Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Homeopathy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

More than a few

In the lead it says that a few homeopaths are opposed to vaccination and anti-malarial drugs. I would say it is more than a few. Not most and not all, but I would say many homeopaths oppose vaccinations but maybe only a few oppose anti-malarial drugs. Maybe this sentence needs changing and a cite adding. For example, Tinus Smits is a prominent Dutch MD homeopath with a website and he opposes vaccines. How close to actual homeopathic views do you want the article to be? Peter morrell 09:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some homoeopaths advise their patients against immunisation. Several surveys demonstrate this quite clearly. When all homoeopaths listed in the telephone directory of Sydney, Australia were questioned about their attitude regarding immunisation, 83% did not recommend this procedure [31]. A similar but larger study was carried out in Austria [28]. All 230 Austrian homoeopaths received a postal questionnaire which was returned by 117. Only 28% of these rated immunisation as an important preventive measure. Our own group has recently conducted a survey of all 45 homoeopaths within our local area of the U.K. [11]. The response rate was 51%. Seven of the ten physician homoeopaths but none of the 13 lay homoeopaths recommended immunisation.

-E. Ernst, The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine

We say what the scientific journals say. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No we don't say what the scientific jnls say. 83% is very clearly a lot more than 'a few!' 72% is a lot more than 'a few.' The sentence is clearly incorrect. Many homeopaths oppose vaccination is a more accurate statement of the situation. Peter morrell 09:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

But that's only Austria. Admittedly, homeopathic resistance is important - the article later says "One study from the U.K. demonstrates homoeopathy to be the most prevalent reason for non-compliance with immunisation [30]" - but if the results vary by country, it's hard to be so definite. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK that's true but even with 23 cites in the lead we could still more accurately say many homeopaths oppose vaccination [24] [25] [26] and add those studies you have alluded to. How does that sound? It seems we either want accuracy or we don't. thanks Peter morrell 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

...and the Tinus Smits [27] [1] can be added too. Peter morrell 10:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any independent documentation that this person actually has finished his MD? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to the criticism

If I were curious about homeopaths' responses to the criticism they've received, where would I find it in this article? Do they have a response (does anyone know)? Friarslantern (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopaths are used to the criticism, and it has been looked at in the journals of homeopathic societies. Criticism falls into two categories. First off the pure scientific buffs who cannot see any evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy, and push that POV constantly. Then there are those for whom the topic of anti-homeopathy reaches a religious fervour, and the opposition becomes less scientific and more emotional. Those in the second group are discounted as unserious. Those in the first group are of two types. Those that can not see any chance of showing the efficacy of homeopathy by any means, and those that are prepared to have an open mind - usually based on the concepts arrived at by citing theories of energetic medicine, that is to say, theories based on an understanding (or lack thereof) of the quantum theory of mechanics. For those in the first group there can be no understanding - it is a constant, sometime virulent opposition. For those in the second group, and understanding can be arrived at - maybe not an agreement, that would take most people too far, but an understanding that there may be "something" that people find useful. In the National Health Service in the UK you find hospitals which use homeopathy side by side with allopathic medicine, using homeopathy in preference. You might consider searching them out (St. Johns Hospital in Glasgow?? My memory is rusty) for information. docboat (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...Has this been discussed here before (reaction to the criticism)? Friarslantern (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Google, WikiNews, specialist websites etc would be the best place. Wikipedia is here to describe the subject matter. It isn't a replacement for the news media. We should not be reporting people's claims; we should be waiting until there is reasonable consensus as to truths, and document those. Far too many Wikipedia articles try to teach the controversy instead of concentrating on the subject matter itself. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone is interested in homeopathy enough to endeavour to read most or all of this here article, they're going to read about the scientific criticism of homeopathy. And many, perhaps most, will wonder how in the world do homeopaths, who are offering a controlled, prepared substance as remedy for illnesses, react to the scientific criticism -- it's not just technical criticism, but rather it's based on seemingly common sense ideas: if there IS no substance in the sugar pellet I'm eating, how in the world can it make me better? That's basic. WP would be foolish not to attempt to say something -- assuming there are reliable sources reporting it -- about how homeopaths respond to this criticism. I don't know, and I want to. I read the article and couldn't find anything to the effect. And criticism, and it's response (unless you're suggesting it be a separate article) are part of the subject. Friarslantern (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What Brian said above is broadly correct about folks who OPPOSE homeopathy but what has been asked for is the response of homeopaths towards the views of such critics. This was covered extensively in the 19th century ad nauseam, but will not snuff out this type of tail-chasing argument. In brief, homeopaths either give up trying to explain how their remedies work or spend some time on this issue. I am in the former category and I suspect the vast majority of homeopaths don't really care tuppence how they work and fall back on the obvious efficacy of their remedies and the predictable nature of their use in clinical practice. Even the 'memory of water' idea is not universally supported within homeopathy as it is just another theory. Homeopaths, from Hahnemann onwards, have tended to despise theories and reside mostly in the pragmatic empirical field of curing folks of their sickness. Personally, I dont see how potentisation will EVER be explained through so-called rational science, not because it is magic, religion or belief, as the anti-homeopaths constantly mouth, but simply because we have no conceptual tools with which to describe it. It defies all logic and common sense derived from 'normal science.' All homeopaths can point to in the last analysis is their clinical work and that requires no religion or belief, it just is. does this suffice? Peter morrell 07:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right that most homeopathic practitioners and patients don't care too much about the scientific criticism. They are not scientists, they don't think like scientists, they aren't trained to do science, and there is certainly something to be said for leaving science to be done by real scientists. This is true to a large extent of conventional medical practice as well. I would like to take you up on your idea that potensation will never be explained because we lack the conceptual tools. If there was a single experiment that definitively showed an effect of high potensation, it would provide Ph.D. theses for an entire generation. How does the strength of the effect look as a function of the dilution. Does it reach a plateau, or peak, or oscillate? How does it depend on the dilution steps? Is 10C the same as 20D, what about dilution in steps of 1.5:1 or 1000000:1? How does the strength depend on the succussion step? How many thumps are needed, with what acceleration? Is it true that mint will destroy the properties created by potensation? Which of the zillions of known substances have this effect, what do they have in common, and how much of each substance is needed. Conceptual tools here or there, when you get done answering all the questions like these that occur to you, you would have so much to think about that you are bound to be able to take a crack at an explanation. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do your homework, Peter. There is nothing pragmatic or empirical about any experience suggesting that homoeopathy works. It is a perfect example of researcher bias; taking the customers (I hesitate to call any of those who are swindled by homoeopaths "patients") who get better, or even see no effect as successes, and ignoring those whose condition worses or even who die, rather than counting them as failures. Double blind tests have shown and will always show that homoeopathy is completely ineffective. They rely on placebo effect and the customers' perceptions. Ever heard the joke "You can suffer with a cold for half a week, or lick it with [Product X] in 3 days" ? — NRen2k5 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read this? INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are 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. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):824.

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They also state - "Although neither publication bias nor poor-quality trials alone seem to explain our findings, we cannot be sure that combinations of these factors or others still unaccounted for might have led to an erroneous result." ie, this is very bad data and when you look at the better data the effect gets smaller, as you would expect for a placebo effect. Since any genuine effect, if it does exist, is tiny compared to the sources of error, we can't completely exclude either a tiny effect, a small error unaccounted for, or a small error in our efforts of offset the large errors. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. They stated clearly their conclusion. If you don’t agree with the Lancet just publish your own study - don’t change their conclusions. I wrote exactly what they stated and you reverted it. This is clearly POV.

