established (but not undisputed) that in some clinical situations the use of the placebo effect can be ethically justified, especially if the informed consent of the patient has been obtained (refs. available). It has even been suggested that it may unethical to withhold a placebo (refs. available).

The placebo effect is of course stronger (refs available) if both the patient and clinician belief (or accept as a possibility) that there is more to it, a situation most likely to occur in developed countries where homeopathy has a well established tradition among some qualified medics and many members of the patient-public.

Homeopathy is also unlikely to have any side-effects - obviously, it’s just water (refs. available). Other ‘alternative’ therapies which in addition to the placebo effect may have adverse effects (such as acupuncture, chiropractic, iridology, potent herbal remedies or weird voodoo stuff) are not part of the argument here.

The scenario also excludes the possibility that proper treatment is delayed. It takes place in a ‘regular’ family practitioner’s office where other diagnostic and therapeutic options have been considered, and the placebo effect is used to strengthen the patient’s resolve to stay off unnecessary drugs (refs available). …and finally:

‘Evidence-based medicine’ tries to integrate the best external evidence with the clinician’s acumen and the patient’s preferences. Both patient and clinician agree that homeopathy may help in the specific scenario described in this thread. It should, suitably wikified and referenced (from reliable sources (e.g. Cochrane, PubMed peer-reviewed, quality journals)), merit a short paragraph in NPOV mode in the WP Homeopathy article.(sleuth21) 87.194.69.72 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps all of those things are individually true and can be referenced - but to jump from that to writing something along the lines you suggest in our article would be a severe case of original research backed only by synthesis of published material that advances a position - both of which are specifically disallowed here. So, no - you can't write this into the article. SteveBaker (talk) 13:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Steve for your quick and apparently decisive answer. I am aware of both WP police guidelines you mention but neither applies to the points I would like to add to WP. They don’t constitute ‘original research’ and are no ‘synthesis [..] to advance a position’; they merely describe established ideas which can be described in a NPOV and wikified fashion, for instance in the form (I improvise): It has been suggested that the use of placebos may be ethical in certain circumscribed clinical situations (refs), with (refs) or even without the expressed consent of the patient (refs), or that the judicious use of a placebo may help in weaning some patients off addictive or unnecessary drugs (refs.). I would add brief relevant quotes from the pertinent refs., all of which from the 200 (or so) core Medline / PubMed peer reviewed journals. I may insert ‘not undisputed’ or similar where appropriate. These points should be mentioned in WP (as far as I can see they aren’t yet) and would enrich its encyclopaedic content in relevant articles. Some of the other points I raised in the remarks above dealt with possible objections; they would not be part of a WP article on e.g. placebos or homeopathy.

I think under the circumstances it is best if I step away from this discussion thread, let my points ‘breath’ a bit, and then add short sections to the relevant WP article, incl. the homeopathy article. Sleuth21 (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In your improvised example you're using sources that don't specifically discuss homeopathy to imply that homeopathic "remedies" can be prescribed ethically - in my eyes that's synthesis. --Six words (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Six Words. As the effects of homeopathic interventions cannot be distinguished from that of placebo interventions (they are both placebo interventions), anything said about the judicious and ethical use of placebos applies also to homeopathic tinctures in a safe clinical setting. Isn't that simple logic or common sense, and not synthesis? Sleuth21 (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is very clear on this: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article., so unless you cite a source making that statement, the example is synth. --Six words (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that is precisely a synthesis! It is exactly what WP:SYNTH prohibits us from doing. You can sometimes get away with a simple synthesis when the result is non-controversial - but this is highly controversial. You simply aren't allowed to rely on your own "common sense" - because that may be flawed. In this specific case, you may be correct that "the effects of homeopathic interventions cannot be distinguished from that of placebo" - but the medical "effect" is not the entire problem. For example: the cost of homeopathic treatments to (for example) the NHS or an HMO, is vastly higher than that of placebo (compare $14 for 2cc's of "homeopathic eye drops versus $5 for a gallon of saline). So I (personally) consider it highly unethical to prescribe a homeopathic medicine rather than a placebo because that results in a higher charge to the NHS/HMO. The result of doing such an irresponsible thing is that there is less money available to provide valuable medicines to people who really need them - and that is unethical.

Now - you may argue about whether my position is valid or not (I'm sure you will) - but that's 100% not the point here. The point is that my objection shows that this synthesis is indeed controversial. Just like any controversial fact, you need a solid reference before you can add it to the article - and you don't have one. Tying together these two disparate WP:RS's together does not constitute a solid reference for the claimed fact because it's a synthesis - and an inadequate one at that. In this case, your "common sense" is demonstrably fallible - and that's why Wikipedia requires a single, direct reference for any controversial fact. SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I really think this entire issue just boils down to the fact that Homeopathy can have a placebo effect (just like anything can, if the individual believes the "remedy" will have an impact.) Granted, homeopathy has no active ingredients so there are no side effects (other than a possible nocebo effect. But, the same can be said for Reiki healing and many other pseudoscientific procedures/medications. If there's evidence that the placebo effect of homeopathic concoctions are especially strong, then that should be referenced and included. Otherwise, I don't see how any of this pertains specifically to homeopathy; it (potentially) belongs on the placebo page, not here.JoelWhy (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly true. Homeopathists (and homeopathy apologists) are desperate to have any shred of evidence that what they are doing is good/valuable/effective - and the placebo effect seems to give them that. The trouble is that water or sugar pills or herbal medicine or witch doctoring or shiatzu massage or pads you stick on the soles of your feet or holding pyramids over the patient's hand...or anything that is dispensed convincingly enough...has the exact same effect on gullible patients. Attributing this to something notable about homeopathy is, at best, misleading.

Taking a document that asserts that X has some property Y - and tying that to another document that says that Z is really a kind of X - and then drawing the conclusion that Z has the property Y is WP:SYNTH - and it's not allowed. For any kind of controversial (or potentially controversial) statement, we need a single reference that says directly that Z has the property Y...and in this case, since this is a medical topic, that RS has to pass WP:MEDRS.

In this specific case, we have one or more WP:RS that say that "placebo" (X) has the property "can be prescribed ethically" (Y). We also have multiple references that say that "homeopathy" (Z) is a kind of "placebo" (X). Then we have this effort from Sleuth21 to make a statement to the effect that "homeopathy" (Z) has the property "can be prescribed ethically" (Y). Sadly, as this analysis clearly shows, that is a case of WP:SYNTH writ large.

I'll admit that you can sometimes get away with a mild case of uncontroversial synthesis in an article - just as you can get away with making uncontroversial statements without reliable sources. If you have one RS that says that one particular car (Car 'A') can go 120mph and another RS that says that Car 'B' can go 150mph - then you're probably going to get away with saying "Car B is faster than Car A" - citing both references - without someone calling you out on grounds of synthesis. Technically, that is a synthesis - but it's an incredibly non-controversial one. But that's not the situation here. Claiming that you can ethically prescribe homeopathic treatments is exceedingly controversial and demands the highest possible level of sourcing and non-synthesis.

I (personally) find this edit considerably controversial because I don't believe it's ethical to charge a healthcare provider $20 for a bunch of homeopathic pills when you know that you could just as effectively charge $1 for a bunch of orange tic-tacs placed into a regular medicine bottle. That means that this synthesis is highly controversial and therefore I (and a bunch of other people here) need a really solid, non-WP:SYNTH, reference for that statement.

