Jump to content

Talk:Homeopathy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Modusoperandi (talk | contribs) at 05:37, 30 April 2006 (→Reductio Ad Absurdum). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Previous discussion archive

Previous discussions are archived here.


Controversial

I've been going through the some of the NPOV disputes. Some are easy to evaluate, most are not. As for this article.. Wow!! From the first paragraph of the article, you can see what the issue is:

"The claims of homeopathy are controversial, and do not satisfy the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine."

And just browse through Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 8, and you'll see within the first few lines what has been going on here. Homeopathy is fairly new, and it is based upon using natural medicines to make a person's symptoms become more severe in order to help the body. The terms "homeo" and "homo" mean same. Homeopathists sometimes refer to established medicine as "allopathy". Now I suggest someone try to find scientific studies or something to balance out this debate and rewrite certain areas based on what homeopathy is believed to be. If anybody has any opinions to express, they had better balance them with an alternative POV. This should not be a hard article to write. - Dessydes 12:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a group of editors for reasons that are hard to understand will only accept a hopelessly biased account of homeopathy. Repeated attempts have been made to reason with them, ask them for evidence, etc., but they continue to make unsubstantiated assertions while deleting documented claims to the opposite. This page is hijacked by hopeless POV-pushers who have absolutely no regard for Wikipedia policy, and it seems that this lawlessness carries the day. It is a travesty, and this article may be the one that discredits Wikipedia more than anything else. -- Leifern 22:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could you say exactly what point of view is objected to? I've started editing the article a little and am a little confused. - elizmr 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to get Leifern's input, and left this message for him in March inviting input from the project he organises "Hi, I'm done on homeopathy, and maybe it would be a good thing now to give this project attention, could do with some other views. Gleng 19:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)". I want to withdraw from this article, I have absolutely no strong feelings about homeopathy, and only became involved to try to help produce a balanced version. I don't agree with Leifern's comment above, maybe it was true many months ago but not now. I think that I and several other editors have tried very hard indeed to be neutral and to consistently improve by referenced verifiable sources with very extensive discussion on the Talk pages - you will see in the archive how carefully many particular issues of fact were explored, and I believe that eeveryone has been acting in good faith. There have been recurrent problems from both extremes, (Aegeis in particular), and editors have co-operated very patiently in blocking from introducing POV. This is extremely controversial, and it is inevitable that it will be hard; the way forward must be WP policy on verifiability and reliable sources, and avoidance of weasel words. However it is difficult to explain homeopathy honestly without either making claims for its efficacy, which will be disputed, or discussing its history, which is colourful, or trying to discuss the theory, which is quite hard to do objectively without making it sound ridiculous. - Gleng 08:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with this phrase:
Although homeopathy is reported to be rapidly growing in popularity, it is controversial. Critics assert that its claims are do not satisfy the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine, and that the theoretical explanations of the effects of homeopathy are far-fetched.
But I do have a problem with the assertion that it doesn't meet scientific standards. I also believe that more citations are needed about the homeopathic community's efforts to establish scientific validity. I do see real fruits of Gleng et al's efforts to make this NPOV, but I have every (sad) expectation that once he/she disentangles himself/herself, the anti-everything-alternative brigade will start messing things up again. This should not be a difficult article to bring to consensus if people made an effort at intellectual honesty and NPOV. Sadly, there are those who think WP is a place to practice advocacy, and I'm worried that's exactly what it's turning into. -- Leifern 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Gleng's point, here. I'm a latecomer to this discussion. I believe it's a shame if he/she leaves, as efforts to contribute and to resolve the issues have been strenuous. I would be very willing to try to construct a shorter and purely informative article on the subject, that should satisfy both parties (that is unless anyone wishes to turn Wikipedia to their own ends by promoting or suppressing the subject). However, I cannot do it immediately, as I have several other very pressing projects on my hands in my wordly existence. If there's sufficient interest in this proposal, I'll present it to discussion a.s.a.p. - Ballista 06:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad article

This article is just ridiculous. Anybody that has any common sense or even the slightest bit of exposure to science understands that homeopathy is complete crap, it has no scientific basis, yet this article presents it as almost mainstream. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you read the article again, you'll see that the article simply explains what homeopathy is, where it comes from, what the theories and models are, what the criticisms are and it is already quite clear in saying that there is no known scientific basis. The content of the article is supported by the required sources. If you plan on making significant changes, it would be helpful if you would first present your proposed changes on this page. -- Lee Hunter 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction only says that critics assert that it isn't real, when really it is the entire scietific and medical communities. Just saying critic indicates a degree of support that doesn't really exist. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"it is the entire scientific and medical communities"; prove it, not by assertion or opinion but by objective fact. Who has surveyed the entire scientific and medical communities to establish this? It may be true, but this is not verifiable from the kind of reputable source that scientists must use. Without such sources, what we say are just opinions, and in an article like this especially, we have to be very careful to keep opinions and facts separate. The article as a whole must be NPOV, i.e. its purpose is neither to promote nor discredit homeopathy, but to give verifiable information from reputable sources to present a clear, honest and objective account of homeopathy. It's not easy. - Gleng 13:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not advacating putting that exact phrase in, as I know it would be impossible to verrify. However I do plan on putting in a sourced passage that better desrcibes the actual level of oppostion and ridicule that is directed at this theory by actual professionals. - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the medical community are skeptically open-minded about it. Medical associations will never endorse any kind of treatment - "alternative" or not - unless they can find scientific evidence for its safety and efficacy, and even then claims are narrowly articulated. There are only a few activists that go to the trouble of "ridiculing" it, and their objections should of course be noted. -- Leifern 15:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Leifern here; homeopathy does not present any kind of "threat" to science, and if a convincing scientific explanation is forthcoming and convincing evidence for efficacy then it will rapidly be embraced in the mainstream. There is no cause for ridicule here, not in WP or anywhere. Ideas may or may not be wrong, there are frauds and charlatans about, but let's assume good faith where we can, not just on WP. - Gleng 15:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Excuse my indenting.) It is very difficult to know what the mood is, whether one asserts the hilarity and mirth emerging from the windows of doctors' messes (lounges to Americans) are over the patient who believed in homeopathy (or indeed the amount one can save by not using actual drugs, just water) or that the doctors who did not enter into an argument about it were considering it as a serious possibility rather than looking forward to going home on time with their digestion intact. I've spent a fair bit of time in messes and doctors' on-line fora, as you'd expect, and while I hope we are generally polite about it, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg is pretty close to the usual junior doctor's views. Locally we have one of the few university departments of complementary medicine - run by the notable Professor Edzard Ernst and I've provided facilities and permission for a properly designed trial my first assistant wanted to take part in. She made people feel better in a whole variety of ways, and I was happy enough for her to try Homeopathy provided the conditions were those of proper research, and indeed to participate in setting them up. I think it is WP:CB promoted by charlatans and quacks, but I'm willing to see them prove specific interventions have specific reliable effects. The explanation is hocus pocus though, and the derivation from one guru essentially pathognomic. And that is a pretty reliable representation of senior UK doctors' common views on it. - Midgley 17:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I lost the place here, someone said they'd be willing to offer a rewrite. Of course, all rewrites should be considered!
FYI, I found an interesting page that has lot of med cites for evidence or not on a specific remedy, arnica montana, one which I personally have found helpful for brusing taken orally http://www.herbmed.org/Herbs/Herb92.htm
Also, I think this is one of those things where the mechanism is clearly not understood, if indeed curative powers are possible. Many times causes are understood later, or not, so at the time when we don't understand the causes I think the better approach is to focus on evidence or lack thereof for cures. - Kissedsmiley 18:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio Ad Absurdum