No, that is a direct quote of the discussion of their paper. The same authors in a later more detailed analysis of the data published in the 1997 Lancet meta-analysis concluded: "The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. 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 (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." see ref Tim Vickers (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

...."seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results" is not the same with what you wrote.” Less promising” does not mean something negative or dismissive. Why don’t you write what the meta analyses state exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.244.22 (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As a small addendum to the comments above it seems likely that those homeopaths who strive to find explanations for it probably do so (at least in part) to try and find a bridge of conciliation with mainstream science and mainstream medicine. Overwhelmingly these tend to be MD homeopaths. Those who 'don't give a damn' about science and have abandoned any attempt to explain it tend to be non-MD homeopaths. However, I would add that it probably is desirable for homeopathy to be explained but the mechanism is so elusive after so many attempts to find one. The alternative view that many homeopaths adhere to is that all such studies have been flawed and that scientists are only interested in trying to disprove it ratehr than approach the issue neutrally. I can't say whether that is a justified view or not as I have not studied the issue of mechanisms myself in any great depth having focused mostly upon the practice, history and sociology of the subject. Hopefully these comments will be helpful to Friarslantern who first asked about this matter. thanks (PS. Sorry, Art, I have to go out now so will come back to your points later!) Peter morrell 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Several points flow from Art's post. I shall deal with them in turn.

I don't think homeopaths necessarily hate scientists or dont think like them, it is more a case of being distrustful of the underlying motives of scientists to simply dis homeopathy at every turn. They do not trust them and regard their motives with suspicion. They think they are more liable to try to disprove homeopathy than to study it neutrally. A more complex issue arises regarding the reductionist view of science vs. the more holistic view of homeopathy, BUT even having said that, it should be possible to design studies that demonstrate the validity of homeopathic treatment and it baffles and disappoints homeopaths (to put it mildly) that what they themselves observe every single day with patients in their clinics and consulting rooms is never repeated in these trials. This leads them to suppose that these trials are somehow fundamentally flawed or even innately biased. Does this suffice on this point?
regarding proof of potentisation, this is precisely what Benveniste tried to do and was roundly hammered within the scientific community for doing so. He did find that the activity of potencies (to stimulate the degranulation of lymphocytes in vitro) do oscillate or plateau off as you suggest but this finding is not congruent with the clinical experience of homeopaths. What homeopaths find is that when you give say 6c 3 times in a few hours it has a good effect but then its action fades and you have to repeat it more often or go to 12c or 30c when its action is then more sustained. When that eventually fades in power you give a 200c and that holds the case for longer, maybe several days or a week, say; in due course that too will fade and at that point several things can be done. For example, many homeopaths simply wait at that point for the case to settle, maybe several days or even weeks, until the symptoms reappear. Eventually one tends to keep going higher in potency and the action of the M, 10M and higher potencies is more powerful and more sustained but also more subtle. I think this fairly summarises the clinical experiences of most homeopaths regarding the observed behaviour of potentised remedies.
according to the Bell and Roy studies (you will have to track them down in google scholar or someplace), Benveniste was right and they have repeated his experiments several times and got the same or similar results. But they say scientists are no longer interested perhaps because they believe Benveniste was sufficiently discredited to make them bored about that topic and no longer look at it with any interest or credibility.
regarding the shaking and trituration, well you can read about that in several places and there is a film about it on the Tinus Smits website which you can watch; it lasts about 16 minutes. Successive generations of homeopaths have believed that it is the succussion and grinding that brings out the hidden medicinal powers of the remedy and NOT the dilution. That is the predominant view. Take it or leave it. I don't know why.
regarding the number of shakes and thumps, Hahnemann experimented endlessly with potentisation scales and methods and you can read his own writings about that. They are quite extensive and he settled on different methods at different times. Sorry, but no way could I summarise them all here.
yes mint, menthol and camphor do supposedly counteract the remedies as also do heat, strong sunlight, coffee and magnetic fields. This is well documented. However, I don't think many homeopaths stick rigidly to the 'no coffee and no peppermint toothpaste' rule which some homeopaths regard as sacrosanct. I never drink coffee and so I cannot say from direct experience if it neutralises remedies or not. However, many homeopaths do say it does.
What I meant by the 'lack of conceptual tools' simply means we are talking about properties of substances in extreme dilution that defy the usual laws of chemistry, and principally because of that fact, most scientists and doctors reject homeopathy in toto as delusional and rooted solely in religious belief. You tell me, Art: what are the conceptual tools in chemistry that enable us to interpret potentisation? quite simply, there are none! Without you being more specific, I simply cannot answer this point. thanks Peter morrell 12:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for explanation of potency metrics

When this article was in the sandbox, I got Peter to carefully explain EXACTLY what the potency measures meant, and wrote this up. I propose to expand this, potentially as a subsiduary daughter article to this one (or as a footnote, but I am not sure there is room). I feel this would be an extremely valuable contribution because in my surveys of the online literature, I have never seen this well described anywhere. It can be something that WP can really use to set WP apart; the one source that completely and clearly explains what exactly the potencies in homeopathy mean. Comments?--Filll (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A daughter article would be preferred as this section of this article is way too long and boring as it stands, and any thought of extending it further would be opposed by many. My ten pennorth. Peter morrell 07:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How about a side box? Like on W. S. Gilbert? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already a daughter article on potentisation (can't recall the exact title) so that's where it should go. Peter morrell 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that got redirected to Homeopathy at some stage. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No daughter article is needed. The info can be explained in a single small paragraph if done right and can be put somewhere so that it doesn't get in the way of the flow of the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Filll had something quite longer and more ambitious in mind than a short para! Peter morrell 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about something more extensive and complete, as Peter suggests. What I propose to do is to collect some of that information (hopefully it is not yet deleted Wikidudeman?) and try to format it into a presentable form. Then we can see how long it is, how much it overlaps what we have in this article already, and where we might put it; an infobox, a footnote, a subsiduary daughter article, or wherever. My goal would be to make a reference article that anyone studying homeopathy could look at to understand in very full and complete detail any and all of the metrics used to measure potency in homeopathy, as well as the mathematics involved. My anticipation (which ScienceApologist and a few others also felt) is that this would be a very valuable contribution and one of the places where Wikipedia can make a unique and extremely important piece. This is one of the most confusing and irritating areas for someone from mainstream science who is trying to investigate homeopathy, and with a very small amount of effort, we can write some text that will clear this up forever and make it available to everyone.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What I would love to see is a table summarizing homeopathic dilutions and their corresponding values in concentration units. The first column would be homeopathic dilutions, in decreasing order. The second would be the corresponding values in molar units (mol/L), and the third would be values in mg/mL for a typical homeopathic remedy, say, potassium dichromate or another small molecule. We'd have to use scientific notation. Would this violate the no original research policy? My HTML skillz are, well, nonexistent, but I could do the calculations. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Refs

Somehow or other ALL the refs have been screwed up how why? dunno...can someone fix this? thanks Peter morrell 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. What about the potentisation daughter article, do you know what it is called? thanks Peter morrell 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pov tag justified in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing external sites

I think you overdid the deletions, WDM, slightly, principally because some of those were good and some were dubious, OK fair enough, BUT some had been there a harmlessly for a fair while and had consensus approval, so why not justify what you removed and why? just a helpful suggestion so as to clear it up. thank you Peter morrell 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

Edit wars solve nothing and will not improve the article; after a nightly 'orgy' of same maybe it is time for folks to bring their issues to the talk page so their views can be discussed and perhaps a consensus might be reached, thanks Peter morrell 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I've been trying for months to get Mr. Ullman to discuss issues about his biographical article without fruition. I don't think he reads talk pages. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to love it. Has he accused you of stalking him yet? David D. (Talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. The one time I got him to say something outside of an edit summary[3] he wasn't belligerent at all. I even referred him to OTRS if he has a serious BLP problem with his article, and I requested uninvolved input at the COI noticeboard. My feeling was that he just wasn't reading the (unacronymized) links I put on his talk page. Meh. Skinwalker 13:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Using chemical notation

"a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water"

I think that that number should be changed to 10⁶⁰. --200.69.215.69 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. That comment was by me. --W2bh (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exponentiaal notation, but I think it's better to spell it out - most people won't realise how big 10⁶⁰ is Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if you spell it out like that, is just reads like a bunch of zeroes, and it doesn't make any sense. You don't have a meaningful relation laymen can understand. On the other hand, "This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth" does provide an understandable relation. --W2bh (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, even spelling it out does not help. An analogy is far better. David D. (Talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you give it in numerals and covert molecules of water to a volume or mass of water then the numbers will become a bit more understandable. Metric tonnes might be the best option for units. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lessee. 1 kilogram of water = 1 litre, so ... 10^60 molecules / (6.022 * 10^23) molecules per mole * 18 grams per mole * 1 kg /1000 g * 1 L / 1 kg = 2.98904019 × 10³⁴ litres of water. That's a lot. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And another thing poor quality citing

I'm looking at the quality of the references here. OK, so lets look at the references on the "malaria" point, which should be pretty black and white.