So, if you can't find a reliable source (per WP:MEDRS) that says something more or less exactly like: "It is widely considered ethical to prescribe homeopathic treatments, even though the doctor knows that they work no better than placebo."...then you can't write this into the article. I don't believe such a statement exists - mostly because it's patently untrue! SteveBaker (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy isn’t necessarily cheaper

Just a little anecdote: Homeopathy isn’t necessarily cheaper than real medicine. I stumbled upon a homeopathic motion sickness remedy that was more expensive than Gravol. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 14:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Or just read this(!): CVS Leg Cramps Pain Relief Caplets quota (talk)

“ Active Ingredients: Cinchona Off. 3X HPUS; Viscum Alb. 3X HPUS; Gnaphalium Poly. 3X HPUS; Rhus Tox. 6X HPUS; Aconitum Nap. 6X HPUS; Ledum Pal. 6X HPUS; Magnesia Phos. 6X HPUS. Inactive Ingredients: Lactose NF, Microcrystalline Cellulose, and Vegetable Magnesium Stearate ”

Hmmm, the last time I checked, the FDA didn't consider 3X to be a homeopathic dilution. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

3X HPUS does not mean 'three times', it means ten-to-the-power-of-three-times. That is, one part in one thousand of the original solution (itself typically mostly water and/or alcohol) exists in the bottle one is expected to pay $5.79 for. So the original solution must have been worth $5,790 (OK, a bit less than that, allowing for the packaging).

6X HPUS is a one millionth solution. quota (talk)

That's correct, as explained at length in the article. The point is that some substances are sufficiently toxic that a 0.1% solution can still be hazardous. Accordingly the FDA regulations don't broadly exempt all such modest dilutions from the new drug approvals process the way they do ultramolecular dilutions (which can be safely considered inert). Indeed, their caution against use by people with quinine sensitivities points out the problem rather directly. This came into play with the Zicam case. That CVS product has another problem, it violates the regulatory requirement for English-language listings on the packaging in lieu of the no-longer authorized Latin. But in any case this is all off-topic. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The stupidity of that ruling is that if something is unregulated then the dosage levels are also unregulated. If the instructions on the homeopathic treatment were to say that (for example) you should drink a liter a day of 3X (0.1%) dilution - then that's the same dose of active ingredient as 1cc of undiluted material. Plenty enough to kill you if it's a poison. SteveBaker (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rheumatology as source for psychological healing

I'm not happy with using this source, firstly because the sentence it's used for
“This caring engagement can prove particularly effective when conventional physicians have limited time with the patient or cannot provide a diagnosis or treatment.”
isn't in fact supported by the source as it's a single trial dealing with rheumatoid arthritis, so it's a massive exaggeration of the trial's weight to extend its conclusion - homeopathic consultations helped RA patients - to such a broad statement.
Secondly, it doesn't even discuss what shortcomings of conventional treatment might be to blame (for RA it's definitely not lack of diagnosis or treatment).
Finally because the study's limitations as pointed out by the authors (the study was underpowered, had a higher than expected drop out rate and the results are not yet replicated) make it unfit to draw definitive conclusions even for the condition it discusses. Like many small trials, it's a starting point with interesting findings, but there has to be a larger study to confirm its results. --Six words (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Six Words, for your comments and for correcting the format of the reference I added to the Homeopathy article. I am sorry that you are ‘not happy’ with using this source. I may have misled you by adding the reference to the study by Brien et al. in arguably the wrong place: it doesn’t really fit (as you rightly point out) in the ‘Psychological healing’ section with its several qualifications. I have therefore just added a further subsection ‘The therapeutic effect of the consultation’ to the WP Homeopathy list of possible 'Explanations of effect'. The details of the Brien study are added there, and those of an editorial comment by Professor(now emeritus) Edzard Ernst.

Your remaining points are not relevant. As an editor of a WP article I am under no obligation to analyse a study I wish to add, provided it is pertinent and from a reliable source. ‘Rheumatology’ is one of the core clinical journals in PubMed, all its research content is severely peer-reviewed, and the study protocol has of course passed the invigilation of several ethics committees.

If the paper fails to discuss aspects you feel it should have mentioned you have to take that up with the editor of Rheumatology or the authors of the article. As any good research paper it discusses its limitations which, the authors claim, do not invalidate their main findings. I do not have to re-analyse the statistical power of any of these findings – all the details are in the paper. The study is exceptionally well conducted and documented.

Nowhere in the study is it claimed that the authors have found 'definitive conclusions'. This is a small study which I can add to the article now – I don’t have to wait for a larger study to confirm (or otherwise) their carefully phrased and important findings. I think an extract from Edzard Ernst’s editorial (mentioned above) may clarify the position and my rationale for adding this study:

[…] I therefore suggest that we avoid unnecessary complications and take the results of Brien et al. […] at face value. Homeopathic remedies are ineffective and empathetic therapeutic encounters are helpful. So, we should discard the ineffective and adopt the helpful. If we do this, we must tell our patients that homeopathic remedies are both implausible and ineffective. Thus, they cannot be recommended. Of course, we should be equally clear that therapeutic relationships affect clinical outcomes.[…] The recognition of the therapeutic value of an empathetic consultation is by no means a new insight […], yet it is knowledge that is in danger of being forgotten. […] Clearly, this is wrong and may well be one reason why patients consult alternative medicine practitioners. […]

If I had a say in this matter I would strike out the whole of the confused and confusing Homeopathy article from WP and put Prof Ernst’s editorial in its place. That’ll be the day (also for WP)! Reinhard Wentz (sleuth21) Sleuth21 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually Sleuth21, you need to review WP:MEDRS. We do have an obligation to determine the quality of a citation, and that it is a primary study that hasn't been reviewed makes it weak at best, and useless. Moreover, to synthesize your own conclusion from an unrelated source is disingenuous. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent Revert

I recently reverted an edit adding content to "Explanation of effects". Per that editor's suggestion, I'd like to bring the issue here for discussion. As far as I can tell, that section is devoted to explaining the effects of homeopathy according to the scientific literature. However, this new edit appears to introduce content discussing how CAM is used in oncology. This doesn't appear to be relevant to the section, or the particular bullet point to which it's being added. I don't necessarily see a problem with adding the content elsewhere, if it's appropriate, but it seems out of place in this particular section at least. Can another editor look the content over and weigh in? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥

Thanks. I will now wait and see what other editors say and then come back.Sleuth21 (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't even see the word "homeopathy" mentioned in the abstract. So, unless there is something in the full article that specifically addresses homeopathy, it absolutely does not belong on this page. (If the article does mention homeopathy, I would need to review in closer detail to decide whether I personally believe it should be included.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This citation seems to fail WP:MEDRS on its most basic level. It does not appear to mention homeopathy, so it's a form of synthesis to relate what the authors conclude (which I find fairly silly, and would argue that the article fails MEDRS anyways) to homeopathy. I think we need to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, let’s move on. But before we do: just a small note. The section ‘Explanation of effects’ in the Homeopathy article is (as of this moment) supported by 18 references, only four of which (all put there by me) mention homeopathy in the title or the body of the article. None of the others do. Should we not delete them too? If not, why not? I know the answer, and wouldn’t want to delete them, but do you, Orangemarlin? Should we not reinstate my last edit; its reference mentions homeopathy in the body of the paper. BTW: the first reference in that section is dead, the penultimate is a lazy one: it doesn't point directly at the relevant definiton of 'meta-analysis' from the glossary of the Cochrane Collaboration, as I should know... Now let's move on! Sleuth21 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, I just noticed that Orangemarlin told another WP editor to 'stay the [expletive deleted] off his page'. Time not just to move on but to stayoff this WP article altogether.Sleuth21 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sleuth21...I do not say that to everyone. My basic rule is that article discussions stay on the article talk page. My talk page is to be used for discussing baseball. Bitching about the overall uselessness of admins (unless I like them) and Arbcom (unless it's a member I like). You have done nothing to annoy me, and I would hope that you have thick skin nevertheless. I doubt you would receive a "stay the fuck off my page" commentary. Anyways, now that you brought it up, I guess we better review your 18 citations. Really, we shouldn't extrapolate a conclusion when the cites don't support it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sleuth, the answer is simple: the section is sourced with Jay W. Shelton - Homeopathy: How It Really Works, and this is the source connects the “science part” with the “homeopathy part”. It is of course not a copy&paste of Sheltons list, as that would be a copyright violation. The additional sources (used to explain p-value and publication bias) aren't used to make statements about homeopathy, but about medical trials in general, and while I (still) think that those explanations aren't easily understandable to the 'average reader', the sources themselves are fine. Our sourcing rules are pretty simple: Use WP:MEDRS for medical claims and WP:RS for everything else (unless it is so trivial that it is uncontroversial, in which case there's no need to cite a source), and don't combine sources to reach a conclusion unless there's already a source that has made that connection for you (you'd obviously cite this one source then instead of the two unconnected ones). While reporting bias and p-value aren't part of Shelton's bulleted list (IIRC - don't have access to a copy right now), he discusses them in the book, so including them isn't WP:SYNTH, they can be sourced with Sheldon as well; we could definitely lose some of the sources explaining p-value and publishing bias though as we don't need five to six sources for single sentences.
The last point (“meta-analysis”) doesn't really belong in that list as it's not an explanation of what may lead you to think something inert is effective. --Six words (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