After reading about homeopathy I decided to use the Theory of Infinitesimals in other areas of my life. Specifically, I used it to save me money on gas for my car. I emptied out the tank, and filled it up with homeopathized gasoline. Compared to the fifty dollars a tank of gas would cost me, I saved $49.99 by using homeopathized gasoline!
Unfortunately I have not had a chance to see how well my homeopathized car would run on the street, as some ass seems to have filled my gas tank with water!
I can't wait to see how healthy I'll get when I homeopathize my food... Modusoperandi 20:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments, as much as you may find them amusing, appear to be rather unhelpful. Would it be helpful for me to go the discussion page for Catholicism and start making fun of the Bible? --Xaliqen 21:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you can illustrate the lunacy of any subject I highly encourage exposing that subject for the sham that it is. Something diluted with water to the point that it is water, is water. Dilution dilutes things, hence the term; shaking water just results in shaken water. Modusoperandi 05:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Absurdum

Yes Midgley, but I know what my colleagues in basic science say about clinical science too, (and probably vice versa). Polite is good, after all we might just be wrong, and if we're right, what does it cost us to be reasonable? Maybe it costs us credibility if we're not, or are not seen to be. It seems to me that it should be in the interests of all parties that this article is seen to be fair. These articles must not be a platform for advocacy, and if they are seen to draw conclusions for the reader then they insult the reader's ability to draw conclusions for himself or herself. So Leifern and anyone else, please be specific, what will it take to get rid of this tag, because from where I stand, it seems that some think the article is POV because it doesn't indulge homeopathy's claims and some think it's POV because it doesn't damn them. While this tag is there it's an open invitation to make mischief; get rid of it and we have something to legitimately defend. Leifern, you don't like the balance of the Science section, please follow the tags, the balance is there, in reach. Personally I don't think that the way forward is to see more studies cited in the text because then we get into a cycle of which should be chosen, and how many is a fair balance, and what's wrong with them; the consensus is obvious, at present the data haven't convinced most medics and scientists yet at least, here's the biggest and most recent analysis that has informed the consensus view of medics and scientists, and here are the links if you want to see the data and the other side for yourself.Gleng 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Midgley 02:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pseudoscience