One is an article on the guardian newspaper, which reports on the BBC news show http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/14/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth

One is a letter to the bmj with a single case report [4]

(if this is the quality of quotes that I can use, then can I please, PLEASE use a letter from the National Enquirer to prove that Michael Jackson killed Elvis Presley when he went back in a time machine).

And the other is a reasonably credible source. The BBC quoting it's show, and quoting the NHS London Homeopathic Hospital in saying that they believed there was no evidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm

If someone really wants to get cit-tastic they can of course cite the 1999 BMJ [5] quoting the "A recent meta-analysis, published in the Lancet, examined over 100 randomised, placebo controlled trials and found an odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval 2.05 to 2.93) in favour of homoeopathy. The authors concluded that, even allowing for publication bias, "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.""

Lets have a little bit more quality in our citations people. I know some of you love to get hot under the collar.. but it's a little crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 (talk) 12:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

I firmly believe that this has no place in the introduction. Tim Vickers states that it succinctly communicates the opinions of many groups on the subject. It doesn't, it communicates the opinions of one group. Its place in the intro renders it too much importance and is a content bias. Rray holds that this is fine because it is a cited study, but a single cited study has no place in the introduction of an argument. Put it in criticism, and back it up with more studies. A collected list of citations which details opinions is better for expressing the opinions of a whole community than a single citation.

"In the words of a recent medical review" has no place in an encyclopedia unless said review is for some reason superlative. The use of the colloquial "quackery" itself is incorrect as "quack" is a derogatory term. The neutral definition of quackery (fraudulent medical practice) would be better.

Better than all of these would be a policy statement from a large organization such as the AMA: "There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well-designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies" http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html

Embattledseraph (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We tried summarising the opinions of several groups previously, but people thought it was better to attribute and quote a prominent and reliable source. This is a very reliable source, it summarises the opinions of most of the scientific community and the quote is directly attributed. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A single cited study is fine to use as an example in the lead here, because it's representative of the opinion of the scientific community at large. And the word "quackery" is fine for use in an encyclopedia too. "Fraudulent medical practice" is no less derogatory. It just sounds fancy and is harder to understand. And the policy statement that Embattledseraph suggested is far too vague to be representative of the scientific community's opinion of this specific subject. Rray (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the crux of the problem. Both Tim Vickers and Rray claim that this single study is fine to use because it summarizes the opinion of the scientific community. If you feel that a single study summarizes the view of an entire field than you must back that up. Unless there are reliable sources which state the superlative nature of this study it has no more weight than any other study, particularly in conveying broad opinion. The suggested policy statement may not be the ideal wording which some would like, however it is the only reliable source of community based sentiment which has been suggested.

By only using one source, the scientific community is being misrepresented. This study http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17429507#id2365677 (citation 7) shows that 42% of surveyed American pharmacists would take a homeopathy course if offered and that a majority of pharmacists are interested in homeopathy. Furthermore, this interview with your reliable source http://www.harcourt-international.com/ernst/interview.cfm has him stating that in Germany and Austria complementary medicine (which Homeopathy is a form of) is practiced primarily by licensed physicians. In India homeopathy (as is stated in the article) is regarded as a legitimate form of medicine, and the recent opening of one of the biggest Indian oncology centers ([6])

features homeopathy. The legitimacy of homeopathy in India indicates acceptance by much of its scientific community. According to this (clearly bias, but probably not lying) website (http://www.homeopathyheals.com/intro.html), 40% of licensed MD's in France either practice homeopathy or refer patients to homeopaths. Several news sources also mention a WHO study which was in favor of homeopathy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm Regardless of the scientific validity of the WHO's study, the WHO is composed of members of the scientific community. In summary, I have shown that using the "quackery source" to sum up the scientific community is a misrepresentation which excludes the following groups from that community: Many American Pharmacists, German M.Ds, French M.Ds., and Austrian M.Ds, much of India, and the World Health Organization. Embattledseraph (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (Sorry about the bad integration of references.)

Ernst

Dr. Ernst, who is cited throughout the article, is repeatedly accused of having an anti-homeopathic bias, should he be allowed to be cited so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.146 (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No convincing evidence arguement

When talking about Clinical Trials, this article goes on to suggest that the NHS finds "no convincing evidence" but this is not supported by the reference. I have previously discussed this with the editor who vehemently reverted my changed, twice. Thus I'll let someone else change it this time. The NHS article (which is in a public "NHS Direct" watered down website) goes on to say that there is difficulty with the evidence, but not that no convincing evidence exists. The other bodies listed do (in my view anyway) hold the view that no evidence exists, but the fact that the NHS runs multiple homeopathic hospitals lies question to the suggestion that they are of the view there is nothing in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead + Neutral point of View ?

If you disagree with what the meta analyses state please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone reverts edits please explain why.I thought this was the way to work here. thanks

U didnot make any edit war. I did not revert anything. User OrangeMarlin reverted the edits.

The lead summarises, it should not consist of a long list of quotations. Have a look at Wikipedia:Lead section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead is not neutral though. Studies dont state that. The homeopathic objections? This is what I wrote.

"Reasearchers in 1991 had concluded” that at the moment 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..This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy”.

Another metanalysis (1997) concluded “that the results are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo but there was insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.” . However the same researchers (2000) “concluded that in the ( above ) study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”

Another one concluded that “The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing”. INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy”

Other meta analyses found “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 quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.”

Homeopaths argue that “Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored”. They say that “The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology."

Try summarising the quotes in your own words. This summary can't be over a few sentences, and must give due weight to the quality of the source and provide an accurate reflection of current knowledge on the subject. What do you propose? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop all this endless edit warring every night, Tim and Orangemarlin, and place the text as a quote or use the actual phrasing the cite says. thanks Peter morrell 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why this external link was removed? "Join us to debate the evidence on both sides with Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and Dr Ben Goldacre, medical writer and broadcaster, and decide for yourself." The Natural History museum website is not a good source? Or the editors dont like debates in general? The debate was about the Lancet (2005) meta analyses.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html

Ask Wikidudeman, it was HE who deleted masses of pro and anti links a few days back. I asked him to justify those deletions and he has never replied. thanks Peter morrell 13:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to have different opinions.

A recent meta analysis found that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” Homeopaths criticized the study for being biased. Previous meta analyses found that homeopathic treatments were somewhat more effective than placebo ( or reported positive results ) but the evidence was not convincing because of the unknown role of the publication bias and the flawed design of the studies. One meta analyses found the evidence promising for some topics, another stated that” there was a legitimate case for further research” and two meta analyses found evidence that the higher the quality of the studies the less promising the results. Homeopaths contend that “the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology.” They say “homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect”

The previous summary was not neutral. The text of the original studies is above and you can compare. I think this one complies with the WP lead rules. Feel free to comment and/or revert but please justify here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the writing was pretty awful in your revision - things got said multiple times, and infelicities abounded. Also, you'd have to show reference for some of the comments from similar high-quality sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam is correct; however, it would be nice to get this sorted out and settled for good, because every single night we seem to have this same spectre of 'insert then revert' by the same small bunch of folks, and it is wrecking the general' stability of the article. Can't 72.43.191.226 and OM and Tim come to some amicable agreement re wording so we can get back to more serious topics? if possible, that would be great. just a suggestion. thanks Peter morrell 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some meta-analyses stated tha studies on Homeopathy “seem to report positive results.” However, the researchers pointed out that the “evidence was not convincing because of the unknown role of the publication bias and the low methodological quality of the studies”; they also found “clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.” However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo not without its own critisism by homeopaths for being biased. [7] [8] Homeopaths contend that “the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his/her single ailment, disease or pathology.” [9] They believe that “homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect” [10]

How about that? I tried to keep the sentences of the original texts - look above and compare. The criticism for the Lancet 2005 studies is here [11](I think a good source) and here, in a video file. (Natural History Museum website - a good source). I think it was included before in the article. The museum being aware of the controversy on the recent studies (Lancet 2005) on Homeopathy organized a debate, which is available on line.