Hi, I think one of the aims of the lead section should be to give people a quick explanation of the key things they want/need to know, even if they decide to read no further. I find "...that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient" in the very first sentence confusing. Why would this be a desirable property? What relevance does it have to treating patients? Is it somehow connected to "law of similars" and "let like be cured by like"? Next, the sentence starting "In the context of homeopathy, the term remedy is used to refer to ..." tells me "not to be confused", but leaves me more confused than if the whole sentence had been omitted. In these and various other ways, I think the lead section is rather poor. I am not asking to be directed to some part of the article that explains something in more detail, and I am not seeking explanations here on the talk page. I am suggesting that the lead section could and should be improved. 86.148.155.39 (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a plain (or as plain as we have managed without becoming inaccurate) language description of what homoeopathy is. It actually does claim to treat disease using preparations that are claimed, in a healthy subject, to cause similar symptoms to those exhibited by the patient. Whether this is "a desirable property" or relevant to treating patients is beside the point - it's just what homoeopathy is. For more discussion of this, see the section of the article relating to remedies, in particular the subsection about "provings", and see the talk archives - the lead of this article is the result of consensus arrived at after many extensive discussions. Personally, I'm not convinced that the "In the context of homeopathy, the term remedy is used to refer to ..." section is needed in the lead as long as it is made clear in the body of the article, but consensus was against me on this.

If you don't want "to be directed to some part of the article that explains something in more detail" (the lead is supposed to summarise the parts of the article that explain things in more detail), and don't want explanations of why it is the way it is, do you have a better suggestion for the wording you are objecting to? At the moment you haven't provided anything for discussion. Brunton (talk) 11:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. A start would be:

(1) Clarify the following paragraph, and/or move it somewhere less prominent, or just delete it, depending on what it is supposed to mean:

"In the context of homeopathy, the term remedy is used to refer to a substance which has been prepared with a particular procedure and intended for patient use; it is not to be confused with the generally accepted use of the word, which means "a medicine or therapy that cures disease or relieves pain"."

This confuses the heck out of me. It is making a distinction between "cure disease or relieve pain" and what homeopathy claims to do? Or is it saying that the claims are false and the "remedies" do not actually work? At first I thought it meant the former, but now I'm thinking it may be the latter, in which case it should be just deleted as (at this stage) unnecessary repetition couched in confusing wording. If it's important to introduce the technical term "remedy", then it can go here, in the first paragraph:

...claim to treat patients using highly diluted[2][3] preparations, called remedies, ...

(2) Add "The basic principle of homeopathy, an unproven assertion known as the "law of similars", is "let like be cured by like."

and delete oddly worded and over-laboured explanation:

"His "law of similars" is taken on his word[8] as an unproven assertion, and is not a true law of nature based on the scientific method."

(3) The "basic principle" is stated to be "let like be cured by like". However, even before this is the "believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient" stuff. Is this an even more basic principle? How do the two things relate? I have no expertise in this area and cannot offer a proposed wording. All I can do is tell you that it is not currently clear. 86.179.7.53 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) I agree. I personally would have no objection to this sentence being removed from the lead, partly for reasons of brevity.

(2) The expression originally used was "ipse dixit axiom" (with the links) but this was deemed not to be plain enough language and replaced with "taken on his word as an unproven assertion..." I think your suggestion is an improvement on the current wording.

(3) "treat[ing] patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient" is a basic and (reasonably) plain English description of what homoeopathy is (as is appropriate for the first sentence of the lead), incorporating both the "law of similars" and the dilutions. The "law of similars", which is the basic principle underlying this, is then introduced in the third paragraph - what application of this "law" involves is treating patients using preparations alleged to cause the symptoms they are suffering from if given to healthy subjects.

The second paragraph could probably be dropped from the lead and just left in the "Remedies" section of the article, and the start of the third paragraph could probably do with tidying up. The opening paragraph should be left pretty much as it is unless we can come up with a more concise expression of the same thing. Brunton (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The above seems to incorporate some misunderstandings.

(1) Clarified the misleading term "remedy" to make it clear that the voice of the encyclopedia is not asserting that water is really a remedy for anything but thirst, irrespective of what homeopaths may say.

(2) Avoiding the latinism is an improvement, but the repetition is somewhat inelegant. Perhaps "The "law of similars" is evidenced only by his unsupported word[8]. It is not a law of nature evidenced by application of the scientific method."

(3) Misconstrues the "proving". The healthy subjects are given substantial doses, not homeopathic ones, to establish what they are "like". LeadSongDog come howl! 04:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) I agree that this needs to be somewhere in the article, but it's too detailed for an already long lead, which already states in the opening paragraph that homoeopathy doesn't work.

(2) I think describing it as an unsupported assertion is sufficient for the lead. We should be aiming for as much brevity as possible in the lead.

(3) No, "provings" pretty much invariably seem to involve giving the subjects the diluted remedies, as prescribed back in the 19th century by Hahnemann (see the Organon, 5th or 6th ed, aphorism 128), not substantial doses. See the reference given in the section of the article about provings, or any of the reports of "provings" that homoeopaths have posted on the internet. The "law of similars", Hahnemann's original idea, says nothing about the dilution somehow reversing the effect; it simply states that disease can be treated by a remedy that would produce similar symptoms in a healthy subject. Hahnemann initially used substantial doses both for provings and for treating patients. The dilutions were a later idea of Hahnemann's which he believed would both intensify the curative effects and reduce unwanted effects (as with most things that appear too good to be true, this is too good to be true), and after deciding that patients ought to be treated with diluted remedies he also moved to "proving" the same diluted remedies. Brunton (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Skeptoid Reference

I see that a Skeptoid episode was referenced, removed, referenced again, and then removed again. Why was it removed? Seems relative and notable. JoelWhy (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It was added to (and removed from) a lot of articles. There's a broader discussion here. bobrayner (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks. I'll post there.JoelWhy (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Request to change wording about "placebo"

Hi everyone, I'm sort of new to Wikipedia so please excuse if I'm breaching protocol here. My request is if we could please change the setence in the first paragraph that reads "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo." Please could we change it to say that "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be as ineffective at treating ailments as a placebo." To say that it is "no more effective" could lead the reader to incorrectly conclude that a placebo may have some effectiveness, and therefore so might homeopathy. By saying "as ineffective as", we remove any such potential ambiguity. Thank you. 78.105.47.23 (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC) McPhee

If you read the article Placebo, and the references at the end of the statement in the article, you should see why the present wording in this article agrees with the references. Ward20 (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that technically, the wording "as ineffective as" is essentially the same as "is no more effective than" - and that using the former leaves a stronger impression as to the ineffectiveness of homeopathic treatments. But I don't think we should make it sound like homeopathic treatments have no effect whatever on the human body (ie less than placebo). The trouble is that placebo is effective to some small degree in some areas of medicine. "no more effective than" is a good description of what homeopathy does. To someone who believes in all that nonsense, there is a small statistical benefit to taking homeopathic medicines over taking no treatment at all. So, while I'm fully in agreement that homeopathy is ridiculous junk pseudoscience, we shouldn't be saying that it doesn't do anything. It does exactly what you'd expect a small dose of pure water to do if you can make it seem to the person taking it that it's going to fix what ails them...and that's not "ineffective". So I'm not really inclined to the proposed change.