I'm not sure it is really correct to say that the vast majority of the scientific community considers homeopathy pseudoscience. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't give much thought to homeopathy at all, or really know what it is. elizmr 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's what I'd call a pseudofact. :-) --Lee Hunter 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moshe--do you feel really strongly that this word has to stay in? elizmr 04:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed 'pseudoscience' describes the claims of homeopaths perfectly. They use the scientific method for some of their claims but do not follow through with the whole requirements of science and therefore it is a pseudoscience. Maustrauser 04:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The item should stay and there is no need to qaulify it with some or a majority. Any description of a group, if there are only tiny minorities with a different view, does not get qualified unless the article is about the tiny minority. There's lots of WP policy on that. Mccready 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on guys. It's an opinion, maybe a fair opinion, but it's an opinion; the word is judgemental and derogatory, and it's not our place to make judgements like this. The purpose of this article is not to promote homeopath nor to rubbish it, if either of these is a consequence of a fair accounting of facts, then so be it but it's for the reader to draw the conclusions, not us to draw them for him. Pseudoscience here doesn't even list homeopath as a pseudoscience, and if it did I wouldn't say differently. Let's have no dual standards; we expect claims for the efficacy of homeopathy to be verifiable and attributable to the best and most authoritative sources. Has any reputable authority representing a large consensus formall declared homeopathy to be a pseudoscience? Can't see any description like that from the AMA or GMC or the Roal Society or Parliamentary select committees, if so they would certainly merit reporting here. I'm weary here; I'm going to remove the POV tag; anyone wants to replace it, I suggest that they explain precisely what elements in the text as of now that violate WP policy on NPOV and how, and lets try to resolve these. Let's move forward; there's a lot more can go into the article, Aegeis' stuff isn't all rubbish and needs sifting through, but lets get a framework to defend and improveGleng 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would bet that a few reputable organizations of scientists have declared it pseudoscience. I don't think any of us are attempting to just throw in our opinion, it's just necessary to explain how the establishment views homeopathy so as not to mislead the readers into thinking it is more accepted that it actually is.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I konw this isn't an entire organization of scientists but here is a link from the BBC- [1].- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 13:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess it's more likely that there are no such formal declarations. Reputable scientific organizations don't feel a need to issue official reports that Ouija boards don't work or that Uri Geller can't bend spoons or whatever. It's clear that homeopathy is not accepted by the scientific establishment. JamesMLane t c 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC link is to an interview with Randi, a highly public opponent of fraud and pseudoscience; someone I think very highly of as unafraid to express his opinions forcefully and intelligently. However this is not a formal endorsement by an authority. Yes it is cleara that homeopathy iisn't accepted by the scientific establishment, no dispute. Pseudoscience is a derogatory term that we reserve for fraudulent activities that marquerade as science without taking any account of scientific method or norms; this is not generally true of homeopathy, much is published in peer reviewed literature, many accept the concept of validation through controlled trials, many see the weaknesses of explanation and propose possible mechanisms; this does not look like pseudoscience activity; it may be misguided, the arguments may all be flawed, but being totally wrong does not make it pseudoscience any more than quantum theory and relativty make Newtonian mechanics pseudoscience. You won't find the scientific establishment making declarations like this, indeed you should look at what the AMA does advise - (be open minded; it might just be right; probably not but...). We don't make the judgementsGleng 13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions expressed by Randi are well taken, but I dont' think the BBC link is a reference which justifies saying that the entire community of science considers homeopathy to be "pseudoscience". I agree with Gleng that "pseudoscience" it is a derog. term and thus can't be considered NPOV. I think what MOshe probably wants to say is that homeopathy hasn't been demonstrated to be effecive in double blind randominzed controlled trials. Can't we say this without using derog language? Also, as a medical practice, we need to realize that we probably shouldn't hold homeopathy to higher standards than we hold anything else that medical professionals do. As authors of this article, we should probably realize that much of what is done by the medical community isn't based on the gold standard of double blind randomized controlled trials, but rather based on what the existing evidence would support at a given point in time along with the aim to do no harm. A good case in point is the widespread use of hormone replacement therapy which was done based on observational studies. When the randominzed trials finally came out and did not confirm the observational data the practice was largely stopped. Mch of what surgeons do is not based on randomized trials at all. This doesn't mean that there's pseudoscience or quackery being done, it just means that docs are doing the best they can based on available evidence. We need to give homeopathy the benefit of the doubt when writing this article. elizmr 15:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that pseudoscience is limited to fraudulent activities. Disagree that it is derogatory, though it is negative. The science community regards, with tiny exceptions, "homeopathy" as psuedoscience. Because it's a tiny minority there is no need to qualify. As to Elizmr's point about medicine. Exactly. Medicine abandons the practice once it's shown to be ineffective - "homeopathy" doesn't. Having said all that, after you read the article referenced somewhere in the page Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:393-399. there are very good grounds for splitting the article into homeopaths who seek a scientific viewpoint and homeopaths who don't. In other words our definition of H needs to reflect at least these two viewpoints. The problem as I see it is that those homeopaths who accept science are a minority of practising homeopaths. Mccready 05:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience isn't exactly derogatory. It is a term that refers to a specific practice of using using science in a very non-scientific way. This is pretty much was homeopathy does, they don't use normal scientific method to prove their claims. Some people say that normal medicine is just biased against different techniques, but this is clearly not true, since probably no other profession will adapt to new effective techniques the way that medicine does.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me perfectly acceptable to say that the majority of the scientific community regards it as pseudoscience as this is the state of affairs as it stands. Jefffire 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP peudoscience "It generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science." Can't escape the derogatory implications. If it's a reasonable conclusion that homeopathy is pseudoscience from the facts given in the article, then it's a conclusion that the reader can draw. If it's not a reasonable conclusion from the facts as given, then it shouldn't be said anyway. As for Jeffire's point, OK, if you can find a verifiable reputable source for fact (not opinion) then cite it; I'd be happy to accept a reliable survey of opinion, or a declared policy statement. As for Mccready's point, fine, by all means add a V RS indicating that most homeopaths reject scientific criteria. I'm not against facts here, just against opinions masquerading as facts; the opinions may be fair, but are they verifiable. No dual standards, we expect EBM to support claims of efficacy, lets be no less rigorous elsewhere. On PubMed, "pseudoscience" gets 71 items, none related specifically to homeopathy ("homeopathy + pseudoscience" gets none). Come on guys, read the whole article through carefully. On the whole, it's reasonable, reasoned, balanced; it doesn't shout and it doesn't preach, let's keep it like that Gleng 13:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with Gleng that "pseudoscience" can't be used without negative conotations. At the same time, I would say that a bald description of homeopathy--using remedies that don't contain any substance, giving sick people something that makes well people similarly sick--screams pseudoscience and it is not necessary to use the actual word to get that point across. However, and (I don't mean to be insulting by saying this) it is a little facile to call something "pseudoscience" to be dismissive of it without really knowing all that much about it. Hahnemann actually followed some pretty scientific principles of hypothesis, testing hypothesis, observation of results, as he developed homeopathy. I think it is more exact and accurate to say that the MECHANISM of homeopathy is biologically implausible than to use the label "pseudoscience". elizmr 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. Remeber many homeopaths accept there is no plausible mechanism. While some suggested mechanisms are clearly pseudoscience others (such as god did it) don't really pretend to be science.01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
So, are you for or against the use of the word "pseudoscience" to refer to homeopathy? I'm arguing that we should not use it. elizmr 02:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy per say no. Just as we wouldn't lable Church of England as pseudoscience. However if we deal with some of the proposed mechanisms then yes the word pseudoscience should be used.Geni 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the Encyclopaedia of Pseudoscience, pxix, comes the comment that something is pseudoscience if it (a) disregards or contradicts rational principles or (b) the field does not develop through trial and error but by revelation. Homeopathy fits both these criteria. Pseudoscience is a good description of homeopathy and it should stay. Maustrauser 02:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy WAS developed through trial and error, not revelation. I'm not sure what sources you are consulting to support your claims. elizmr 14:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

currently

I'm not sure what is wrong with saying that homeopathy doesn't "currently" meet standards of EBM. It doesn't imply that it ever will or ever will not. I have a problem with such a final sounding pronouncement in the lead, especially since homeopathy is difficult to study in rcts given the individualized nature of the treatment. Jeffrie, I see your user page says that you are a scientist, but really with all due respect being a biologist does not mean that you are the final arbitor here on Wikipedia of all biomedical scientific matters. This is a group project: a collaboration. Would you be ok with this if we said that homeopathy has only been recently studied using rcts, that it doesn't meet standards currently, and it may or may not in the future? From my point of view, this is more a reflection of the actual state of the knowledge on homeopathy. elizmr 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that the use of the word 'currently' implies to the average reader that it may only a matter of time until homeopathy is proven. This may well be true, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is a redundant weasel word which doesn't add anything to the article. I also don't believe I've ever claimed to be the final arbitar on biomedical matters, nor the be disrespectful of the consensus. Jefffire 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
J--what do you think of the sentence written above? elizmr 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience again and rewrite offer again

I'm very concerned about the use of the tag 'pseudoscience' anywhere in Wikipedia - it seems to me that the word is expressly POV, which would appear to contravene the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. I have offered to do a rewrite of homeopathy, altogether, as a purely 'descriptive' article, completely without POV, claims, labels, tags, etc. Homeopathy exists, whatever any reader might think of it and it therefore merits a place in Wikipedia. Is there any interest in a rewrite?