[12] “Homeopaths' objections ”.(BBC) [13] and Vithoulkas website [14] (the article refers to him - wikipedia has an article about him and includes his website as well ).

My point is that if you don’t include these most basic homeopathic ideas in the lead of an article about homeopathy, the article might be regarded as incomplete and biased. It fails to inform the reader about the most basic principles of homeopathy and why homeopathy is a controversial subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, for goodness' sake anon IP 72.43.191.226 - would you please sign your comments with ~~~~ at the very least, so we can follow your rather disjointed comments in a logical manner? And while you are at it, signing up takes but a moment, and makes you less anonymous. Please! docboat 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead is not neutral. I agree with the comments stated. The article seems to be good. It needs to be balanced though. --Radames1 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, Radames1, by "balanced"? Tim Vickers 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

There is a controversy on the evidence.It is well known and documented Thats why I changed it.

INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy. [15] --70.107.246.88 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

David, do you mean that there is no controversy on the evidence? This is what all the sources say. From BBC to the meta analyses? Look above. Please justify your revert. --70.107.246.88 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[16] Another example: "Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy? Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics).

It is debated how something that causes illness might also cure it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And another one: WALTER STEWART (Research Chemist): If Madeleine Ennis turns out to be right it means that science has missed a huge chunk of something.

Here is another one: "NARRATOR: She (Madeleine Ennis) has reawakened one of the most bitter controversies of recent years" [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So you think that the above sources which state that there is a controversy are incorrect? --70.107.246.88 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly controversy about how medicine should respond to people's use of homeopathy. However, there is no good scientific evidence that homeopathy is effective. The very best interpretation you can make of the data is that it might not be completely due to placebo effects, but this interpretation is highly unlikely to be true since no plausible mechanism exists. The best data we have point to it being just placebo and this fits best with other areas of knowledge. Consequently, when describing the scientific evidence about homeopathy, calling this "controversial" is misleading. Tim Vickers 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but this is not what the studies say and sources say. I thought in Wikipedia we have to write what high quality sources state not what we think they say: NCCAM and metanalyses say there is a controversy on the issue as you see above. You cannot change that even if you disagree with it.

--70.107.246.88 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The controversy is about the effectiveness and the theory. It is not about the people's perception. - this is what is clearly stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the sources do not clearly make that argument. We both agree that homeopathy is controversial, but we disagree about what the controversy is about. Within science and medicine, the controversy is not about efficacy, but about the proper response to homeopathy and alternative medicine - this is what the sources say. The current phrasing is completely unacceptable "...the evidence supporting its efficacy" is a highly biased presentation of the data. Tim Vickers 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No Tim that's wrong. The controversy is very much about proving efficacy using trials, which as you know homeopaths regard as too crude a method and thus they show nothing. Also, your phrase 'the proper response to homeopathy'? huh? what is that about? the other issue is how such tiny doses can elicit actual physiological responses in folks...that they do so is of course potentially another pebble in science's shoe; so I think those are two points around which the controversy revolves. As for molecules, well of course, if homeopathy was a truly molecular phenonemon at all, even remotely, then its dosage system would be up the swannee as absurd as science believes it to be. If, however, homeopathy empirically can show physiological responses from such tiny doses, then either there is something more to matter than molecules or something very fishy is going on. Either way, science should investigate that more neutrally and more thoroughly than at present. Hope this summarises that issue for you. thanks Peter morrell 10:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The overwhelming, broad, government-endorsed scientific agreement is that trials are actually a terrific way to demonstrate efficacy. Few things are as neutral as a doubly-blinded, controlled study in a system where all trials must be pre-registered in order to avoid positive publication bias. There is no controversy regarding the science of clinical trials; there are just those who disagree that they should be held to such stringent standards. Ante lan ^talk 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with clinical trials, as anyone experienced with homeopathy will tell you, is that the choice of appropriate homeopathic remedy and potency is determined by "taking the case". In other words, the individual patient's mental, emotional, and physical symptom patterns are analyzed, and the remedy is chosen on that basis. You do not have specific remedies for specific conditions, except for a small number of what are termed "polycrests".

And yes "there is something more to matter than molecules" - atoms and molecules are made up of of waves. They only act as particles when standing waves function as expressions of elements in configurations we call atoms and molecules. Each molecule resonates with a unique pattern. It is THIS MOLECULAR PATTERN RESONANCE that is transfered to the dilutant, whether water, lactose, or alcohol. Arion (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as the homeopath is blinded as to whether or not the pharmacy is actually dispensing the remedy or a placebo to his patient, then a double blind trial could be completed. Ante lan ^talk 05:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point Antelan - that might work at a superficial level. The issue though is that the "gold standard" of randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled studies is flawed. Take, for example, a series of studies as to the efficacy of a simple NSAID for joint pain, as brought in by the pharma reps, all of which show that their particular brand is better, cheaper, more efficacious than all others. And these are valid studies. Take then, independent studies of a single NSAID and out of 10 studies you will find 4 say "effective", 4 say "ineffective" and 2 say "inconclusive". Which is the source for all these drug rep studies which say the opposite of what the other reps studies show. There is a wealth of information about these flaws. Now, place homeopathy under such a flawed system of examination, and the results you get out pretty much reflect what the investigator wants them to show. Which is why so many pure allopaths criticise the positive results, and so many homeopaths criticise the negative results. Ideally what we need for further discussion on this page is a course in statistical analysis. docboat (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, a double blind study is only as good as it is designed and carried out. It is the bare requirement for a authoritative medical study, but is not sufficient in itself. Painting the entire process with a broad brush because some unnamed pharma company somewhere didn't do it right isn't going to convince anyone. Jefffire (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, you claim that controlled trials are "flawed" as a gold standard, but your example doesn't address this point - it addresses fraudulent reporting on the part of pharma companies. So, getting back to the point at hand, the fact that drug companies misrepresent their products does not begin to convince me that homeopathic remedies could not be usefully tested with doubly-blinded trials. If you have a more rigorous trial in mind that you think drugs, surgical procedures, or homeopathic remedies could be subject to, I'd like to hear about it. Ante lan ^talk 09:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Antelan, you miss the point. These studies - or at least the uses made of them by pharma companies - are not in the least fraudulent. Pharma is usually very keen to avoid any suspicion of fraud. And in no way are they misrepresenting. It is just that the imagined "gold standard" of these studies (placebo controlled etc etc) is NOT the gold standard people imagine. Hence the need for more people to actually study statistics. Boring, I know, but it is very useful. Been there, done that. As for other examples - well OK - any study on SSRI's for example, or the whole "cholesterol as a model of heart disease" studies - that model is plainly wrong, although a billion dollar industry is predicated on it. References for that abound, but an IHT article from last year springs to mind as a popular but well-written analysis of the issues. As for trials for homeopathic remedies - the problem is that for one diagnosis (say "sore throat") there may be 100 different homeopathic "causes" and 100 different individual remedies. So when you do a double blind etc etc trial on 1000 sore throat patients, you are getting only 10 patients per group. Not valid for analysis. Rigorous studies? I would think the best method is probably a cohort study over a number of years. And the best study method for medical practice in general? I wish I knew .... <sigh> .... a major problem in medicine is the question of validity of our actions. In 100 years time they will look back and think very poorly of us, much as we look back at treatments from the 1920's (hint - treatment for asthma in 1920? A cigarette laced with strychnine. True. And it worked to a degree) - no good answer there, sorry. Now back to the issue of investigating the efficacy of homeopathy - If we had a mere placebo effect, there should be a 30% cure rate. Recent pharma admissions in public (hearing US Congressional hearing? Not sure of date) claimed that any drug presented to the medical profession for general use had a 25% chance of success in any one patient. Hence you often need to try a second or third drug before the desired effect hits. Not saying drugs have no effect - that is patent nonsense. But we need to look with a clear - if jaundiced - eye at the whole medical business in general, and the statistics in use in particular. docboat (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not all drugs have no effect, double blind studies on beta blockers and antibiotics would be clear. Your point is well taken though, many drug trials are so poor statistically that their supposed positive effects are doubtful (in fact, the whole field of epidemiology is now beginning to be questioned), especially considering there may be side effects too. However, this does not negate the point that homeopathic drugs too, have a less than clear effect with respect to treatment. At least they have no side effects, so in that sense they are better. David D. (Talk) 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. But that leaves the issue of which method(s) can best be used to demonstrate an actual effect, if any , of the substrate? Meta-analyses are not worth anything, really, based as they are on very varying studies with very varying standards. Individual studies using the placebo controlled etc etc method of classical allopathic design will fail due to known statistical issues. A cohort study on a population may be of interest, but a cohesive group such as SDA vegetarians, or the classical Framingham study will be very difficult to control in all parameters. Maybe we should go back to 19th century approaches as used by Koch and Virchow? docboat (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I say i have answers? ;) I think the point that should be made is that there is no definitive effect, this is clear from trials that have been done. Obviously this point can also be made for many pharma drugs, but that does not mean the same point cannot be made here too. David D. (Talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Docboat, the medical and scientific communities have taken a position on the issue of evidence, and the views that you advocate are not in favor. This is not to say that the views are necessarily wrong, but it is to say that they are fringe. Wikipedia has relevant policies concerning such views which we must dutifully apply in this article. Ante lan ^talk 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Antelan. I would not agree that the views are fringe. I believe that most of us (the medical fraternity) accept these views, just that we do not speak about them. Partly because most doctors are woefully ignorant of science in general, and statistics in particular. The concerns I raised on studies of SSRIs are in fact most definitely and worryingly mainstream, because the conclusion is that there is not one single SSRI available that can be rationally prescribed with full knowledge of the drug, because due to the manner of the studies, the bias of studies, the choice of publishing (journal or location of publication) etc etc the facts have been irretrievably muddied. Sad, but true. Or, for example, prescribing antibiotics for middle ear infection which - as demonstrated in Holland - can be avoided 95% of the time with simple analgesia and time. But that solid evidence has been largely ignored. What this article needs to have applied is a dose of mutual understanding and acceptance. docboat (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks a neutral POV