As an aside, here at Wikipedia, we don't generally need to ask permission to make an edit. One of our founding guidelines is "be bold". If you think a change is good - then just go and make the change yourself. If it's non-controversial - then it will likely 'stick' and become a long-term part of the article. If one or more people dispute it - then it'll likely get reverted pretty quickly - and then we should discuss the change here on the talk page. But in general, it saves time if you just make your change directly rather than asking first. SteveBaker (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Way up above in an older thread, LeadSongDog suggests: "indistinguishable from placebo effect". Perhaps that is better wording than either "as ineffective as" or "is no more effective than"? I'd support that change. SteveBaker (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like reasonable phrasing. We shouldn't forget that the apparent efficacy of placebos is a rather slippery thing that can be modulated in a host of ways, and the mysticism around the homeopathic belief system has evolved to maximize the placebo effect. (Everyone's seen this study from 2008, which found that more expensive placebos were more effective for controlling pain than discount placebos, right?) In the words of Philip K. Dick, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"indistinguishable from placebo effect" is perfect, IMO. Anyone against this proposed change?JoelWhy (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Here are two possible phrasings:

• "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be indistinguishable from a placebo."

• "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found the effect of homeopathy to be indistinguishable from a placebo effect."

Brangifer (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the second of the two, as we are describing the effect, not the substance.JoelWhy (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No, because a placebo control controls for far more than just the placebo effect. It also controls for things like spontaneous remission, the natural history of the disease, and regression to the mean, which are not part of the placebo effect. The term "placebo effect" does not belong in that sentence. Brunton (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking those aren't part of the placebo effect, but in practice they are usually included, so I agree. The first wording avoids that can of worms and is still accurate. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, come to think of it, just saying "homeopathy" can be understood to mean the whole encounter, and we know that the attention of a caring person, especially charming quacks, can influence the placebo effect. Therefore I suggest a slight alteration of the first of my two sentences:

• "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found that the effect of homeopathic preparations is indistinguishable from the effect of placebos."

Even better is this one using a reference we already use:

• "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found that the effect of homeopathic preparations is indistinguishable from "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."

Brangifer (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a helpful change, since a placebo conversation with a helpful person will still deliver the same result. If we take a narrow view and look at a placebo as a simple pill, then its effects are the same as a homeopathic pill. If we take a broad view and look at the whole experience, then the effects of the placebo experience (including a discussion with somebody who puts on a white coat and uses nonsense medical terms that are plausible-sounding to the subject) will still be the same as the homeopathic experience. So, I think we're better off sticking with the existing summary, although maybe we could go into more detail further down in the article. bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Some studies took into account the whole homeopathic package (individualized attention, custom-made preparations, etc.). In Homeopathy#Meta-analyses, near the end, in source Shelton 2004 (which happens to be broken) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To the first suggestion: it isn't the "effect of placebos" that it is indistinguishable from, it is the placebo effect plus all the other things a placebo is used to control for. I'm afraid the second one is just a horrible sentence. I would also question including "...the effect of homeopathic preparations...". "No more effective than placebo" means that the preparations have no specific effects.

As far as I'm concerned either "...has found that homeopathic preparations are no more effective than a placebo" or "...has found that homeopathic preparations are indistinguishable from a placebo" would be OK, with the former preferred. Brunton (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

===Why is the word placebo even mentioned in the introduction? The German wiki pages don't mention it. In fact their wiki page has more correct information. When anyone goes to any doctor, placebo is part of the treatment, the doc believes all the other doctors beliefs. All humans have beliefs. Most of the people who have written this article have beliefs that homeopathy is placebo. That is their belief. I thought we were supposed to stick to the facts. Homeopathy is a form of medicine. Full Stop. Whether you like it or not. Doctors, vets, psychiatrists, and 'people' use it, practice it, write about it, have it in their homes, build hospitals for it, treat patients with it, write books about it, make remedies for it. The word placebo doesn't make this article 'Neutral' Objectivity_(journalism) at all. It makes it biased. Go to the German wiki page and have a read and you'll see what I mean....unless of course you're not multi-lingual.... Veryscarymary (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Why is the word placebo even mentioned in the introduction?" Because it is a term used by the sources used in the article, as something that homoeopathy has been compared with.

"The German wiki pages don't mention it." From the lead of the German Wikipedia article: "Klinische Studien nach wissenschaftlichen Standards konnten keine über den Placebo-Effekt hinausgehende Wirksamkeit homöopathischer Arzneimittel nachweisen." Brunton (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the de.wiki article is quite similar to the en.wiki one, even though ‘the en.wiki article is much more neutral’ is a somewhat frequent argument over at the de.wiki talk page. --Six words (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Hahnemann a nutter?

A recent addition to the lead "...who said that the idea of homeopathy arose from a series of illuminations he had received during spiritualist séances " is anachronistic and should be deleted. A catholic blog specialising in debunking magic, idolatry, and other spiritual threats to catholic souls is not acceptable as WP:RS. Homeopathy has no basis in modern science, but to denounce Hahnemann in terms which make him (to 21st century readers) look a nutter and weirdo is not acceptable. Many leading thinkers of the 18th and early 19th century in Europe were ‘spiritualists’ in one sense or another and therefore, incidentally, posed a threat to the catholic church). I intend to delete the text and reference from the lead. Sleuth21 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I do have a problem with the source, but if there was a good source for the information, I'm not sure I agree that the information shouldn't be added. If the point is that the entire genesis of homeopathy was based upon a guy who learned of this "magic" through ghosts (or whatever), and the current practices are based upon this guy's teachings, I would say it's definitely relevant. Or, am I missing something here?JoelWhy (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed. Hahnemann was, in no sense whatever, merely a guy who learned of this "magic" through ghosts (or whatever). Homeopathy is profoundly unscientific to modern eyes, but Hahenmann was not some guy (in the derogative sense you use that term). Neither were Newton, Leipniz, Goethe, Voltaire, or Lessing. They all believed, partly, in what we would see today as unscientific notions. You aren't quite so ignorant as you seem to pretend, JoelWhy. Reinhard Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is very poor, and the alternative sources that I have found were generally of a similarly poor quality. There were some that looked slightly better but made a slightly different claim: That Hahnemann was influenced by Mesmer and Mesmerism. But even for that I found denial by homeopaths. What we need here is a scholarly source, not random sources that may be copying a misconception. Popular sources tend to copy from each other, and when they like something, they tend to add a little bit in their own version. Over several iterations a vague comparison or a clearly speculative comment can turn into certain knowledge.

Occultism and spiritism weren't so unusual at the time, or Mesmer would hardly have had the huge success that he did have. Hahnemann lived much closer to Newton than to us, and our article on Isaac Newton's occult studies gives some perspective. The real problem is not that Hahnemann was interested (if he was interested) in such things at a time when much of the world was still unexplained. The real problem is that homeopathy follows the logic of a religion rather than that of a science. Hans Adler 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are bad, then I agree, there's no place for it. If, however, there's good evidence that he "...said that the idea of homeopathy arose from a series of illuminations he had received during spiritualist séances," the fact that those were different times is irrelevant; it should be included (perhaps with a mention that such beliefs were the norm at the time, etc.) It doesn't necessarily belong in the lead, but it would deserve mention.

Suppose we learned that Darwin's idea regarding evolution stemmed from his claim that he was visited by the ghosts of a dinosaur. It doesn't invalidate his theory; but, it's certainly something we would include in his Wiki page -- not to cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution, but because it would be relevant to the article.

Of course, the situation here is a bit different. The origins or homeopathy (if this is accurate) do at least raise an eyebrow or two. But, in addition to being of relevant historical fact, it highlights the fact that, unlike science, which changes based upon new discoveries, here is a practice/belief that has remained relatively stagnant since its inception, irregardless of the evidence (or lack thereof.)

That being said, the discussion is moot unless there's a good source.JoelWhy (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The suppositions of some people or the positions of their eyebrows are irrelevant to the argument. You raised a moot point, I merely questioned the reliability of the reference and the relevance of the wording in the lead, JoelWhy. I will delete the text and the reference. Sleuth21 (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If (and only if) it can be adequately sourced it probably belongs in the body of the article (under "Hahnemann's concept" in the "History" section), but it doesn't belong in the lead (cf. the Ouroboros reverie being mentioned in the articles for Kekulé and benzene). Brunton (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy as Religion?