Nope. This article has undergone complete rewrights quite regularly.Geni 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I forgot to sign the contribution above Geni's, here. I am happy to keep the current article and would offer some edits, if keeping it is the consensus view. Ballista 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that removing claims labels tags etc would be good. I don't know the history of the article, really, but think a less emotion-laden and purely descriptive approach as Ballista suggests above would be helpful. I have worked on some controversial articles where a descriptive section as free from controversy as possible is then followed by a controversy section where all of the controversy is discussed fully. This approach might work well with this article where some editors want to use the term pseudoscience, some do not, etc. What do people think? It might get us off the place we are stuck right now. elizmr 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not homeopathy works is irrelevent to this particular discussion. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience by every definition of the word, so the article must mention that if it is to be NPOV. Jefffire 08:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an opinion. We keep opinions to ourselves. Find a V RS that labels it a pseudoscience and quote it as an opinion. Unless you want to label this article with a flashing message saying don't bother to read any further if you're looking for facts not opinions.Gleng 18:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homeopathy uses scientific terms but doesn't confrom to the usual scientific rigour. It is by definition a pseudoscience. The only POV is that some people believe that is a bad thing. Jefffire 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to "homeopathy" as if it were some kind of monolithic entity when in fact it encompasses a very broad range of concepts, methodologies and approaches. Some researchers are doing studies that follow the usual scientific rigour and there are some that don't. The clinical side, which is the bulk of the practise of homeopathy, is the practical application of the information acquired from others and the question of science or pseudoscience does not really apply (i.e. they're not doing research). The word "pseudoscience" is simply a vague pejorative (and used very loosely) which does nothing to shed light on homeopathy. --Lee Hunter 20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted there may be some legitimate research on homeopathy and there is a broad range of disciplines under it. However the same is true of astrology. Negative results are usually ignored at the clinical end and unproven conjectures are stated as fact, both trademark of pseudoscience. Some form of homeopathy may graduate to a real science one day, but what is around today is most definately not. Jefffire 20:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Talk:Pseudoscience page we have thrashed out criteria for a listing as pseudoscience, which include the criterion that the subject must not be under serious study by academics or professionals. Evidence that it is being seriously studied includes courses or departments at established, recognized universities; publications relating to the field in peer-reviewed professional journals; and the like. There are chairs of and courses in homeopathy at some universities (including the Universities of Bern and Exeter), on-going study at health institutions such as the NIH's Center for Alternative Medicine, but especially there are numerous peer-reviewed publications about this, also cited on that talk page. Here is a very small selection of such publications:

  1. research done by the centre for complementary medicine research at the Technical University in Munich
  2. Annals of Internal Medicine
  3. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
  4. another Munich study
  5. this study from the Department of Complementary Medicine in the Medical School of the University of Exeter.

This is simply an on-going research question with varied results, some positive and some negative. As long as this study continues, it is appropriate to cite its results but not prejudge its eventual conclusions. Hgilbert 11:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pseudoscience does not define what is and is not a pseudoscience. Try typing define:pseudoscience into goolge for some definitions of what pseudoscience is.Jefffire 11:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahnemann's Cinchona proving

It is a lie that "the law of similars is based on Hahnemann's observation". His observation was that he experienced paroxysms of fever after intaking the drug, nothing more. The law of similars is an erroneous interpretation of this observation. The falsity of this interpretation is demonstrated by the facts adduced in my version. You obstinately remove the facts from the text; why? Because the word observation creates an impression that homoeopathy is rooted in facts; you intentionally try to deceive the reader.

Aegeis 20:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Aegeis[reply]