This article lacks a neutral POV and instead reads as an attack and mockery of this "obviously fraudulent" practice.
Having utilized homeopathic remedies in my practice for almost 27 years, I can say that I have the personal experience to back up my positive assessment of homeopathy.
I frequently use high potencies (especially 200C through CM). All homeopathic practitioners understand that although no "physical" molecules remain of the original substance from which the remedy is made, there is the transmission of the "essence" or unique "molecular wave pattern" of that substance. Just as a simple example, I recently had a patient mention that after she returned home from her treatment, she had itching and small red rashes appear in various areas of her body. I had not told her that the homeopathic remedy that I gave her was made from poison ivy (Rhus tox 1M). At this high potency (1,000 dilution and succusion) there were no "physical" molecules left of the original poison ivy. Yet this remedy that is so effective in the treatment of many joint and nerve disorders, in certain sensitive individuals will cause a temporary itching and rash reaction. Arion (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Testimonials are not evidence that it works. How many others patients get a rash when they use this particular remedy? I'd believe it if you had some decent stats to back up the statement. Afterall, placebo works too. Having said this, I agree that in places the article reads like an attack. David D. (Talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I did qualify my statement with "in certain sensitive individuals". Using terms like "testimonials", "placebo" and "placebo effect" as the counter to anything that disagrees with one's perception of what the facts are is not realistic. If placebos were an effective method of treatment, then all doctors, allopathic and homeopathic, would be using them exclusively. I have been using homeopathic remedies for almost 27 years and have found them effective modes of treatment. That is not a testimonial. That is my practical clinical experience. Arion (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

People get ill, people recover. Some need the crutch of drugs, some need herbal remedies, others just let their body do it. I have been letting myself heal without any medicine for over 27 years and remarkably my body does a great job of curing me most of the time. The point is that 'no treatment' is also effective. If you cannot show cause and effect above the bodies self healing properties, and usually one can't with homeopathic remedies and many pharma drugs, then why should we consider them to be so special? David D. (Talk) 20:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Write a reliable source about your experience and we can discuss putting it in Wikipedia. Until then it is original research. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What is already in the article needs to be changed for starters. This article lacks a neutral POV. For this article to be presented according to Wikipedia standards of neutral point of view (NPOV), the material should be so neutrally presented that readers cannot tell what personal beliefs any of us hold. Arion (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not think you understand what WP:NPOV means in cases like homeopathy. Since homeopathy is part of medicine, or purports to be, it is part of science. Therefore, the dominant POV for examining homeopathy is the scientific POV, according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A neutral point of view is not necessarily a sympathetic point of view, we report what the reliable sources say in a way that gives due weight to the reliability of each source. People reading the articles on Motherhood or Apple pie may be left in no doubt that these are good things, but only if this is what the sources say. Equally, the article on Nazis might not be so positive. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's why the article on the Nazi's is has questions about the neutrality of it's point of view and colourful language. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I need a drink. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but it's still early in the afternoon. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is AWFULLY BIASED. The atomic model is merely a framework - a model that serves to explain a tiny set of phenomenon. Ignorant people see it as the absolute truth and reject everything that cannot be explained by the atomic model. There are many known quantum phenomenon which cannot be explained in the models you learned in high-school chemistry. So are you gonna label all those phenomenon "quackery"? This is absolute ignorance. Try an experiment - Next time you have acidity try nux vomica 30 or any homepathic preparation you can get for acidity - a very good choice would be schwabe 's pentarkan . You'll see it acts much faster than any allopathic antacid. There is more to the world than what can be explained with the puny models taught by highschool textbooks. The world theory comes from the root as theatre meaning to see - that is a theory is only a model that helps us gain a better perspective on 'a set' of phenomenon. In physics there are many observed phenomenon that dont fit into any known models - so we reject their existance? When people become so ignorant, pseudo-scientific and closed minded that they confuse text-book theories with absolute truths - that i feel is the limit of absurdity and ignorance. When you have a framework which you so blindly believe is true you'll reject everything that cant be explained in that framework - withut bothering to comprehend or experiment. If Neil Armstrong goes back to the 16th century and tells people there he's been to the moon - they'll carry him off to a mental asylum - because what he is saying cant be appreciated by their framework of notions.

121.246.170.167 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that disprove the application of atomic theory to dilutions of drugs, then please post links to these papers on the talk page. I would be fascinated to read them. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"The atomic model is merely a framework - a model that serves to explain a tiny set of phenomenon." Huh? Surely you exaggerate? David D. (Talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right about Neil Armstrong, but a man having been on the moon doesn't change the fact that if I claimed I was there last weekend, I would still be shipped off to a mental asylum. Claims without testable observations to back them up are just a little better than worthless. rmosler (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can show that a diluted acidic solution (or basic solution) mixed with an acid will more rapidly reach a pH of 7 than mixing an acid with a strong base/alkali, then I would be fascinated. Please provide peer-reviewed mainstream studies in a mainstream scientific journal. The person who finds this will likely win a Nobel Prize.--Filll (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beer-Lambert law would have problems as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A word in favor of homeopathy

You know, the placebo effect is incredibly strong. It should not be knocked. And the administration of "medications" which operate by the placebo effect usually have no negative side effects. So it is not all bad...

So do not fight the verdict of the scientific community when it says that these medications act by placebo. There are worse things...--Filll (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Placebo effect is not as pronounced as you might believe. It's hard to have a placebo effect when you're racked by metastatic cancers of various sorts. But I don't think doctors would get behind a theory where placebo effect is rare and random. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true. There are still negative side effects to placebo. Tell a severe asthmatic that they don't have access to their short acting inhaler. See if that doesn't make their throat feel a little tight. rmosler (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. I think placebo only takes you so far.--Filll (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This article lacks a neutral POV. For this article to be presented according to Wikipedia standards of neutral point of view (NPOV), the material should be so neutrally presented that readers cannot tell what personal beliefs any of us hold. No one should be attempting to redefine neutrality in order to force an article biased against homeopathy.

What has been done repeatedly in this article and Talk page is the setting up of straw men so that they can be easily knocked down. Ridiculous things are stated to be homeopathy which are not. Then a logical argument is presented that these things are ridiculous, and that is the conclusion one is left with. Except that the things that are stated to be homeopathy are not homeopathy.

