This is an archive of past discussions. 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 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
There is a clear NPOV dispute on this article. "Mainstream" scientific POV is presented throughout the article, which is appropriate to give most weight to, but alternative viewpoints are not given an adequate voice, nor are primary sources treated. Beliefs are attributed to "homeopaths" as a whole, by non-homeopaths. There is not an adequate factual description of homeopathy. It is treated as a subject to be dismissed. Whig 18:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, all of the sections in this article should be pro-science. If someone wants something else, they should make another article. Perhaps on another wiki.-- Filll 19:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? Well maybe there is something I am not understanding. I thought that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE meant that we did not promote fringe theories and characterized nonmainstream viewpoints as the mainstream would.-- Filll 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not edited the text of the article for weeks on end. So do not bite me ok? However, medical articles and science articles about pseudoscience topics are to be written from the mainstream viewpoint, as far as I know, and from my reading of the guidelines. However, it is not up to you guys, no matter what tantrums you might want to throw and how you want to spit and fume. This does not mean we do not present the pseudoscience view. We present both. But we make sure we temper the pseudoscience view with at least an equal measure of the mainstream view, if not more. However, it is not up to me or you either. It is up to consensus. So we will see where that lies.-- Filll 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Filll seems satisfied with the present state of the article while promoting a very explicit pro-"Mainstream science" POV and condemnation of alternatives, seems evident proof that it fails to be neutral. Whig 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I am speaking for myself now. And I am NOT happy with this article. I want it delisted as a GA. I want it to present the scientific and medical side first and foremost. I do not want to see it bending over backwards to try to rationalize some mythology or obsolete witchcraft with no and I mean NO basis in science, or medicine, or any evidence to support it, or any theory that would even make it plausible. It is claptrap. It is nonsense. It is horsepucky. It is bull. It is woo woo. Can I make myself any clearer? The present article is FAR TOO PRO-HOMEOPATHY. It needs to be made much closer to neutral and mainstream to be included in WP. Do I make myself clear? Or do you want it in even clearer terms? I will be happy to oblige you if there is any doubt.
I did not edit this article for weeks on end because I was driven off by an editor who was frantic to make admin. So I let him have a chance unimpeded, and I am not entirely happy with the outcome. So now we have to start the arduous task of fixing this mess. Capisci?-- Filll 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
"Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[12]"
Hahnemann wrote that how many hundred years ago before modern molecular biology? Attributing these words to "homeopathy" as a whole as if all modern practitioners must believe precisely this, is a complete farce. Whig 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be correct to attribute to Hahnemann what he said. We do not say all people in the group share one belief. Whig 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Two of them find homeopathy positive promising without yet definite conclusions.
Look at the results.
Dont ask me for Dr.Fisher. [9] -- Sm565 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
They are MDs and some of them are university proffesors. -- Sm565 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen some pretty weird stuff on this talkpage, but I'd like to point out the following:
There is no quantum mechanical basis for homeopathy, nor have their been any reliable papers written that support homeopathy through quantum mechanics. We can therefore abandon that rhetoric right now.
ScienceApologist 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, found an article. Towards a New Model of the Homeopathic Process Based on Quantum Field Theory. [10] It may or may not be suitable for reference in the main article, but establishes quite plainly that some homeopaths posit a quantum physical mechanism. Whig 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I will ask the question again: Do all homeopaths believe in unbounded dilution? Whig 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to the question at hand. Adam Cuerden talk 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
“ | 30C is 1 in 10^60. We can estimate the number of original atoms using Avogado's constant, which tells us there are 6.022 x 10^23 atoms in a mole of substance. A mole of a substance has a weight measured in grams (the number of grams is based on its molecular weight, and hus can't be less than 1). Even if we presume that we start with a kilogram of the substance - that's less, perhaps substantially less, than a thousand moles - there is still less than a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that a single molecule remains in a litre of the original. Any dilution greater than about 1 in 10^24 has this problem. Adam Cuerden talk 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | ” |
“ | Accepting your math for the moment, what dilution would 10^24 correspond to? Is 6C still too dilute? Whig 06:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | ” |
“ | About 12C, though the maths vary a bit depending on the amount in the original, and how much of the final remedy is actually taken. Given the size of homeopathic pills, I suspect that it'd actually be a little lower - 10C or so. However, remember, this is for there being a statistical likelihood of one molecule being present. If we're looking for, say, a part per billion - which is about the minimum limit of what could actually be detected - that's at most 4.5C. Adam Cuerden talk 07:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Oh, and, Whig, it's cute that you copy-pasted my attempt to explain things to you from up above, out of cotnext, in order to replace my real thoughts. It's also attempting to make me support an argument I don't by making it seem I was replying to SA. Don't do it again.