Assuming good faith

Aegeis--please try to assume that all the editors who are working here are doing so in good faith. I doubt anyone is trying to deceive anyone by what they are writing. There is no reason to insult other editors intentions. elizmr 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Jeffire---you are making some really broad claims about about how homeopaths operate when you say that, "negative results are usually ignored at the clinical end." What are you basing this on? If you are going to make such broad and insulting statements, you should back them up with citations. elizmr 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not including this comment in the article citations are a little frivilous. All I am asking is, how often has a homeopathic remedy has been withdrawn from the market after a clinical test showed it had no effect? If this were a science then such reports would be treated with the upmost seriousness and respect, that they aren't is indicitive of its current standing as a pseudoscience, if not quackery. Jefffire 12:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
J--When I suggested you produce some citations, it was really a question of your knowledge base on homeopathy and where you are getting it from. The sense I am getting from you is that you have very strong feelings about the topic, but (forgive me for saying this) you probably don't know that much about it. There is nothing wrong with that to be sure, but you might want to step back and do more investigation before strongly asserting your point of view in an encyclopedia reference on the topic. I would really suggest that you read something Hahnemann wrote, like the 6th edition of the Organon in the O'Reilly translation/edition. It is actually a really fascinating work written by a brilliant man who was trained as an MD, had read widely, and was a very caring clinician who developed his approach to try to help his patients get better at a time when the "standard of care" (ie--bleeding with leeches, administering heavy metals, etc) wasn't doing anyone much good.
To address the actual point you made, Homeopathy doesn't work the way regular medicine does; a particular remedy is not given for a particular symptom in chronic cases. This has been one of the big issues in the design of clinical trials and why it has been so difficult to study homeopathy in clinical trials. What investigation of homeopathy requires is investigators who really "get" homeopahty and really "get" clinical research--there haven't been a lot of these folks working in the area or much funding around for the work, but it is comming and the future will tell how things play out in the scientific arena. In the meantime, most homeopaths today are clinicians, not researchers. They take it pretty seriously when something they try doesn't work, it send them back to their patient and their books to discover something that will work, and to learn more about the remedy that failed in order to understand it better. I would say that quackery is doing something that the practitioner knows doesn't work in order to make a buck. Quite honestly, I don't know any homeopaths that are operating this way. I'm sure there are some around, but there are some around in fields I'm sure you would find perfectly "acceptable" "scientifically" as well.
Secondly, vis a vis modern "western" medicine, I would challenge you to show me a case of a medicine that was "withdrawn from the market" because it had "no effect" in a "clinical test". Medicines go out of favor when they are shown to have little beneficial effect in clinical trials---a good case in point are antiarrythmics for afib. The only time something is taken off the market is when it is shown to be harmful--case in point recent contraversy about vioxx. I could give you a lot of examples. elizmr 17:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was a certain type of surgury involveing the knee.Geni 10:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know anything about homeopathy when I started on this - I started by trying to get things clearer and simpler, and by trying to verify facts and cut out POV when I recognised it or when it was brought up. But along the way I've read quite a lot, and yes I read the Organon, and I got the feeling from that and other sources that Hahnemann was maybe just as you say, honest, caring, admirable and intelligent, a good man of his time, with qualities that can still be admired and respected today regardless of whether he was right or wrong. Kent on the other hand is a character who it's harder to see in a sympathetic light from a modern perspective. They are interesting characters though, complex and human. I guess the point I'm making is that there are lots of interesting stories here about what people believe, how those beliefs came about, stories about the arguments and controversies - the villains as well as the good guys. So long as this article isn't trying to sell something, no whitewashes and no snide comments either, with no purpose except to enrich us by telling us things that are interesting and which we can trust to be true, then it can grow and get better and better. It needs input from people who know about homeopathy from both sides, but it also needs input from people who are just interested and have no fixed perspective. This is WP's strength - sometimes it's good to get someone who "doesn't know much" involved, so I hope you all stay with this awhileGleng 19:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do know a fair bit about homeopathy although not in the detail of a trained homeopath which is why I we need them here if we are to write a good article. Homeopathy makes a large number of scientific claims, such as that 'like cures like' and 'dilution increases potency of the remedies'. However it does not back these up with the scientific method and so is not a science. As a result there is no choice but to catagorise this subject as a pseudoscience. Being categorised as a pseudoscience doesn't mean it doesn't work, it is an honest catagorisation based on the current state of affairs in homeopathy. Jefffire 09:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that literal truth is not always enough, we must be sensitive to the connotations of words and avoid value-loaded labels where we can. Take a different example; consider a biomedical scientist, who works in a Medical School, does experiments on animals, and is a member of various scientific societies. Opponents of animal experiments might describe a vivisector who teaches allopaths, does animal testing and is part of pro-testing lobby groups. By some definitions at least this might be a literally defensible truth. But it's not an honest categorisation, because the descriptors are loaded with prejudice. What works one way must work all ways.Gleng 11:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I think that all mentions of pseudoscience within the text of the article should be presented as the opinions of the appropriate scientific of medical body rather than as a fact. However I slso feel that the category:pseudoscience tag should remain since it is not a science despite making scientific claims (unless someone is willing to argue that it is a science). If the tag is removed from this page then it would also need to be removed from just about every single page it is currently on. Whilst this may be a valid position it would be a major change to wikipedia and I feel that it would need to be discussed in a much larger venue than this talk page before it could be implimented on this article.Jefffire 11:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to it as a category tag personally, but the WP article on pseudoscience has a very long list that currently does not include homeopathy, and it seems that this exclusion is the consequence of debate. I'd propose that the category use here should follow what is settled on that page, i.e. not our problem on this page, we just follow precedent on WP. If that page changes, add the category. Let's not get into duplicating debates, there are enough here anyway. Gleng 12:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list on pseudoscience is an abridged list because it would be so long. Homeopathy is listed on the main list,List of alternative, disputed, and speculative theories. Jefffire 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit disingenious. As a topic far more notable than any on the list it would be there if its presence wasn't controversial. Try adding it and see what happensGleng 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... Jefffire 13:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gleng--I agree that editors without special expertise are big assets to Wikipedia. I've been really impressed looking at Wiki in areas I've published on in regular journals and noted the care and concern with which lay editors are approaching the material and trying to get it right. What I object to is dismissive belligerant uninformed negativity from editors who don't know much about the topic they are editing on. J--I understand that you are operating in good faith here, but with all due respect, your comments betray that you haven't done much reading on homeopathy and are not all that clued in to clinical medicine in general. About your comments on homeopathy's statements of fact and these as justification for labeling homeopathy a pseudoscience, you wouldn't let me use the word "theory" to describe "like cures like" and dilution increasing potency in the text, but this is what these concepts are. Hahnemann's work was based on hypothesis development, clinical experimentation, and observation of results. Homepathy is currently under scientific investigation, and homeopaths welcome this. It is not snakeoil, smoke and mirrors. elizmr 21:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like cures like is a hypothsis and as a general one it can be dissproved by something as simple as administering cyanide to someone with breathing difficultes (ok might be diffiuclt to get past an ethics comitee). Thoeries have serious evidence to back them up. Like cures like does not.Geni 02:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And why would giving someone with dyspnea cyanide a test of the hypothesis of "like cures like"? elizmr 01:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
cyanide is a respiratory poison. Logicaly like cures like should make it a cure for breathing problems. Another example is that according to like cures like Americium should be a great treatment for plutonium poisoning.Geni 01:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It interferes with the late stages of the Krebs cycle which is essential for all complex cells. In humans the first symptom, which is usually lethal, is the failure of the respiratory system. At first I thought this was a bad analogy since respiratory failure is incidental to the function. Then I realised that of the various dangerous chemicals diluted down in homeopathy, the symptoms which they cause are largely incidental as well. Jefffire 09:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the homeopathy version of like cures like the symptions are everything.Geni 11:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an MD, I am aware of the effects of cyanide. So was Hahnemann, who was actually a translator of some of Kreb's work. You are both oversimplifing the issues involved tremendously. elizmr 22:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want I can use the Americium plutonium example. Either way like cures like is tivial to falsify.Geni 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is especially trivial to falsify if you don't' understand it. Your edit here for example: "Homeopathy' (also spelled homœopathy or homoeopathy) from the Greek words όμοιος, hómoios (similar) and πάθος, páthos (suffering), is a system of alternative medicine that treats "like with like", using remedies that it is claimed would, in healthy individuals, produce similar symptoms to those it would treat in an ill patient. " You added, "it is claimed" before, and presumably to apply to the phrase, "in healthy individuals". The symptoms that the remedies produce in healthy individuals are discovered in provings by observation. The theoretical point is that they are then given to ill individuals with similar combinations of symptoms. You might want to take finer care with your sentence structure. elizmr 22:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LM potencies