There has been the repeated presentation of the false premise that homeopathic remedies are made by simply diluting them, such as was mentioned above ("a diluted acidic solution"). But that is not how they are made, and that is not what they are.

Homeopathic remedies are created through a process of "succussion". This is a series of steps (the number depending on the potency being created) of dilution and forceful agitation to transfer the "molecular wave pattern" of the original substance into the dilutant. Simple dilution simply dilutes the original substance and has no effect. Arion (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Well if homeopaths do not rely on diluted solutions, what do they use? Please present reliable sources for your claims. If they do not produce remedies by a sequence of succussion and dilution, what do they do? Please provide reliable sources for your statements. I think that the article describes this process of succussion and dilution. Where does it say the wrong thing? We do not know what a "molecular wave pattern" is. Do you have a reliable source for that term, if you want to introduce it into the article? Also, for us WP:NPOV is defined according to our policies, using WP:FRINGE, [WP:UNDUE]], WP:WEIGHT etc. You might not like those policies, but those are the Wikipedia policies. There are many other Wikis which do not have these policies and I would be glad to give you a list of other Wikis if you want to write articles that do not abide by these policies.--Filll (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Molecular waves are what all matter is made up of, including your body and this entire planet. You are asking me to do research for you? Try Google.

I suggest you stop the superior tone in your writing. When you write "defined according to our policies" you are trying to convey that you are speaking for Wikipedia. The loud and clear fact is that this article lacks a neutral POV. For this article to be presented according to Wikipedia standards of neutral point of view (NPOV), the material should be so neutrally presented that readers cannot tell what personal beliefs any of us hold. No one should be attempting to redefine neutrality in order to force an article biased against homeopathy. Arion (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. You refuse to provide a reference for molecular waves? When you are talking about nonstandard nonscientific topics, it is a bit much to just make the those kind of statements. If you are talking about the wavefunctions of quantum mechanics, I suspect I know a bit more than you do. How many years of graduate quantum field theory did you say you had studied? Where did you study this?

I am not adopting a superior tone. We are all editors on Wikipedia. And the policies of Wikipedia are the policies of all of us. Did you not realize this?

The article was principally written by Wikidudeman. I personally cannot tell where his sentiments lie from reading the article. Can you? There is material that is pro-homeopathy. And material that derides homeopathy. I cannot tell where his own sentiments lie. If you can, I am impressed.

Being neutral does not mean we remove all the negative material. Sorry. You are confused. You do not understand Wikipedia policies.--Filll (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not neutral. A article about homeopathy must inform the readers about basic homeopathic priniples and views- for instance – how homeopaths regard meta analyses. --Orion4 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Like every group of people, I'm sure they love meta-analysis when it supports them, and hate it when it doesn't. More to the point, if you've got a reference, especially to some sort of homeopathic organization's official stance on the subject of meta-analysis, that'd be a great resource. Otherwise, we're spinning wheels. Ante lan ^talk 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopaths argue that Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored. They say that The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology

This is a view I just added to the article. It is stated in VIthoulkas website, The article includes and comment on his views hence it is a valid source. --Orion4 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source. BBC. A good source, I do believe. "It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion4 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can use a placebo controlled randomized double blind study. The homeopath makes the "holistic diagnosis", and determines the correct remedy for treatment. The remedy is prepared by the homeopath and provided to a third party. A computer determines whether the unafilliated party gives the prepared remedy or a placebo to the patient. The labels are the same, the bottles are the same. The patient, homeopath, and experimenter are blind to what the remedy is until the data is collected. What is wrong with a study like this? rmosler (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what homeopaths say. You have to include it you like it or not. At this point I request an administrator who is not inlvoved to protect the article and the under dispute tag if Adam Cuerden keeps reverting without disucssion.There more than two editors regard the artcile views as POV. --Orion4 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What homeopaths claim about peer-reviewed trials might be noted in a section on homeopathic viewpoints, but not in a section discussing the scientific analysis of homeopathy. This is simply a case of special pleading and unsupported by any kind of evidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think Orion has found some useful stuff here. There is a statement made by a representative for a society of homeopaths claiming that homeopathy has been shown to be more effective than placebo. This could, as you say, go in a section on homeopathic viewpoints. It is certainly not a neutral fact, not something that should be stated as if it were, but it is a viewpoint. Perhaps most notably, it is telling in that it implies acceptance of the placebo-controlled model for proof of efficacy. Ante lan ^talk 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Something like that might go in the article body, but certainly has to be carefully couched in the right terms, and should not go in the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, to the strongest degree. Ante lan ^talk 00:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

After using homeopathic remedies for several years I was firmly convinced about their efficacy. But 2 days after starting a new treatment I felt very bad I could not understand why, as far as previous experiences have always been resolved with success. I called my doctor and I realized that I have misunderstood the dose and was taking the double of prescription. If remedy were a simple placebo there would not been any reason for getting worse. On the other hand, if it was a placebo in form of “pure water” it would produce whether a healing effect or no effect at all, but in any case not an aggravation of symptoms.

So, I strongly disagree with the biased content of the article about homeopathy which is obviously against it and stands for the placebo theory. I would be better a simple explanation of arguments about the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepbl2 (talk • contribs)

Grammar and language problems etc

As I survey the article, although it is immeasurably better than it used to be, I still see lots of examples of little problems. However, with the edit warring going on, it is almost impossible to fix these. People who are frantic to destroy the article by introducing statements that are effectively equivalent to "Homeopathy is fantastic and all other medicine is BS and we hate all doctors and scientists and science so there nya nya nya...now bugger off now" really is not helpful. There are still problems remaining in just a pure exposition of the subject, without having to contend with edit warriors who think if they just rant and rave enough, we will turn this article into a paean of praise for a pseudoscience. Sorry, but that ain't gunna happen. I would rather see the article deleted permanently than see that outcome. --Filll (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and language problems are definitely a problem. The third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph that could be reworded slightly and placed in the section "Medical and scientific analysis and criticism" but certainly not in the opening introductory paragraphs. The way it reads now sounds like something out of "Quackwatch" or some other biased group with an agenda. Arion (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1) That's not a grammatical issue. 2) The lead summarizes the article. Hence, the presence of that material in the lead. 3) It's neutral, although not favorable to homeopathy. Ante lan ^talk 00:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

POV + lead

In an article (in the lead) about homeopathy you have to include homeopathy's basic views on meta analyses. This is not a matter a evidence. They have an opinion - let the reader to decide if their arguments are strong or not. It is a matter of NPOV to include them - otherwise the lead and the article is biased and mainly incomplete. If conventional and mainstream science has strong arguments - it ( science ) has nothing to afraid of including the basic homeopathic concepts. Otherwise it seems you are trying to hide basic and highly important homeopathic views fearing that you cannot answer them properly. The sensitive editor will include the above opinions - I believe.

You are writing an article about this minority - Homeopathy and its views should be there. This is obvious. This is not undue weight. It is a matter of balanced information. Even BBC as tyou see above and Natural history museum organize debates on homeopathy inviting both parties and giving equal time.!! These major orgenizations are not neutral??? Are BBC and Natural History museum biased?

I think people should not revert without discussion. POV tag should attached and protected by univolved administrators. Who agrees ?--Orion4 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) - I dont like edit wars

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." - Homeopaths' views on meta-analyses are those of a tiny minority. They may be included in this article, but should not be given undue weight. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, Tim. This article should be about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy - which it is, at the moment,but there will be little chance of changing this in the short term. If it were an article on homeopathy, it would give peer-reviewed information about homeopathy from a scientific homeopathic POV first and foremost, followed by the representation of the anti-homeopathic scientists as a rebuttal. At the moment, things are reversed. docboat (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, if you are making the claim that "homeopathy" has some certain view on meta analysis, it would help you immeasurably to produce a link or a source to support that claim. Ante lan ^talk 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote your statement above yes, "homeopathy's basic views on meta analyses" do exist. Do I really have to provide sources to support statements that you have made? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor indentation on my part. It was meant to be a reply to Orion's opening comment in this section. I wasn't aware that the field of homeopathy had adopted a notably unique view on meta-analysis. So no, I'm not asking you to provide the sources, but I would like to see them from Orion if he has them. Ante lan ^talk 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats an evidence that you nave not studied the subject. This exists in Vythoulkas website which the article includes and also comments on his views. He has an article in wikipedia as well.