Adam Cuerden
talk 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is difficult to follow. Quoting from the discussion:
First question, relating to the above, is it true that at a high dilution one dose of the solution might have 1 or 2 molecules of the "active ingredient", while another dose from the same batch could have zero such molecules? Because materials are not infinitely divisible, high dilutions would result in many doses that contain only the dilutant. Right?
Second question: If a patient goes to a clinic with a ailment for which there is a “conventional” treatment of proven efficacy, would it be ethical for a doctor, instead of giving the conventional treatment, to put the patient into a study where the treatment they would get is a homeopathic treatment of unknown value or a placebo? Wanderer57 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It is clear to me with the neutrality under attack for this article and being currently in protection, it is not fair to call this article "good". I have delisted it. ScienceApologist 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read the instructions at {{ ArticleHistory}} when updating GA status. Also, if editors will scroll to the bottom of the page after updating articlehistory, they will notice the red highlighted error category when errors are introduced to articlehistory. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the intro is far too long - tempers are running rather hot, and everyone seems determined to get in every single point they can, as early as they can. The proposed revision below cuts the lead back to the minimum - the material that's removed doesn't have to be removed from the article itself, it can still remain in the appropriate paras of the main article, but the lead needs to be concise and to distill the essence, not to touch on every detail. Anyway, the following is for your consideration, whicb I know you will give in a gracious and considerate manner. PiCo 03:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
+++++CURRENT VERSION++++ Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of alternative medicine that aims to treat "like with like". It was invented in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann.[1] Substances, which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease, are administered in heavily diluted formulations, with shaking at each stage of the dilution. Homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some imprint (or memory) of the diluted substance upon the medium (usually water or alcohol), thus enabling it to treat the patient, even though in many common homeopathic dilutions no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[2] Homeopathy is based on a vitalist world view, which sees the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. Proponents claim that homeopathic treatment can harmonize and re-balance the vital force in the body, thus restoring health. These claims are unsupported by modern biology or medicine.[3][4][5][6][7]
Claims for the medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.[8][9][10][11] Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[12] The scientific community asserts there is no evidence that water or alcohol retain any memory of a substance and that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect.[7][13][8][9] Homeopaths have been accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, or even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures.[14][15] Meta-analyses confirmed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that have shown positive results were flawed in design. These findings, along with the proscription by homeopaths against conventional medicine and encouragement of a "holistic" approach to health, are consistent with the argument that homeopathy is a sort of quackery.[16][17][18]
+++++PROPOSED REVISION++++
Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that aims "to treat like with like". Invented in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann,[1] it is based on a world-view which sees the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical "vital force"; treatments aim to harmonize and re-balance the "vital force" through the administration in highly diluted doses of substances which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease.
Claims for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by clinical studies or by modern scientific knowledge,[8][9][10][11] and homeopaths have been accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, or even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures.[14][15]
- - -
I have a supply of tablets that are sold as a homoepathic treatment for insomnia. They are lactose containing 3X dilutions of three other ingredients. At this dilution (assuming thorough mixing), there are definitely small amounts of each ingredient in each tablet, so there is no issue of infinitesimals or total absence.