WP:NOTFORUM Bulwersator (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler rightly points out towards the end of the previous thread: The real problem is that homeopathy follows the logic of a religion rather than that of a science. That is true, but also applies to Ayurvedic or Traditional Chinese Medicine. Both get fair and dispassionate entries in their respective Wikipedia articles, especially in the lead sections. Homeopathy does not. It is instead vilified relentlessly in an act of self-loathing by a group of Wikipedia editors praying at the temple of the ‘Homeopathy is evil’ church. This well established sect with its high-priests, willing followers and other religious accoutrements cannot accept that there is possibly anything good about the ideas or the history of Homeopathy. They extend the vilification of course to Hahnemann and to any poor editor who dares to suggest that there doesn’t have to be a conflict between science (The effects of homeopathic ‘remedies’ are not distinguishable from placebo) and the idea that homeopathy is an important part of our cultural heritage, just as Ayurveda or TCM. As the man said in the BMJ in 2001: [2] 'Regular medicine is anchored in science and factuality, alternative healing methods are part of cultural constructs and (often) religious belief systems and provide meaning and morality, but cannot be pitched against regular, scientific medicine. It could be argued that homeopathy, ayurveda, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing systems have a higher degree of truth, that they may offer more sustainable remedies for wounds of the heart or of the soul (provided the patients and the healer share the same value system) but their tenets are not generalisable and are not anchored in science. The two areas of experience do not overlap in the external world (see e.g. Gould 2001+), but are integrated only in the heart and mind of the individual doctor and her patient. The growth of alternative 'medicine' in developed countries can be partly explained by the fact that any sufferer choosing alternative therapies knows that the proven remedies of regular medicine remain available to them if something 'goes wrong' or 'does not work'. This is particularly true in the UK, where access to regular medicine is free. As a mere thought, not a practical suggestion: should users of alternative healing methods in this country be told that by so choosing they exclude themselves from access to regular medicine?' Should the above mentioned Wikipedia sect perhaps get a mention in an updated version of E Ernst's article The public's enthusiasm for complementary and alternative medicine amounts to a critique of mainstream medicine’’? PMID 20846193 +Gould, S. J.: Rocks of ages. Science and religion in the fulness of life. London: 2001. passim Sleuth21 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Homeopathy gets fair treatment according to Wikipedia policy, reliably sourced information and the facts. The passage you quote from "the man" (actually a personal comment from the BMJ's "rapid responses"), which described homoeopathy as "not anchored in science", does nothing to establish any "unfairness" in this article. What should, or should not, get a mention in Edzard Ernst's articles is a matter for him, not for this talk page. Do you have any actual suggestions for improving the article? It is a little hard to see how characterising the rest of the editors here as "self loathing" or "a group of Wikipedia editors praying at the temple of the ‘Homeopathy is evil’ church" is going to accomplish this. Brunton (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC) It is precisely because both articles are fair and accurate that they differ so markedly. The Ayurveda article spends considerable numbers of words on the discussion of available studies on this form of medicine (with references) - however, there just aren't that many high quality studies done on the subject (which is amazing when you consider the vast number of people who use this as their sole form of healthcare). Homeopathy has been much better studied. What is clear is that at least some of the Ayurveda treatments do actually work better than placebo. Many other treatments that it recommends are either ineffective or downright toxic - and our article explains that quite clearly. Moreover, it's not obviously true (in light of modern science) that traditional medicines are ineffective - they use many chemically complex ingredients - some of which are known to have highly active chemical effects in the human body. It's very possible that at least some of their treatments do actually work. Example: I recall as a kid in England being told by parents, friends, etc that if you got stung by brushing up against a stinging nettle that rubbing the leaf of a Rumex obtusifolius (a "Dock leaf") onto the skin would cure it. It turns out that this common folk treatment actually works very well - and modern science has discovered that this is because those leaves contain an astringent and that their texture is uniquely suited to pulling the tiny stinging hairs (trichomes) out of the skin. Dock leaves are a better cure (with no side-effects) compared to antihistamines or hydrocortisone creams that are the best that modern medicine can provide in this case. By happy coincidence, the Dock and the Stinging nettle are often found growing in the same habitat. Immediate treatment is required to alleviate the pain of the sting - so grabbing a handy Dock leaf is the by far the best treatment. So some traditional medicines work - and work very well. Not all...perhaps not many...but at least some of them do. With homeopathy, we know that there is no active ingredient whatever in the treatment - and (unsurprisingly) no properly conducted studies have ever shown a solid benefit to them (beyond that of placebo). Conclusion: Science says: Homeopathy is a hokey idea that can't work in theory and (unsurprisingly) has been proven not to work in practice. Ayurveda is a bunch of different ideas - some hokey, some not so stupid - but many of it's ideas (eg traditional herbal treatments) can certainly work in theory and sometimes do work in practice. That's what these two articles say. I see no problem with that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC) This is in not completely true. I think you are exaggerating here. Please read : "There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea". It is a good source of information. --OBenfey (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC) "May be effective"? Hardly an unequivocal positive. And it's always worth reading the article as well as the abstract, if you have it. The article's conclusions section, for example, does not seem as positive as the passage you quote from the abstract ("some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine. More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system"), and while the abstract says that there is evidence from RCTs that homeopathy "may be effective" for postoperative ileus, the article itself says "In several other conditions, most notably postoperative ileus (44), asthma (45), and arthritis (46), the evidence from controlled trials is inconclusive". As for the comment about allergies, note that the article cites a comparatively small positive study of homeopathy for allergic rhinitis, but then says that a "larger study using a similar protocol did not reproduce this clinical effect", and note this comment about the statistics in the positive study. They also cite a 1996 meta-analysis of a homeopathic remedy for allergic rhinitis. I can't find the exact paper on pubmed (I can only find hits for the journal it is in from 1998 onwards), but there's one with the same authors and title from another journal in 1997 (article is in German, perhaps a republication of the same analysis?), which while it appears positive, the abstract of which concludes with the caveat "As not all of the single studies were analyzed by intention to treat analysis the results may be biased." Brunton (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, exactly. There are simply no trials that stand as clear proof of homeopathy working better than placebo. The few that have come out with mildly positive results have been disproved with subsequent larger trials or by correct re-analysis of the evidence collected. That being the case, by all modern medical standards, homeopathy doesn't work. Since our standards here at Wikipedia lay out how we must represent scientific research in the case of medical claims - our article is saying precisely the right thing. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC) SteveBaker, until you appreciate that Medicine, to use the oldest cliché in the book, is an art based on science (or a science based on art) and not just cold, rational science (we all know were that can lead to), you will not understand the point of this thread. That homeopathic remedies don’t / can’t / will never work is beyond doubt. I am merely trying to identify studies which demonstrate that (in this context: homeopathic) consultation may have specific beneficial effects. Your frequent suggestions that this is ‘a clever ruse […] to duck out of Wikipedia's standards’, and equally frequent attempts to lump me together with ‘Homoeopathists (and homeopathy apologists) [who] are desperate to have any shred of evidence that what they are doing is good/valuable/effective’ is wrong and insulting. Not that you care. I would be astonished if you did. When I mention, in a different context, 'common sense' in its generic, pragmatic sense which stood science in good stead ever since Occam' sharpened his razor, you construe this to mean ‘your [i.e. my] own "common sense"’. These and similar ruses used with casual, malevolent intent by you throughout this thread are indicative of your desperation to prevent any sober discussion of the attraction of homeopathy. I hope that you keep counting the multitudes of hapless patients traipsing off to a homeopathic quack, wrongly assuming that they can’t get a sympathetic hearing from their 'regular' medical advisor. I note your fascinating anecdote of ayurvedic healing, which reminds me of anecdotal evidence that homeopathy, of course, works: ‘I don’t care about the cold statistical evidence, I know from what my patients tell me that it works’. Extremes touch, the snake bites its tail, Ouroboros! Enjoy the company of your fellow supporters of the ‘Homeopathy is Evil’ cult; you have a lot in common with the homoeopathists who believe in the memory of water, ‘quantum’ entanglement, or other scientific nonsense. Do shake hands. Wikipedia does not exist in isolation; it has an obligation (I thought) to provide encyclopaedic, current, and valid content. The suggestion that regular medical encounters often lack compassion is important; so are findings from studies which identify elements in homeopathic encounters which provide that solace. These are important findings supported by a growing number of robust primary, secondary, and tertiary studies. That all medical consultations have beneficial effects merely as part of the consultation may be a truism; the point is to discover more about which specific elements account for those effects. Sleuth21 (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Do you have any actual suggestions for improving the article? That is the sole purpose of this talk page. See WP:TALK, WP:SOAP and WP:POINT. Thank you for reiterating the question about improvements to the article. A draft outline of the lead for the Homeopathy article will appear soon in my Talk sandbox. I will outline the rationale for some aspects of the redesign here or on my Talk page. Sleuth21 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC) I reiterated it because you had failed to address it, or to take any account of it, with your subsequent post. Brunton (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC) It is hard to see how characterising editors here as "supporters of the ‘Homeopathy is Evil’ cult" is going to accomplish anything. Brunton (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Hard, but surely not impossible? I merely don't want to argue all the time that I am not homoeopathist, an apologist of homeopathy, or live in a state of complete ignorance of WP rules and guidelines. Or perhaps I just haven’t got the thick skin of regular WP editor? Is this note also in violation of WP:TALK, WP:SOAP and WP:POINT? Sleuth21 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Pretty much impossible, I suppose; I was using a figure of speech. You don't need to argue about whether or not you are a homoeopath, or whatever. What is appropriate on this talk page is discussion of how the article can be improved. You certainly don't need to ascribe viewpoints to other editors. Brunton (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Brunton, in answer to your question, no, Sleuth clearly has no suggestions for actually improving the article. Rather, he wants to decry his persecution, and the persecution of homeopathy, at the hands of us evil editors. Well, it's noted Sleuth. Now, can we move on with actually working on the article?JoelWhy (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sole effect