- http://www.vithoulkas.gr/EN/research01.html - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html

I think there is some confusion on your part. Only one of those even treats the notion of meta-analysis. When it does so, it does not expound upon a homeopathic view of meta-analysis, it just says that the author thinks that a specific meta-analytic study was wrong. That is a far cry from a "homeopathic view on meta analysis," which you originally claimed existed, and about which I was interested. Ante lan ^talk 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The introductory third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph. The very words "scientifically implausible" are an opinion, just as much as an opinion in the 18th century that watching live television from the other side of the world was "scientifically implausible". Arion (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If this encyclopedia were being written in the 1700s, it would be appropriate to reflect the majority view that viewing motion pictures on the other side of the world was implausible. Electromagnetic theory had not been developed yet. Maxwell wasn't even born yet. Likewise, since today homeopathy has become scientifically implausible, we reflect that here (it was not really more or less plausible than traditional medicine originally, but has become implausible with the advent of atomic theory, among other things). Ante lan ^talk 01:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, will people please try not to break up comments with later insertions? It makes this very difficult to read and keep track of. If you think of something new to say, please consider saying it at the bottom of the thread. It really helps the rest of us keep track of who said what, and when. Ante lan ^talk 01:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PLease dont revert without discussion. I added in the article the same sentence. If you disagree please explain why.--Orion4 (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean positive. Try to learn that.--Filll (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means not writing the article in a way that favors one side over another in an issue in which there are two opinions. Try to learn that.

With the advent of modern physics and the ever-widening knowledge of molecular waves, homeopathy has become scientifically plausible. Arion (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just saying it over and over does not make it true. I suspect you will not get consensus acceptance of your claims.

As I asked above, can you provide a reliable source on molecular waves?--Filll (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what Arion is saying here. Referencing a specific theory, pointing to a paper or a wikipedia article or something, would really be helpful. People say "quantum this", "wave that" all the time, but it really helps when someone can say, "OK, take the wavefunction for this particular 3D molecule. Now here is my interpretation." Or maybe, "I found this paper that disputes the evidence showing that water loses its 'memory' in ~~picoseconds~~ 50 femtoseconds [18]." That sort of stuff I could deal with. It's hard to deal with broad claims about the possibilities of quantum-sounding things when there is no math to back it up. Ante lan ^talk 01:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Any physics textbook will explain molecular waves. Molecular waves are what all matter is made up of, including your body and this entire planet. You are asking me to explain matter? A simple explanation is that all substance is made up of waves that at certain modes of expression function as particles. One understanding of the duality of particles and waves has developed from early expositions of de Broglie's theory of matter-waves, linear velocity and inertial momentum. Some wave functions are mass-bound and others mass-free: electrokinetic energy, thermokinetic energy, electromagnetic energy, mass-energy and ambipolar massfree energy. Arion (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which physics textbook is going to talk about "linear velocity" and "inertial momentum" {whatever those are)? Where should I look to find about mass bound and mass free wavefunctions? Where can I find out about wavefunctions for EM energy, mass energy ambipolar massfree energy and thermokinetic energy? Are these scalar wavefunctions? Vector? Tensor? Quaternion? Octonion?--Filll (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I can not do your physics education for you. You need to take the initiative yourself. I still have many patients waiting in the reception room for treatment tonight.

A simple explanation is that all substance is made up of waves that at certain modes of expression function as particles. Those wave identities ("patterns" or "signatures") are unique to each molecule, and when those molecules are grouped together in a substance such as calcium fluoride (Calcarea fluorica), there is a unique wave pattern that is present. Arion (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculously patronizing and completely hypocritical given all you have written above. You shouldn't treat people here as idiots. In fact, many here have Ph.D's in the very areas your are professing to lecture us on. Please. :eye rolling: David D. (Talk) 03:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking you to educate me in Physics. I already have a PhD in mathematical physics from one of the best Universities in the US, thanks. And I looked up some of those terms. Sorry they are related to orgone energy and the aether and are just in the realm of pseudoscience. Most of what you wrote was pure nonsense. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of interesting (if sad) to watch someone flailing about with terms that they obviously don't understand in the slightest, trying to impress people who do understand them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting but annoying, he hasn't patronised me with pseudoscientific waffle about enzyme kinetics yet, so I'm beginning to feel that my field of expertise is being unfairly ignored. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is interesting (if sad) to watch someone like Filll flailing about with terms that they obviously don't understand in the slightest, trying to impress people who do understand them with his "PhD in mathematical physics". Arion (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well let's suppose I am a complete moron and lying about my graduate degrees. Fair enough. Please show me a few peer-reviewed papers in Nature magazine, Science magazine or Physical Review that discuss ambipolar massfree energy wavefunctions. I would be most interested. Basically, pretend I am from Missouri, which has as a state motto, "Show me".--Filll (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bluster all you will but Fill sums it up best. "Pure nonsense, sorry". So far you have brought nothing to the table except buzz words. David D. (Talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you have not heard about how all enzymes are made up from fundamental enzymions? They are actually a form of tachonyium and capture the emitted karmic energy from people's emotional states. This is the hottest stuff. The rates of reactions are determined by the karmic energy gaps and the recombination of the enzymions causes the aether to pulse at a deep fundamental wave energy of the universe, connecting us all to the nether world and other universes in ohter dimensions. Did you not know?--Filll (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Blusteritis seems to be going around. What is the best remedy for this condition? David D. (Talk) 03:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The approach used by Dobby the house elf -- beating oneself over the head with a teapot -- is looking better all the time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer those rubber chickens, they hurt less. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not want Tim to feel left out. But I would like to see us actually improve the English in the text, which still could stand some use. I am tempted to make a sandbox copy and edit there, since it is very hard to edit with the threat of POV warriors.-Filll (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you ignore the lead and actually edit the article people tend to leave any improvements alone. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition to the lead

Adam removed the following contribution from Orion.

Homeopaths argue that "Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect." They contend that "the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology."

First if these are quotes what are the citations? Second, this addition will lead to 'he says, she says', type editing where the whole flow of the text is interupted by counter points. If these points are to be made they should be as a note, in the main body of the article, or the whole section need to be adjusted so homepathic counter arguments are not interjected in the scientific arguments, IMO. For those who say this is unfair, go back and read how the intro looked only a few weeks ago. It was full of anti homeopathic interjections. Lets not now swing the other way. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the article are incomplete and biased.

I have to repeat myself: here are the citations http://www.vithoulkas.gr/EN/research01.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm,

In an article (in the lead) about homeopathy you have to include homeopathy's basic views on evaluation of homeopathy - for instance.....about meta analyses.

Homeopaths have an opinion - let the reader to decide if their arguments are strong or not. It is a matter of NPOV to include them - otherwise the lead and the article is biased and mainly incomplete. If conventional and mainstream science has strong arguments - it ( conventional science ) has nothing to afraid of including the very basic homeopathic concepts. Otherwise it seems you are trying to hide basic and highly important homeopathic views fearing that you cannot answer them properly. The sensitive editor will include the above opinions -

Even BBC as you see above and Natural history museum organize debates on homeopathy and meta-analyses inviting both parties and giving equal time.!! These major orgenizations are not neutral??? Are BBC and Natural History museum biased?

David what are action are you taking if someone reverts without discussing ? if nothing then we could leave the talk page and start editing only.--Orion4 (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you have to repeat yourself, I missed that section above, it appeared so fast and by the time I looked at it I was distracted by Arion's comments.

I don't understand why homeopathys basic views on evaluation of homeopathy have to be in the lead. At present the lead has three paragraphs. One gives a little history, one gives a description of what homoepathy is from a a homepaths view, the last from a scientific view. The debate should remain in the text of the article. If you extend the deabte in to the LEAD it will become unreadable. It was unreadable when the scientist POV was always interjecting, I have no doubt it will be the same if the homeopath POV is also interjecting. Why can't we just have two independant preambles to set the scene?