The existence of remedies of this nature should remind us that all of modern homeopathy cannot be written off as being “unsupported by.... modern scientific knowledge” or words to that effect. I think the article (and probably the introduction) needs to acknowledge the diversity of practise, both to give a fair description and to avoid a "one critique fits all homeopathy" approach. Wanderer57 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Here [12] is an article detailing detection of Nitrogen dioxide at parts per hundred billion, which is clearly a feasible task in modern chemistry, therefore yes indeed 6c or 8c potencies do indeed contain detectable molecules. thank you Peter morrell 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [13] There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma.
2. [14]cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12535487 MAIN RESULTS: There were no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and no data to present. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia.
3. [15] Insufficient information was available on the method of randomisation and the study lacked clinically meaningful outcomes.REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction. It is likely that the demand for complementary medicine will continue and women will continue to consult a homoeopath during their pregnancy. Although caulophyllum is a commonly used homoeopathic therapy to induce labour, the treatment strategy used in the one trial in which it was evaluated may not reflect routine homoeopathy practice. Rigorous evaluations of individualised homeopathic therapies for induction of labour are needed..-- Sm565 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. [16] Reduction was mostly in mild attacks on placebo, more in moderate and severe attacks on homoeopathy. Few adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic treatment. The course of change differed between groups, and suggested that improvement reversed in the last month of treatment on placebo. On this evidence we cannot recommend homoeopathy for migraine prophylaxis, but cannot conclude that it is without effect.-- Sm565 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
5. [17] There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.-- Sm565 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [18] methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies .... found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.-- Sm565 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects. -- Sm565 04:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. [19] Cancerous lymphocytes (Jurkat), having lost the ability to respond to regulatory signals, seem to be fairly unresponsive to high homeopathic potencies-- Sm565 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. [20] CONCLUSION: There is no indication that belladonna 30CH produces symptoms different from placebo or from no intervention-- Sm565 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [21] although favouring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.-- Sm565 04:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2.(pilot study ?) Efficacy Study of Homeopathic Potassium Dichromate to Treat Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients: [22]
“ | The most recent study was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial of 50 critically ill ventilated patients with a previous history of COPD and tobacco use by Frass et al. Five C30 pellets of potassium dichromate or placebo were administered twice daily until extubation and it was found that those receiving the homeopathic formulation had statistically significant (p<0.0001) tracheal secretion reductions, earlier extubation times and shorter lengths of stay in critical care as compared to their placebo counterparts. | ” |
Whig 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. [23] The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo. -- Sm565 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. [24] individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia.-- Sm565 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
5. [25] individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of diarrhea and number of stools in children with acute childhood diarrhea.-- Sm565 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[26] CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.-- Sm565 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [27] it shows positive but not conclusive. indicates that there Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy. 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, but only by means of well performed trials.".-- Sm565 06:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)-- Sm565 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. [28] 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-- Sm565 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)-- Sm565 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. [29] CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies-- Sm565 07:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.-- Sm565 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)-- Sm565 04:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. [30] CONCLUSION: for childhood and adolescence ailmentsThe evidence is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition ......for childhood and adolescence ailments. -- Sm565 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [ [31]] "Having read this ( LAncet) report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy." -- Sm565 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
.........