Besides being poorly sourced (it's still a single, underpowered, unreplicated trial), this could be said for any consultation - it's not the consultation that heals a severe bacterial infection, it's the antibiotics the physician prescribes (though the way the consultation goes can help the patient feel better). The source discusses a specific ailment (rheumathoid arthritis) so the most we could do is use it to say 'it has been suggested that this is the sole effect of the homeopathic treatment of RA', but we can't even do that since the authors tell us “A further study, powered to identify consultation effects, is needed to confirm the benefit of homeopathic consultations in this population.” --Six words (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The consultation is what provides the placebo effect - placebos work if the practitioner promotes them as a cure. Any convincingly optimistic consultation might well do more than just make the patient feel better - it can have a material effect on the process of the condition. There is no proof that a homeopathic consultation is any more effective than a consultation that ultimately results in a placebo being given. 15:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy as a religion ?

I don't think that Homeopathy is a unified medical or philosophical movement or religion. The composition of its practitioners varies : from Mds to nurses and more. It is completely inaccurate to try to categorize such a diverse body of practitioners as a religion. --OBenfey (talk) 04:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that its adherents are members of different professions doesn't disqualify it from being a religion - I'm sure that there are both MDs and nurses (and, as with practitioners of homoeopathy, people without medical qualifications) who are Christians, for example. Brunton (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that practitioners being of different professions doesn't disqualify homeopathy as a religion. But almost everything it says in the lede of our Religion article does disqualify it. The first sentence, for example: "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values." Homeopathy isn't a "world view" or a "cultural system" - it is essentially the claim of a two scientific "facts" - that dilutions of materials make them more "powerful" and that something that would normally cause some kind of medical effect can cure those same symptoms at very low concentrations. That's hardly a "worldview" - it says nothing about the origin of the universe or of life - it doesn't discuss morality or whether there is an after-life. It's a one-off, one-shot theory about medicine. It doesn't even demand faith - the claims it makes for cures are supposedly backed up by experiments. Worse still, if it were a religion, why would people who profess to belong to other religions also be a part of this one? One overriding feature of religion is that it is an exclusive matter. One cannot simultaneously be a Catholic and a practicing Islamist. How could one also be a Catholic and a Homeopathist if the latter were a complete religion with a complete worldview.

What homeopathy is can be best described by the term "pseudo-science" - a claim or theory that's couched in scientific terms yet which doesn't follow the scientific method of hypothesis/experiment/publication...and that's what our article says.

I am concerned that the effort to claim "religious status" for homeopathy here at Wikipedia is a clever ruse to enable the adherents of this bizarre pseudoscience to duck out of Wikipedia's standards for WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Articles on religion are frequently given a free ride through the bastions of logic and reason - which would suit homeopathists goals just wonderfully. At any rate, this claim does not seem to be backed by reliable sources - and until/unless it is, it may safely be ignored. SteveBaker (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

When a section on the religious nature of homoeopathy was proposed about three years back it was strongly opposed (not least by some of the proponents of homoeopathy) and led to the editor proposing it being given a seven day topic ban.

Homoeopathy is held out as a system of medicine, and it should be assessed on that basis.

That is not necessarily to say that there shouldn't be some mention of the religious aspects of homoeopathy, of course. A couple of articles about links between homoeopathy and religion can be found here and here. Brunton (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are numerous sources which describe the influence of the philosophical/mystical/religious ideas of Emanuel Swedenborg upon the development of homeopathy. Our article seems to say nothing at all of this. Warden (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to improve the article : be more neutral

I think the most important issue here is neutrality : the prevailing view in the article is what stevebaker writes above : Science says: Homeopathy is a hokey idea that can't work in theory and (unsurprisingly) has been proven not to work in practice. I just presented another scientific view which differs according to the authors. Annals of Internal Medicine [http://www.annals.org/content/138/5/393.full Do Ultra-High Dilutions Produce Effects in the Laboratory?

Clinical trials are less sensitive for determining whether ultra-high dilutions have specific effects than laboratory research, where more rigorously controlled conditions are possible. The publication of laboratory investigations of ultra-high dilutions has produced considerable controversy and mixed results on attempted replication (52-54). Still, unusual effects of ultra-high dilutions in rigorous laboratory studies continue to be reported (55-59). Multiple independent replications of this research have not yet been done because there are few investigators in the field (60). Future research should focus on simple clinical or laboratory models that can be easily attempted by multiple investigators. In addition, better data are needed to examine the use and effects of homeopathy by the public and in actual practice (5, 29, 61). Conclusions Homeopathy is an alternative therapeutic system based on the “Principle of Similars” and the use of “minimum” doses. Homeopathy was a prominent component of 19th-century health care and recently has undergone a revival in the United States and around the world. Despite skepticism about the plausibility of homeopathy, some randomized, placebo-controlled trials and laboratory research report unexpected effects of homeopathic medicines. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for specific clinical conditions is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine (61). More and better research is needed, unobstructed by belief or disbelief in the system (62). Until homeopathy is better understood, it is important that physicians be open-minded about homeopathy's possible value and maintain communication with patients who use it. As in all of medicine, physicians must know how to prevent patients from abandoning effective therapy for serious diseases and when to permit safe therapies even if only for their nonspecific value.]

Obviously, these authors hold different views from SteveBaker and from the current article on Homeopathy. Trying to incorporate them into the article would be a good step towards neutrality. --OBenfey (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see OBenfey’s point but inclusion of this study would not be a good step towards neutrality of the Homeopathy article as there is no possibility of homeopathic remedies ever demonstrating as having any value. Q9 in the FAQ section of this WP article is quite clear about this:

Should the article mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism?’ and correctly answers No

However (and this neatly summarises the dilemma of discussing the effects of homeopathic interventions) in the last two sentences of the paper (they are not conclusions but a sudden, spontaneous statement, reflecting the compassionate nature of medicine as a combination of science and art) the authors say:

As in all of [the authors misguidedly use the expression ‘allopathic’] medicine, physicians must know how to prevent patients from abandoning effective therapy for serious diseases and when to permit safe therapies even if only for their nonspecific value.