While Hahnemann introduced these late in his life I'm pretty sure they were not a post Hahnemann invention.Geni 00:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and factual accuracy tag

(This is re the April 28 edit appearing under an IP number - I forgot to log in)

I was surprised to see the tag removed when people on both sides of the debate regularly comment that this article is biased or contains errors.

Right from the beginning: "Although homeopathy is reported to be growing in popularity..." - no one in the world will dispute that it is growing in popularity so why the tentativeness (unless we're willing to say that "homeopathy is reported/believed not to conform to scientific standards..."!)?

The science section is a total sham. No positive studies or the several comrehensive meta-analyses (published in Lancet and BMJ, no less) reporting positive or ambigious results are mentioned. The Lancet article is totaly misrepresented: it is not the largest meta-analysis at all because its results are not based on 110+110 studies but on 6+8 studies (please read the article rather than a press release before reporting on it) and, crucially, which are the studies used from among the 110/100 is not reported!

"There is scientific agreement that evidence based medicine should be used in healthcare and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential" is simply incorrect: there is no such agreement! This is a policy-line and the advertised image of medicine as a homogeneous entity, but not reality.

The AMA quote doesn't address homeopathy but a heterogeneous group of therapies and is compatible with any situation in which homeopathy has evidence for it yet at lease one therapy doesn't (that the meaning of "most" in my understanding, it's different from "all"). So the quote is inappropriate to this context.

The Regulatory Decisions section is totally out-of-context and irrelevant to the article (unless one is willing actually to report about homeopathic regulation in a comprehensive way) but no one seems to notice that because it has the "right" bias.

The above is a sufficient sampling. I don't have the energy to debate homeopathy unless others are willing to apply the same criteria to both sides of the debate and actually educate themselves about this complex subject-matter before contributing to the article (as opposed to discussion, which is fine). But minimally the tag should remain as you ought to consider the consensus of those who may not be online in eternal vigilance yet have clearly expressed their disagreement with the article in its present state.
Davidnortman 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the positive studies do not use strict enough scientific protocols so they can't be included in such a way as to suggest they are valid compared to the Lancet study. Jefffire 09:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but "many" is not "all", and among literally over 100 positive studies there are 5-10 of the highest quality plus several excellent meta-analyses, published in the most reputable mainstream journals including Lancet (so if you're using Lancet publication as your main criterion, there are I believe more positive than negative reports on homeopathy in it if you go back in history beyond the last well-publicized press-release, just as valid as the last study). It is precisely a careful selection from those (or meta-analyses referencing to those) that was reported in an earlier version of the science section (one that I attempted to revert to some weeks ago), alongside negative evidence of similar quality and some laboratory evidence considered by some as relevant to homeopathy. But it is easier to make categorical statements (I am not referring specifically to you here but to the general trend) than actually research the subject-matter. Absent adequate knowledge, the only prudent approach is to refrain from contributing to the article body, especially destructively (i.e. by removing existing material).
Davidnortman 09:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Only the highest quality studies should be included, both positive and negative. Selection must be very careful in such a controversial area though. Jefffire 09:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depend on exacly how you define homeopathy there are 2-3 high quality studies into homeopathy. They all came out negative. Your 5-10 claim is false.Geni 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On The Lancet study; I've never read a press release on this and wouldn't ever cite a paper without reading it. The description of it in the article is correct, see Table 3 of the paper for instance, the legend of which is: Univariable meta-regression analysis of treatment effects in 110 placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and 110 matched trials of conventional medicine. (The paper does additionally compare the very best studies of which there are relatively few, that's implicit in very best). Apart from the paper itself, this section refers the reader to two critical commentaries on the Lancet study published in homeopathy journals. I did not quote from the editorial that accompanied the Lancet article, but perhaps it is appropriate to do so. This is all V RSGleng 11:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table 3 does not offer (or purport to offer) a comparison of homeopathy with conventional medicine. It rather offers evidence for the claim that in homeopathy trials various measures (e.g. English vs. foreign-language, MEDLINE vs not, etc.) had a greater influence on homeopathy than conventional-medicine trials - the authors intention is to argue that the current homeopathic literature is more sensitive to bias due to such factors than are conventional-medicine trials; that's all - nothing there about comparative efficacy. The statistical comparison on which the authors based their conclusion re efficacy is based strictly on an unknown (because unreported) subset of 8 homeopathy and 6 non-homeopathy trials - as stated in the article summary as well as later within the body. I should mention also that the whole process of meta-analysis relies on homogeneity so "110 [representative] trials of conventional medicine" is a fiction, but this can be dismissed as private criticism. Within the article is also this interesting sentence: "For example, for the eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract that were included in our sample, the pooled effect indicated a substantial beneficial effect (odds ratio 0·36 [95% CI 0·26–0·50]) and there was neither convincing evidence of funnel-plot asymmetry nor evidence that the effect differed between the trial classified as of higher reported quality and the remaining trials. Such sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works." In short, claiming that this article is the most comrehensive meta-analysis, or that its conclusions are uniformly negative, is simply incorrect once the article is read. This article is worthy of inclusion simply because it was published in a prominent journal; but then so are the positive ones such as Reilly DT et al. "Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?" Lancet 1994;344:1601-06 and the accompanying editorial "Reilly's challenge" (p. 1585) - the first is a superb study in every respect (based my own subjective estimation plus the fact that it has not been subject to substantive criticism over the years) and the latter an honest editorial suggesting that the results are equally a challenge to trial methodology (if one does not accept the data as evidence for homeopathy) as they are in favor of homeopathy (if one accepts the conclusions). This subtlety of the data was reflected in the long-ago version of the science section but is completely missing from the present version.
Davidnortman 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting defintion of homeopathy you are useing there. "Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?" tests isopathy not homeopathy. In any case the studies were not equiverlent so the reporducibilty question is imposible to answer from the data and there are questions over how many of the paincents had the supposed illness.Geni 13:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old story and discussed many times before: When testing for whether homeopathy works at all the best model is some sort of simplified homeopathy because it offers the highest methodological rigor (internal validity); when testing clinical efficacy then studies of classical homeopathy are desirable (at least when trying to prove classical homeopathy). Our present discussion is the more basic one of whether there is any effect or not, for which the Reilly study is very appropriate. I keep seeing this endless vascillation in skeptics, without the acknowledgement that it is by nature impossible to design a study that's optimized to answer both these questions at once; this way it is always possible to dismiss a Reilly type study as you did above for not representing homeopathy (as if your belief in isopathy is not tightly correlated to your belief in homeopathy!), and a clinically oriented study for not being methodologically rigorous enough. The trouble is that in turn when homeopaths are faced with one type of negative study they say it means nothing about the other (isopathy/classical homeopathy) and vice versa, so this misunderstanding is perpetuated. Instead let us both agree that there are currently two separate questions that require largely independent investigation: scientific and clinical. This issue was also indirectly adressed by the long-ago version but has been obliterated in the present version which over-emphasizes clinical efficacy.
Davidnortman 14:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davidnortman I think misrepresents the Lancet paper, and I quote from the discussion "We compared the effects of homoeopathy and conventional medicine that are seen in placebo-controlled trials, examined the presence of bias resulting from inadequate methods and selective publication, and estimated results in trials least affected by these biases. We assumed that the effects observed in placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy could be explained by a combination of methodological deficiencies and biased reporting. Conversely, we postulated that the same biases could not explain the effects observed in comparable placebo-controlled trials of conventional medicine. Our results confirm these hypotheses: when analyses were restricted to large trials of higher quality there was no convincing evidence that homoeopathy was superior to placebo, whereas for conventional medicine an important effect remained. Our results thus provide support for the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy, but not those of conventional medicine, are unspecific placebo or context effects."