These all the clinical studies cited in the article. If anybody can contribute to this list it would be helpful.I think all the studies could be used including the metanalyses and its critisisms. The basic homeopathic objection about the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial not being a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." must be added, briefly exlained and critisized.-- Sm565 06:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is verging on
WP:OR. Anyway, this page is not the place to debate Homeopathy itself. It is a place to discuss the article.--
Filll 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Whig, Did you get my E-mail? Look at the bottom section and see if you can add some stuff there so that we can get an idea of what your disputes with the article are. Just to summarize it all and clarify it all without having to read through all of these talk page posts. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm only part-way through, and spending so much time here on Talk:Homeopathy has left me little to get further. I think responsible editors will read this book in order to be properly informed of what homeopathy is, or at least how it was originally defined and practiced. Whig 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
How do guys type fast enough to produce so much verbiage in a few short hours? And does anybody think we have made any progress? I'm sorry (or maybe I'm not) that I don't have enough time now to mediate and/or join the fray, but let me suggest a way forward. The discussion now focuses on the summary of the scientific opinion in the introduction. This is understandable, but the main reason we cannot agree on the wording of the summary is that we do not agree on the content of the section "Medical and scientific analysis". We should work on that first, but ... To do justice to all sides would require going into great detail, including what is good and bad about individual studies, and what is good and bad about clinical tests of homeopathy in general. That level of detail is not appropriate in an overview article on homeopathy. The way out, as I see it, is to work on a supplemental article on "Medical and scientific analysis of homeopathy", or maybe just "Clinical trials of homeopathy". With more space available, we can be more comprehensive and work more closely with the reliable sources. My great hope (I have always been known for my unbounded naivety.) is that, once we have all the cards on the table, we can find a summary that all sides can live with, especially since potential misunderstandings can be mitigated by refering to the detailed article. I have a foggy outline in my head of what the new article should look like, but that will have to wait till later. Also, it might be easier to keep tempers under control if we first write the article off-line, like we did recently for the main article. I thought Wikidudeman did a good job there and would welcome it if he took over the process. -- Art Carlson 08:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Art, I see no problems with your suggestion and think it could indeed be a valuable addition and hopefully an arena which could generate more common ground and more light than recent heat! cheers Peter morrell 08:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think making a whole new article for the scientific evaluation of homeopathy is a good idea in the first place so it's not really relevant. However stating that "Wikidudeman has some POV issues himself" and that I have "existing WP:OWN issues" are clearly accusations. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please may the other active editors weigh in on the question of whether a supplementary article is a good idea. We can decide later how to produce it, whether under the mediation of Wikidudeman or someone else, or as a live article. -- Art Carlson 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There are obviously some people who see problems with this article and from what I can determine, these long and unregulated discussions don't accomplish anything. Therefore I want to try to resolve the disputes and get to the core of what problems some editors see with the article by having each editor who sees a problem with the article state in their own separate section what they see as problematic. Please list each problem as briefly as possible but don't forget to provide sufficient details. Be sure to list each separate problem with a * . Wikidudeman (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
...Well, as I said, I expect this to blow up in our face, but I'll have a go...
Adam Cuerden talk 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No. This section is for each editor to elaborate on their problems with the article. Clearly stating them once and for all so that everyone can know them. And then other editors comment on them. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the history section mentioning the history of homeopathy even though other sections don't mention it. Why must other sections mention it exactly? I'm not sure I understand your problems with the section though. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I m surprised that the sign under dispute is removed. That means some editors dont want to accept that there is well documented opinion on the talk page different that theirs. I think that this is not respectful for the other editors and it is not in the spirit of the rules of wikipedia. The under dispute sign should be there as long as there is a dispute going on.If someone objects to this idea please explain.-- Sm565 02:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to apolozise. I thought that someone from the editors we were arguing in the talk page removed the under dispute tag but actually it was another user (I think) who did not participate in the discussion and gave non reasons for the tag removal from what I see in our talk page.