These sentences imply that modern, humane, regular, ‘allopathic’ doctors must not abandon patients even if they, the patients, believe in nonsense.

On re-reading thes comments I don't feel too happy when referring to ‘Q9 in the FAQ section’. It looks as if I am quoting an article of faith. I’d much rather refer to the scientific consensus .... Reinhard Wentz Sleuth21 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the Neutral Point of View editors should include all notable views appearing in good reliable sources. The questions -you are referring to- are written by the editors of this page and they are not in line with the Neutral Point of View mode of editing. We should not care about personal opinions but on information found in reliable sources. I m really surprised that someone argues against inclusion of different point of views on a really controversial issue which are appearing in such good sources. Are you sure you are familiar with wikipedia's Neutral Point of View ? --OBenfey (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The very long discussions in the gestation of this article means that anyone who has looked/contributed to this article is fully conversant with NPV.

You hit the nail on the head when you quoted that all notable views should be included. That a homeopath writes an article in support of homeopathy is not notable. Also, there is little controversy. From hundreds of published clinical trials, very few appear in scientific publications, most are found in alt-med/homeopath journals. After over 200 years homeopathy cannot show a predominance of positive clinical trials and no in-vitro experiments have been able to reproducibly detect any activity in preparations which have been as highly diluted as those recommended by homeopaths. In the article you cite, one of the authors is not only not a scientist but known to be anti-science and another has retracted much of his support for homeopathy. IMHO this article fails NPV recommendations. Acleron (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Annals of Internal Medicine. The article certanly qualifies if we use wikipedia's criteria: It is a peer reviewed article published in a high impact journal (not in a homeopaths journal ) and there are other studies from the same authors which are cited in the current article in wikipedia . From what I read, the article is written in 2003. Who retracted what? Please do not tell me about your personal views on Homeopathy and do read more carefully. --OBenfey (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should tread slightly more carefully here. This area has indeed been gone over many, many times before in the genesis of this WP:article. One of the authors (Kaptchuk) of the study OBenfey mentions was a colleague of Edzard Ernst at the University of the Peninsula, Exeter (not so called then). He published two papers with Ernst during his time at Exeter, one of which is cited in the WP:article (currently ref. 213) . Ernst authored a paper in the British Homeopathic Journal (Vol. 87, 1998, pp 28-32, available online since 2006) which quotes that Ernst & Kapchuck paper, agreeing with it. I quote the abstract:

Criticism of homoeopathy started in Germany as soon as this new form of medicine became widely known-and has not stopped since. Early criticism came from non-homoeopaths and centred around the theme that homoeopathy's basic assumptions were not supported by demonstrable facts. Simultaneously, criticism from within homoeopathy attacked some of the rigid, dogmatic rules set out by Hahnemann. Today's opponents of homoeopathy argue predominantly that the efficacy of homoeopathic remedies beyond that of placebo has not been established. Polemic and emotive as this historical debate has been, much of it makes sense to the outside observer. Homoeopaths, it seems, would be well advised to take the reasoned elements of this criticism seriously. They might even attempt to turn seemingly unfair attacks into constructively working towards determining the truth.

This constructive approach towards a dialogue is reflected in several hundred substantial studies in the medical literature and should perhaps be mentioned not only in the body of our WP:article, but in its lead. Sleuth21 (talk) 08:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sleuth21, Q9 does not say what you think it does. It doesn't say that a mechanism will never be found; it says that the article shouldn't speculate about "some as-yet undiscovered mechanism". If a mechanism is established, it can be included. Brunton (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Annals of Internal Medicine paper is just another report of inconclusive results. Note that it says that the various "unusual effects of ultra-high dilutions" have not been adequately replicated, and while it says that some clinical trials have reported "unexpected effects" it goes on to say that evidence in favour of homoeopathy "is scant, is of uneven quality, and is generally poorer quality than research done in allopathic medicine", and goes on to the usual call for more research and an appeal to open-mindedness. This is not a paper that concludes that homoeopathy works. Brunton (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. No one said it concludes that homeopathy works. As you said it points out that the results are mixed positive and negative; that there has not been enough laboratory research for this phenomena. They point out that three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. It certainly differs from the article's view "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.[2][3][4][5][6]. This is very clear. --OBenfey (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, its conclusion doesn't negate the view taken by the article; the evidence cited effectively concludes that while some studies have positive results, the evidence as a whole fails to demonstrate efficacy.

If you want to know more about the "three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy [that] reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo" I suggest that you read the article rather than the abstract, follow up the references, and find out what they actually concluded.

Kleijnen 1991 concluded that "the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias." Inconclusive, not an unequivocally positive result.

Linde 1997 found results that were "not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition." Even these cautiously positive conclusions were effectively retracted by the same team's 1999 reanalysis of the same data, which concluded that there was "there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results" and said that the "evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials...have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most "original" subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [i.e. the 1997 paper] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." The first and last named authors of the 1997 paper have stated that "our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven", and the lead author was last year quoted by Der Spiegel as saying "Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein" ("We can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated, since the positive results could be due to errors in the studies." - translation courtesy of Hans Adler).

Cucherat 2000 concluded that there "is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies." Again, this is not an unequivocally positive result, and one of the authors has since been quoted as saying that the "review did not reach the conclusion 'that homeopathy differs from placebo'". The article continues, "what he and his colleagues actually found was evidence of considerable bias in results, with higher quality trials producing results less favourable to homeopathy."

Linde & Melchart 1998, the review of trials of classical or individualized homeopathy mentioned in the 1999 Linde paper cited above is also cited in this paper. The table of reviews cites its conclusions that the "evidence suggests effects over placebo. Evidence not convincing because of shortcomings and inconsistencies" but doesn't mention its finding that "when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen."

What we have here is a whole series of papers saying variations on "some positive evidence but not convincing because of poor quality, more good quality research needed", with later papers also concluding that the effects decrease as study quality increases, to the extent that the positive results could be due to bias.

Taken as a whole, along with the later Shang et al. analysis these reviews are consistent with the article's stated position that the "collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo." This is very clear. Brunton (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Brunton, that is a good summary of the evidence concerning this point.

OBenfey, I didn't give you any of my personal views on homeopathy, my conclusions are based on the evidence and current scientific theory. So, please do not make up things about others. The article you cited is an opinion piece that was factually incorrect at the time of publication and is certainly out of date now. Acleron (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

None of the papers you refer to conclude that homeopathy has NO effect over placebo besides Shang. You confuse "efficacy as a whole" - which your own term- with the effect over placebo. These are different things according to the writers. That's why Linde disputed Shang's conclusion in the Lancet "Homeopathy has no effect over placebo". All the systematic reviews you refer to report mixed results. They are inconclusive. They don't say that "The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo." This is a wrong . --OBenfey (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If they are inconclusive, then they don't demonstrate that homoeopathy works better than placebo.

And don't just take my word for it on these reviews - here's a comment relating to them submitted by Professor Edzard Ernst to the House of commons Science & Technology Committee, and here is his comment on reanalyses of the 1997 Linde paper and about the subsequent evidence (see the section entitled "the evidence is getting weaker"). Brunton (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the same with wikepedia's statement that science has found homeopathy to be a placebo therapy.The papers themselves are referring to a controversy due to mixed results : positive and negative. And according to the Neutral Point of View the editors here have to also include all notable controversies and opinions. Not to pretend that the issue has been settled and all the authors and scientific bodies agree that homeopathic remedies dont differ from placebo pills. This is supposed to be an informative article and not propaganda or polemic against or for homeopathy. --OBenfey (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want the article to say that there is a scientific controversy over whether homoeopathy works better than placebo, you need to find reliable sources that have concluded that it works better than placebo. We've been through this before, wth editors claiming that Linde's team had concluded that homoepathy works better than placebo, and that the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the American Medical Association have concluded that it works better than placebo, but they completely failed to provide any evidence for this. Brunton (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