I agree this article should be sympathetic to the homeopathic POV and would actually argue that the state of modern homeopathy should be described uncluttered with scientific interjections. Clearly the scientic case should be presented too. My problem is when the He said, she said style predominates thorughout, especially in the LEAD, the article reads like a debate where everyone is shouting at the same time.

Adam should have started a discussion on the talk page to justify his revert. I don't know why he didn't. David D. (Talk) 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, those sorts of quotes, properly sourced, do not belong in the LEAD.--Filll (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I missed that, So much activity here today. That is why one of my options above was in the text (I've edited for clarity to "in the main body of the article"). I tend to agree with this. I like the way the current lead keeps the two arguments separate and instead sets the scene for the article. David D. (Talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Way I see it, Homeopaths just got two paragraphs largely criticism-free. We're now presenting the mainstream scientific opinion in the third paragraph, not the mainstream scientific opinion and facetious homeopathic objections. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don’t want a pro homeopathy article. Just state the facts and the truth and as much cited criticism as you wish - as long as you include the basic homeopathic principles.

No sympathetic approach is needed.

Since you refer to evaluation of Homeopathy in a paragraph (lead ) about homeopathy you must refer to its objections. Even in one or two sentences. This is the most basic homeopathic principle individualization of the therapy. There is nowhere in the lead and how this is connected with the evaluation of the therapy in a study.

The lead could have 4 paragraphs according to the rules. If it is a space problem the mainstream scientific point of view could “ take” one more paragraph and state whatever it wants.

Homeopathy ‘s objections and basic principles can fit in two sentences. Why so much………. fear?

If homeopathic objections are… facetious that will work in favour of conventional science. The fact you don’t want to include them next to homeopathic objections might mean that your arguments are not that strong. Otherwhise I m sure you would not mind --Orion4 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC

You say, "Just state the facts and the truth". That's exactly what I mean by sympathetic, we agree on this point. If you want to add the homeopathic principle individualization to the lead it should be in the second paragraph. I think you'll find more support for that location. I asked before but it got missed in the noise, where are the quotes from?

Fear? I think not, incremental progress more like; the first LEAD was far more lop sided before. What do you propose for the fourth?

That I don't want to include them next to homeopathic objections" is solely for stylistic reasons. A debate is not framed with each speaker rebutting every sentence. For the same reason this should not be done here. David D. (Talk) 06:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By the principles of Wikipedia, as I understand it, the percentage of the article devoted to pro-homeopathy material should be roughly equal to the proportion of people in the relevant fields of science and medicine that have pro-homeopathy sentiments. Therefore, most of this article should have a skeptical tone. In my last evaluation, it was about 60% pro-homeopathy, not mainly skeptical. The LEAD must also follow these same proportions, roughly. and it is 2/3 or so pro-homeopathy. So I do not think homeopathy advocates have much to complain about.

Homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE theory and therefore is treated as such in Wikipedia. Maybe in Conservapedia or some other wiki you can find different rules for dealing with homeopathy. You can investigate. Wikipedia has its rules. And we try to follow them.--Filll (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility among editors

I have participated on this Talk page for the last 24 hours. In that time I have been on the receiving end of rudeness, belittling, and mocking laughter at my comments given in response to questions.

The use of derogatory terms like "ridiculously patronizing and completely hypocritical" is not what is expected of Wikipedia editors (see Wikipedia:Civility). I would also like to caution all of us to remain careful not to engage in wording that might be construed as personal attacks, even if unintentional. We should not assume that someone has an "agenda", but instead assume that each editor is a sincere individual who is attempting, in good faith, to assist in the editing of an article to improve it to the highest standards of academic excellence. Arion (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You were. You have been asked many times to offer citations for your claims. You have given us arguments from authority with nothing to back it up. Why are you not citing references and suggesting changes to the text? The irony is on mutliple occassions above I have agreed that the article is POV in many places and that homeopathy should be given a voice in this article. Give us somthing to work with and maybe you'll get a warmer reception. David D. (Talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have given you something to work with. I have repeatedly pointed out that the introductory third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph. The very words "scientifically implausible" are an opinion that does not belong in an encylopedia entry on homeopathy. You can cite a reference for a quote of that nature by someone in the Medical criticism section, but you can not state an affirmative statement like that in the article since that would be considered a non-neutral point of view (WP:POV) and "original research" (WP:OR). Arion (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph is the scientific perspective. Why would it not be from the scientific point of view? This has been addressed above. Would you rather it looked like this? That version was less than a month ago. David D. (Talk) 06:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Things work here by compromise. We work together, and things get done. If homeopaths are unable or unwilling to learn the rules of Wikipedia and the reason that we write things the way we do, then they will find they have some difficulty. When I am confronting a haughty attitude from pseudoscientists, things are not going to go in a positive direction. --Filll (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your concept that the "rules of Wikipedia" allow for insulting other Wikipedia editors is unacceptable. To accuse other editors of being "pseudoscientists" and having a "haughty attitude" is outrageous. Arion (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to reign yourself in. Many places above people who are arguing to turn this into a noncritical article praising the advantages of homeopathy have tried to goad others into fights or baited them. If you want civility, you have to give civility. Otherwise, things deteriorate. If you really want to help improve the article, please try to provide peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals for your claims. And sorry, but orgone and the aether are part of pseudoscience. This does not mean they might not be true, but so far there is no scientific evidence for them. So they are pseudoscience. Like homeopathy. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one bringing up "orgone" and "aether". I never did.

The Wikipedia rules are very clear. An article on a particular subject must be presented from a neutral point of view. Therefore, this article can not be presented as an article promoting homeopathy as legitimate, nor as an article condemning it as a fraudulent "pseudoscience".

The labeling with the term "pseudoscience" of anything that is not accepted or understood by someone has no place in an editor of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Using the term "pseudoscience" is a deliberate act to diminish and degrade the valie of that subject. That can be done in a specialist publication article, but not in an encylopedia. The subject of an article needs to be described from the standpoint of a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). Opposing points of view can be included in a subsection dealing with criticism. Arion (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Look at intelligent design for an article that has been widely acknowledged to be a balanced, NPOV article (except by those trying to promote intelligent design). Look in a mainstream accepted scientific theory like evolution, another article thought to be among the best on Wikipedia and NPOV; how much in there do you see about creationism and intelligent design and the controversy, which is immense in the United States? Almost nothing, because creationism and intelligent design are WP:FRINGE theories. These should be viewed as models for homeopathy. Try to understand first before you throw mud. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why I don't participate on talk pages. You get frustrating discussions like this. We have an editor that does not understand anything about how articles are written. The fact is there is precious little (I'm being nice, because there is really none) that support Homeopathy. It has been described as a pseudoscience. It is a fringe theory of medicine which harms people. And the science is lacking. It is funny, but there is no difference between the argument of Creationism and this so-called Alternative medicine. Claim science is wrong, doesn't work for them, whatever. And believe in faith. Amusing. By the way Arion, you're potentially misinterpreting NPOV. Opposing POV (which it is not) does not have to be represented in an article if it cannot be verified, etc. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Again I am accosted with charges that I "do not understand how Wikipedia works" and that I am someone who "does not understand anything about how articles are written".

I am here to inform you that I do understand how Wikipedia works and that I do understand how articles are written.

It appears that both of you forgot the Wikepedia guidelines listed at the top of this very page: Be polite. Assume good faith. No personal attacks. Be welcoming. No original research. Neutral point of view. Verifiability.

As for verifiability, that does not mean that someone may appoint themselves as spokeman for scientific truth, and a judge of what is "pseudoscience", and have the right to proclaim that bias in the text of the article. Verifiable in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. When an encyclopedia entry is about a particular therapy such as homeopathy, verifiability refers to getting the facts correct as to what that therapeutic approach consists of, its history, and a separate section on criticism, with reliable sources cited. However the article itself may not take sides. Otherwise the article is no longer an encyclopedia entry on homeopathy, but is an anti-homeopathy article that clearly does not belong in an encyclopedia. Arion (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Make some actionable suggestions. Ante lan ^talk 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, pretend I am from Missouri.--Filll (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Missouri eh? Hey Fill, how 'yall soya co'mn awn? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)