I do not consider "the article seems fine" a rational explanation since we had agreed to reach a consenus in this oage before any editing. Sorry QuackGur.Please next time try to participate in our discussion. .-- Sm565 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
put the wrong sign before.-- Sm565 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have as much time to spend here as I did over the weekend. Instead of rehashing again and again the issues that I and others have with this article in its present form, I will try to make some careful edits to the article and if they are removed we can come back and discuss them here. I may be more infrequent for the next few days, but at least now with the article unlocked we can make some forward progress together instead of arguing. I want to say that I do not recognize a current group of editors to be seeking an NPOV article, but I hope we can resolve this dispute in some mutually agreeable fashion, whether that entails splitting the article into two or more, or some other solution. Whig 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
However, the mainstream science POV does not really exists. I have never seen in any major organization like WHO website or the others cited references that Science considers homeopathy as a pseudoscience. They say "controversial".-- Sm565 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be a lot happier if your first reference wasn't shitty random spammy crap off the intarwebz, not to mention the fact that this is probably giving undue weight to your point of view where it is not needed: specific examples are given elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 13:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Adam, for finally fixing it better than I could. much appreciated. cheers Peter morrell 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It's OK no harm done, but thanks again anyway. It's now much better and sharper. cheers Peter morrell 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but homeopathy ONLY uses single drugs (OK predominantly) so no complex mixtures with 64 ingredients etc. Peter morrell 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many guidelines. Sometimes these get in the way of the process of improving the quality of articles. However, in my experience, there is one guideline that never does, and that is WP:LEAD. It not only gives great advice on how to write leads, but also, implicitly, great advice on how to write articles. Almost every encounter I have had with an article in difficulty has been resolved by applying WP:LEAD. Get the article right first, and then use WP:LEAD to write the lead. The lead should summarize the article. It should cover the most important points in the article, and nothing which is not covered in the article. There should be no big surprises in the article for someone who has read the lead.
The lead of this article does not, currently, summarize it adequately. It does not cover the historical development, the various forms of current practice, the current prevalence, or the legal status, all of which are prominant parts of the article. This may mean that the article needs to be changed. More likely, however, it means the lead needs to be changed. Proposals to shorten the lead to 2 paragraphs for an 80+ K article are absurd.
My own opinion is that this article should be more strident but also more concise in its criticism of homeopathy. "Show, don't tell" is one of the key principles of NPOV. The article should spend more time describing homeopathy in neutral terms, so that the criticism of it as pseudoscience is obvious and does not require so much repetition. However, that is just my view, but I urge you to let WP:LEAD guide you. It is a great guideline. Geometry guy 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the area where ANYONE who thinks that this article has POV can summarize their reasons why. Everyone who thinks that this article is POV, please just summarize your reasons why you think that so that we can start fixing the article appropriately. POV tags aren't meant to stay forever and unless reasons are given and summarized clearly here by those who believe it is POV then the tag must go. I've read the discussions above and I can not determine exactly what changes to make to satisfy those who think that the article is POV so I request that they summarize their reasons here. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
(Moved off topic discussions here) Wikidudeman (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My only grouse about the article at the moment FWIW is that there seems to be too much critique built into the flow of narrative as it goes along and yet WDM promised some time back not to do that but to place critique in a separate section, what Adam amusingly termed a ghetto. Well, I would prefer that because it seems to me that the article never really gets into second gear; it is always looking over its shoulder for the dark shadow of a criticism to come bellowing down on anything it says. It is suffocated all the way along by critique. The whole thing reads as if it is way too cautious and defensive about saying anything about the subject this article is supposed to be about. Sorry if that offends a few folks but we must try and air our grievances as that is what we have been asked to do. Hope that's OK... let's discuss it then. cheers Peter morrell 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> It's a problem with separate "critique" sections that they're inevitably separated from the subject they're dealing with, so each argument has to be restated in order to state the objections. It also means that the "pro" arguments are presented without being put in the context of majority mainstream opinion, and so contravene provisions of NPOV and NPOV/FAQ. Hiding the critique away in its own section means that it's easily overlooked, and its readers get a false impression. It's a matter of balance, but each controversial section must be put in its proper context. .. dave souza, talk 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do, however, agree that the approach of "What Homeopaths believe" and then "What Critics believe" for each significant section of the article is one suitable approach to NPOV. ... Kenosis 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize that removing the under dispute flag without trying to reach a consensus using rational arguments and reliable references but using banners, you totally discredit your selves ? Serious readers who will try to investigate the subject they will not take you seriously if they decide to just take a look at the talk page and see the way you argue. Unless you think that wikipedia is for middle school students who want to copy quickly some info for their homework. Please stop doing it and accept that some people disagree with you and have taken the time to explain why.Try to do the same. It is more healthy I assure you. Best wishes.-- Sm565 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Sm565 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
User:ScienceApologist continues to remove the POV tag. I do not want to revert repeatedly. Please someone else restore the tag, so that we can continue this civil discussion. Whig 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The article states, "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[13]"
I have tried to restate this claim as follows:
"Some common homeopathic potencies are inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since the statistical chance of one atom of the original substance remaining in solution is vanishingly small beyond about 11C."