All the papers and organizations above refer to different authors who dispute each other findings. This is more than enough. But if you want a reliable source to state that, this is one of the many: Clinical trials are less sensitive for determining whether ultra-high dilutions have specific effects than laboratory research, where more rigorously controlled conditions are possible. 'The publication of laboratory investigations of ultra-high dilutions has produced considerable controversy and mixed results on attempted replication (52-54). Still, unusual effects of ultra-high dilutions in rigorous laboratory studies continue to be reported (55-59). Multiple independent replications of this research have not yet been done because there are few investigators in the field (6--OBenfey (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the narrative review you have already quoted above, which as you point out says that while "unusual effects" have been reported they haven't been sufficiently replicated. And detecting anomalous effects in water isn't actually the same thing as demonstrating that homoeopathy works better than placebo, by the way. Perhaps that particular issue should be taken to the Memory of water talk page. Can you cite a decent systematic review or meta analysis that has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo? Brunton (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

. The only thing I m saying is that there is a controversy over the placebo question : the reliable sources describe it as such besides the fact that it appears with letters of the authors who dispute each other findings and methodology. "Clinical trials are less sensitive for determining whether ultra-high dilutions have specific effects than laboratory research, where more rigorously controlled conditions are possible. The publication of laboratory investigations of ultra-high dilutions has produced considerable controversy and mixed results on attempted replication (52-54 This is part of the homeopathy debate according to the writers, always --OBenfey (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be saying that there is a controversy over "the placebo question", but you aren't citing any sources for it. Laboratory tests that report apparently anomalous behaviour of water do not show that homoeopathy works better than placebo, no matter how sensitive they are. Showing that a medicine has specific effects in the lab does not mean that it is effective as a medicine. To demonstrate efficacy over placebo you need a placebo controlled clinical trial. Can you cite any peer-reviewed meta-analyses or systematic reviews by these "authors who dispute each others findings and methodology" that have concluded that homoeopathy is more effective than placebo? Brunton (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the authors of the above studies their view differs. According to the available reliable sources there is a controversy over interpretation on Homeopathy effectiveness and whether it is a placebo effect. It is not my imagination that the there are different views. The reliable sources state it. Homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics). Critics think it is implausible that a remedy containing a miniscule amount of an active ingredient (sometimes not a single molecule of the original compound) can have any biological effect—beneficial or otherwise. This is more than enough. --OBenfey (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"According to the authors of the above studies their view differs." Not according to the peer-reviewed work they have published - unless, of course, you can cite peer-reviewed work they have published that has concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo.

There is a controversy between the scientific community and those who believe it works, because the published research doesn't show that it works and it contradicts pretty much the whole of science. But there isn't a scientific controversy over this - all the reviews over the last 20 years find basically the same thing - some studies showing efficacy, but not convincing because of poor quality and the possibility of bias, with better quality research less likely to be positive. Can you cite a review that says anything other than this? Brunton (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion. The sources which you cite dispute this: all the groups of authors are published in mainstream high quality sources. And they disagree on whether it is only placebo or not. This is called controversy not by me but by the same sources. So our personal opinions don't really matter. You appear too anxious not to include this information in your article. According to the principles of wiki , it should be included. But it seems that it there is a special situation here: Just edit out whatever seems controversial or positive no matter how exceptional is the source--OBenfey (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That no systematic/meta-studies can say that homeopathy has any effect greater than placebo is a fact, not an opinion. Unless someone can produce, as Brunton asks, a study of similar stature to say the Shang study then there is no controversy. Anybody can say the word controversy but showing there are results that are different from those known is a different matter. The scientific theories that govern our physical existence such as QED, the law of mass action and our knowledge of biochemistry etc predict that if nothing is present, nothing happens. The clinical trials of homeopathy agree perfectly with that prediction. There is nothing scientifically controversial here.

You have accused Brunton and myself of putting forward personal opinions and not applying NPOV. Please follow another wiki principle - AGF Acleron (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You have to read carefully what the reliable sources write. They say that according to the writers three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo.This is a peer review article in high impact journal. Also some of they above sources that Brunton refered to, dispute that Homeopathy has no effect over placebo. They don't have to convince you personally that they are correct. Since their opinion appears in high quality reliable sources it is qualified for inclusion, not matter if you or me disagree. This is the way wikipedia works or supposes to work, It supposes to report all notable controversies and the criterion for distinguishing them it is their appearance in high impact reliable sources. That's all. --OBenfey (talk) 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They may say that the effects seem more than placebo, but all also point to shortcomings in the evidence that prevent them concluding that it actually does have effects over placebo. And they are all consistent in this. If published reviews have concluded that homoeopathy works better than placebo, please cite them.

We can't Teach the Controversy if there is no evidence of a scientific controversy. Brunton (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The reliable sources use this term. Authors dispute over the evidence in the Lancet. But wikipedia or the groups which control this article do cannot really see it. Which controversy? Maybe the reliable sources ( The Lancet, etc ) are not reliable enough at least compare to skeptics blogs. Maybe you are right. --OBenfey (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I think homeopathy shouldn't be taught or used anywhere outside of Hogwart's Academy. I'm entirely confident that, if and when some independent researchers waste time and resources thoroughly testing this nonsense, they will come to the inevitable conclusion that drinking water cures nothing but thirst.

That being said, Obenfey has brought a reliable source that shows some small studies have produced some results which are not entirely consistent with the null hypothesis. However, as pointed out within the cited article, these studies have their share of problems. Or, more precisely, there simply isn't enough reliable data to positively conclude it doesn't work, (despite the fact that there is no plausible mechanism for it to have any impact on the human body beyond the effect of tap water.) So, I believe it should be permitted to be included.

I don't think it's fair to say there's a "scientific controversy" here. But, something along the lines of "the scientific evidence does not support this, but some argue additional research is needed" may be appropriate. Again, I'm reluctant to sound like a defender of such a silly idea, but I'm a firm believer that my opinion on the matter shouldn't impact the article.JoelWhy (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

some argue additional research is needed about ghosts, magic wands, penis thieves, astrology and wikipedia. Almost everything is researched by somebody. Bulwersator (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, reliable source.JoelWhy (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The reliable sources cited in this page characterize Homeopathy controversial not among believers and scientists, but among scientists whose systematic reviews appear in high impact journals and have already been cited in the wikipedia article. Hence, it is fair to include what these high quality sources say - not what we believe homeopathy really is. --OBenfey (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The article that OBenfey has cited is an opinion piece. It does not introduce any more evidence to the debate. It was published in 2003 but is superseded by the Shang study published in 2005. This is the pivotal study which introduced more evidence by the rigorous way in which clinical trial results were analysed. (btw all previous combined studies did not support the hypothesis that homeopathy is any more than a placebo effect and that included Linde). It must be the evidence that leads us, otherwise all opinions become equally valid. So there is no scientific controversy. Scientific controversy would result if a properly run double blind randomly controlled trial of high power showed that homeopathy had an effect greater than placebo and this was repeatable. To date, this has not happened.

It is mathematically impossible to determine that any treatment does not work. All that can be done is to give the probability that a result is different from the null hypothesis (in this case that homeopathy is no different from the placebo). A limit of 5% is taken that means in perfect conditions, 1 trial in 20 will show a positive result even when no effect occurs. In small, poorly controlled and performed studies, the probability of false positives goes up. You can find extensive discussion of this effect in the archives. This is why the Shang study is so important, for the first time trials were compared in a rigorous way. If the Shang results could be overturned then there will be genuine controversy. Again, to date, apart from criticism from homeopaths, it still stands.

Therefore my conclusion is that no new evidence has been produced other than an 8 yo opinion and no change to the article on this point is either necessary or desirable. Acleron (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is a rather persuasive argument, Acleron. I don't know that it's fair to classify the other study strictly as an "opinion piece", (seems more like a meta-analysis, doesn't it?) But, your overall point is a good one.JoelWhy (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me more like a narrative review than a meta-analysis or systematic review. Brunton (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your view is an opinion piece. The criterion is what the reliable sources say and not what you think it is right. Shang;s study was heavily criticized in different papers. --OBenfey (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Obenfey, can you please provide citation(s) of where the Shang paper has been criticized?JoelWhy (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course. This is really easy. I will do very soon. --OBenfey (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)