Reilly is indeed a good researcher who elsewhere (in the BMJ) endorses the evidence based principles. Quoting him and others, "If we are to ...combine the best of conventional medicine and complementary and alternative medicine in order to provide an informed choice for our patients, then it must be research led and evidence based" However it is not true that his 1994 Lancet paper has gone unchallenged - the BMJ has published a failure to replicate his findings, and an accompanying editorial (BMJ 2002;324:498-499) editorial "Randomised controlled trials for homoeopathy". Quoting from that editorial, "The study by Lewith and colleagues (p 520) in this issue joins the pool of good quality placebo controlled trials and no doubt will take its place in the next meta-analysis.3 It is a negative trial in patients with asthma, showing no difference in lung function or their asthma-specific quality of life between those treated with placebo and those who received ultradiluted allergen. It is a test of isopathy (the use of homoeopathically prepared allergens to treat allergies), not a test of homoeopathy as such. The study was designed to replicate a previous trial by Reilly et al using the same intervention.4 The main differences between this and previous trials are the outcome measures and duration of treatment, which may account for the different result, although chance is another explanation." Gleng 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lancet 2005 trial: Nothing in the quote above talks about comparing 110 with 110 trials, and indeed there is no such statistical comparison presented in the paper. Note the authors' strange methodology: presuming that positive effects of homeopathy could be due to various biases/deficiencies, and then selecting quality criteria that will confirm that bias. But this is post-hoc reasoning; in any case (I won't pursue this point further here), this is what Table 3 refers to. I repeat that there is no statistical comparison of 110 vs 110 trials, and of course based on the above one can conclude that before the filtering down to 6+8 trials there was no difference (otherwise why was the filtering done in the first place?). In other words, the study begins with the claim that homeopathy appears to show a positive effect based on collected trials, yet that this effect could be due to biases that, once dealt with, leave only a handful or two of studies, which are then statistically analyzed. So again, insofar as this is a comparison of 110 and 110 trials we can only infer that there is no difference between the two groups; whereas the negative result for homeopathy emerges only subsequent to filtering, and is based strictly on the final subset. Under different filtering, as the authors themselves admit, at least one subgroup analysis shows positive results, but it is assumed (not demostrated) that those results are due to bias (because this is the starting assumption - I'm still scratching my head trying to understand how one can assume one's conclusion. / Re Reilly: By not being challenged I meant that it was not shot down as a bad paper, so the result stands for what it is: one unimpeachable positive study for homeopathy. Repeatability is another issue - (without remembering the details of that study or having in on-hand right now): The quote given above admits that different outcome measures were used, so how can the authors claim "failure to replicate" the findings? It should rather be considered a different study unless successfully argued that it is a replication (which it may well be); but this cannot be done by fiat.
Davidnortman 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Davidnortman's remarks above. elizmr 22:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the wording in the article; you're criticising a phrasing that is not used and not implied. The lancet paper is notable and is very unusual, I don't know of another comparable large study. I used the authors' words above, but they could have put things more clearly. This is a "global" meta analysis of homeopathy, not an analysis of particular effects. The problem is this - you can analyse homeopathy by each specific claim - this addresses specific claims but does not address the global question of whether homeopathy is ever effective. This study tested the global hypothesis, that ALL reported effects of homeopathy are placebo effects. If this is true, then the reported positive effects are placebo effects, publication bias, observer effects etc, and if so, then the magnitude of reported effects should diminish with sample size and study quality, and with the best studies there should be consistently no effect. This is the prediction that the study sought to test. For comparison, they subjected an equal set of matched conventional medicine triials for identical analysis. The predition was supported by the study - whereas the analysis of conventional tests showed a real effect independent of sample size, the homeopathy studies did not. The study does not prove that homeopathy is never effective or that all its findings are placebo effects. It does show that the totality of tests analysed show outcomes consistent with the interpretation that all of the reported effects are placebo effects. Now check the wording in the article, what exactly is not accurate and verifiable in it.Gleng 08:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the authors' intentions and agree that they are those which you state. But the method of meta-analysis cannot be used automatically on a heterogeneous set of studies, and both sets in this study are highly heterogeneous - clearly the conventional medicine set which lumps together a huge variety of phenomena, but also the homeopathy set which lumps together several types of homeopathy. Furthermore, how can they compare 110 out of about 150-200 trials in the case of homeopathy, and 110 out of hundreds of thousands of trials in the case of conventional medicine? - Do you really think that the nature of the subgroups is equivalent? I rather think that this needs to be demonstrated. It may be that sensitivity to sample size, language of publication, etc. is greater in the homeopathy group simply because 110 best trials out of 200 is a worse-quality sample than the best 110 out of (say) 500,000? In other words, for every trial of homeopathy the matched trial of conventional medicine is expected to be of higher quality because the pool from which it is drawn is several magnitudes bigger. But beyond this fundamental issue, the authors do not explain why they chose the bias criteria that they did: For instance, does it matter whether a study was published in German rather than English? - It may well be that the better studies in homeopathy are done in Germany and not elsewhere. Are larger studies necessarily better than smaller ones? - No, we can look at P values as measures of reliability regardless of study size. In short, no justification is given for these selections. Other criticisms