Some editing may be helpful to make this clearer, but the original claim is false. Spirit-like medicinal powers was a phrase used hundreds of years ago by Hahnemann, that does not mean all homeopaths believe that today, and furthermore I have already demonstrated at least one who does not. Whig 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree Whig. NOPV issues have not been addressed properly; potentization is the term I think.Not dilution.-- Sm565 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC) -- Sm565 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I will do; but I have to wait for user Orangemarlin; maybe since he removed the under dispute flag wants to participate in the discussion.-- Sm565 04:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No valid explanation was given for removing the flag.-- Sm565 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you see that the article is not supported by its cited references and its POV? [36] [37] [38] [39] -- Sm565 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked 4 questions a week ago and I did not get an answer in all of them. If someone want to comment I would like to hear your opinion. . [40]-- Sm565 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
{{RFCsci | section=RFC on Homeopathy !! reason=NPOV dispute is not being respected !! time=05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC) }} NPOV dispute is not being respected. 05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please investigate users conduct;other conduct issues as well; under dspute tag is removed even if there is a discussion on NPOV ; investigate if the article is supported by its citations - sources have been presented and compared with what the article claims in this page. -- Sm565 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)thanks
Can we please place all critiques into appendices? then the article can have an uninterrupted voice to speak about the subject without constant interruption all along the line. At every point where a criticism is made place a tag directing the reader to read a more balanced view and the critique by science and conventional medicine. Then the article can be read as one continuous flow of info about the subject the article is supposed to be about: homeopathy, without the numerous interruptions as it now stands. A tag at the head of the article can also advise readers to read the critique section as well as the text body in order to get a balanced view. Can we have some idea of who would support this idea? thank you Peter morrell 06:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The advantage of the suggestion is simply that any reader will be able to read the info on the supposed subject without interruption. The cricitisms will all still be there in undiluted or even in expanded form, but they are not getting in the way at every turn. Readers do not IMO come to this article principally to read all the critique or at least they come to read principally about homoepathy and any valid critique there is should not be distracting them from that priamry task. Currently that is exactly what happens: nearly every sentence is shadowed by a criticism. That interrupts the flow incredibly. Peter morrell 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So, Tim, you agree that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will stop it sinking? No way; until these crits are moved the article will never flow and the basic gist of homeopathy is continually interrupted by crit. Until that stops the article is a useless hybrid that no-one will enjoy reading and be only be thoroughly confused by. It cries out for it. Peter morrell 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Any other subject on WP you care to choose will give info about the subject in the title all through. This does not do that. It is a mess and one reason it is a mess is that it cannot even speak about the Main subject without numerous apologies, cautious deferential statements and shadowed by crit, it is crowded out by crit, choked to death by it all the way through. Read the goddam thing it is not an article about homeopathy it is anti-homeopathy and should be retitled as such. It's pathetic. Open your eyes. You're so soaked in science you just don't see it. thank you Peter morrell 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest: Not critisim in the beginning.
1.Homeopathy definion what it claims to be.
2.history
3.technical ( provings preparation)
4.Clinical studies. A table with all metanalyses stating its findings including its sourced critisism.No comments from the editors.
Labaratory studies. The same table. (Beneviste research.....etc) no comments report findings.
5.Separate critisim section in this form: ( safety concerns...) Many scientits say:. Homepaths claim ......
Many scientits say:. Homepaths claim ...
6.Popularity -countries practiced....
happy ending( kidding) I think it is fair and NPOV. -- Sm565 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also against WP:UNDUE. Adam Cuerden talk 07:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
we will give you more space if you want.....70% more in every paragraph.(Even if prominence according to citations cannot be established ) many scientists say 70% homeopaths say30% Homeopathy needs only a few statements to explain its objections. As long there is not censorship in anything. Do you agree?-- Sm565 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
70 30 I meant in the critisism section. The description of the phenomenon does not fall into WP:UNDUE. Critisism does. There is nothing to be afraid of if you have strong arguments the facts in a table and more space to argue . Peter. whig?-- Sm565 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Censorship : I tried to proposed adding objections from homeopaths and they refuged.