include: exclusion criteria for studies: "The commonest reasons for exclusion were insufficient information (precluding the calculation of odds ratios), ineligible study design, multiple publication, and inability to identify a matching trial of conventional medicine" - but what if any one of those criteria actually excludes better-quality homeopathy trials? Finally, the results could be interpreted in more than one way, one of which is that there is an insufficient sample size for making any conclusions about homeopathy; this is because the odds ratio for homeopathy was significantly below 1 (i.e. indicating an effect above placebo), it is just that the confidence interval was wide enough to envelop also the 1 (indicating no difference from placebo). But the difference in confidence interval might simply be due to the aforementioned difference in pool from which to draw the 110 studies on each side - this possibility was not excluded and cannot be, based on the provided data. In short, there is too much unexplained, possibly ad/post-hoc reasoning in this paper to read much clearly out of it. There is much room for error when starting with 500,000 studies and anding up with 6 - the room for random fluctuation (i.e. that these 6 studies are not representative of conventional medicine) is massive, and likewise (but to a smaller extent) for the 8 out of 200-or-so pool of homeopathy studies. To claim that this paper is somehow definitive is to be naive about the nature of statistics; maybe it doesn't suck as much as I think it does, but it certainly is not immune to serious methodological criticism, most of it extractable straight from textbooks of meta-analysis! Plug in crooked data and you will get crooked output, no matter how precise-looking - meta-analysis is a double-edged sword that we are still learning how to wield. You yourself state that you don't know of another comparative large study of this sort; if so, then how can this unusual design be used presumptively, without having undergone testing to see whether it tends to produce valid results?
Davidnortman 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK we're getting closer here. Where is the claim that this study is definitive? Not in the article, or in anything I've said. It's a V RS, it's very notable (see editorial in Lancet)and it's reported concisely and accurately, without interpretation or exaggeration or extravagent claims, and two sources of criticism (in fact from non RS sources) are linked to it. Yes there is room for error with all studies, WP policy is clear; we are not here to decide the truth but to report verifiable facts (V RS)- getting into evaluation is OR. This study is notable, but does not prove that homeopathy does not work, no proof can exist for a statement like this, what it does is provide evidence that studies of homeopathy are consistent with the results being placebo effects. Evidence is not proof. It would be possible to handle this section differently, giving lots of citations to studies for and against. Fine, if this path is supported generally, I won't oppose, but I will expect to see that the studies cited are cited on the primary basis that they are V RS and reliable (i.e. not withdrawn or subsequently contradicted by an equivalent or stronger V RS). Evidence of impact would be good (number of citations). Recent large studies are good. Secondary RS V sources better than primary sources (WP policy).Gleng 11:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The format you are proposing is precisely the one that existed and to which I tried to revert to previously. Mostly meta-anlyses are referenced, as they act like secondary sources in pooling and discussing primary studies; I continue to disagree with your use of Cochrance/Bandolier summaries because they are no more readable than the original and are do not adequately cover the complete homeopathic literature. Just like the current version, that version was based on consensus over time, but unlike the current version it successfully presented both sides of the debate, however imperfectly. The current version is problematic almost throughout, and my proposed solution is to revert to the aforementioned version and take it from there. I am not prepared to argue my points one-by-one again - all this has already been done. (My underlying claim is that this article has degenerated after reaching a fairly good state, and the mere fact that this degeneration took place by consensus doesn't sanctify the present version, because it is largely based on distortions of previous material and removal of relevant material - what suggests to me that it was done by those who are not knowledgeable about the subject-matter. Theory of chronic disease is totally gone even though it is more peculiar to and characteristic of homeopathy than either the law of similars or minimum dose (and Hahnemann wrote Chronic Diseases besides the Organon); the miasms section (pretty much the only section outside of the science secion with new material in it) is a product of Aegis's infamous scholarship; etc.)
Davidnortman 19:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not my version, and I didn't introduce the EBM, though I support its inclusion, (I added the pro homeopathy Cochrane reference). I don't agree with you, and I don't think you'll get consensus support for reversion. Have no idea if there will be any objections to restoring chronic disease theory - don't know why it went; before my time probably. Check the Talk logsGleng 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hgilbert's edits

"Homeopathic physicians are licensed to practice medicine in most countries of the world"

Please provide evidence that at least 97 countries have lisenced homeopathic physicians that are allowed to practice medicine.

"including such countries as the USA, England, France, Germany, Holland, and Switzerland."

Your souce does not mention t heUSA or Switzerland. There is no such thing as a licensed homeopathic physician in the uk. There are various private organiseations that keep lists but homopath is not a protected title.

"There are eight medical schools in France with post graduate courses leading to specialization in homeopathy."

We have a homeopathy around the world section already. Please use it.Geni 01:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing attitudes

I have seen much more wholesale reverting on this page than others I have been involved with. It seems kind of rude when someone has worked on a few edits to just do away with them. Quite honestly, the world is not going to come to an end if this Wikipedia page has something that some of us don't agree with for a certain period of time. Could we consider building on stuff people have added, trying to improve on it, or moving it to a better section rather than just reverting? Could we consider objecting to an edit on the talk page rather than reverting? elizmr 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&oldid=50849921"