I don't see any solution.
They just want an article saying :according to science homeopathy is fraud and no one is allowed to add any objection in the criticism section because it would be WP:UNDUE. What I proposed is fair I think. -- Sm565 08:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You have no excuse.
if you want critism in the introdustion give to homeopathic view 20% even less to object in this form. Homeopaths claim that..... You object even that. We dont live in the Dark ages. Even if you regard Homeopathy as a "fringe theory" its objections are an essential part of the information you give to the reader.You should not hide them otherwhise the article is incomplete. These are obvious things we should not be talking about. .-- Sm565 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit war. Try to discuss changes, I'll be blocking those who are disruptive on this article. Thanks, Mercury 12:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are so uninvolved and even-handed in this matter, as you claim, then precisely why did you block the editor you did and not others? It takes two to edit war, surely? why not block folks from both sides? Peter morrell 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well he has had plenty of time now to chew it over, so who else has he blocked? answer: nobody. So you were incorrect WDM not for the first time. Peter morrell 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah well taping someone's mouth sure makes it go quiet but has the problem been solved? not really Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
OK let's tape a few more mouths and PRETEND we have a civil discussion and a good article. Dream on. Peter morrell 04:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Earlier I tried to raise the issues of whether Hahnemann’s views are representative of modern homeopathic practise, and of how much diversity there is in modern practise. I think these are relevant to the NPOV discussion.
For example, IF SOME modern homeopathic treatment uses low dilutions and does not depend on the idea of the “memory of water”, then all of homeopathy should not be criticized as being based on this idea.
However, I see in the article, in the Medical and scientific analysis section:
“Thus critics contend...” only follows from the preceding sentences in the case of highly dilute preparations.
To try to be very clear, I am NOT saying lower dilutions are effective. I don’t know if they are. I am saying that spreading a critique over an area of homeopathy where it does not apply is careless and leads to statements which are not-NPOV. Wanderer57 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Many modern homeopaths use the LM scale (such as LM1 LM2 LM3 etc) which are all below the Avogadro limit so your precious theoretical molecules are actually present. But many use 30c and above and they are pure space! does this help? both views need to be stated I think. Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, dunno, please show us the maths on that one Adam. thanks Peter morrell 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As noted earlier, I have a supply of tablets that are sold as a homoepathic treatment for insomnia. They are lactose containing 3X dilutions of three other ingredients. Wanderer57 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Adam your latest edit...what does it mean? According to Avogadro's number, there are only 6.022 × 1023 particles per mole, with a mole of substances used in homeopathy ranging between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. Comparing the level of dilution to the number of molecules present, the chance of any molecule of the original substance being present in a 15x solution is very small, and the chances of a single molecule of the original substance remaining in a 24x or 12c dilution would be roughly 1 in 2 billion. please enlighten us. it reads much worse than before. Peter morrell 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Adam I will contend that you have no idea what you are doing and are completely out of your depth here. This sentence is meaningless twaddle: A mole of common substances used in homeopathy ranges between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. please explain what you are up to. Peter morrell 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Rigorous? please, Tim, that is rather gratuitous I think. I have tried to correct the problem. 24x is equivalent to 12c and 6c is 1,000,000,000,000 dilutions = 12 zeroes. does that now clarify? thanks Peter morrell 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of general 'sweetness and light,' OK I withdraw the twaddle word! however if you read what he wrote, esp. the grams stuff, well I'm sorry but it was a bit unintelligible to put it mildly. Mischief now managed. Peter morrell 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Peter, 6C is six successive 100-fold dilutions? Is this right?
1C = 1:100 2C = 1:10,000 3C = 1:1,000,000 4C = 1:100,000,000 5C = 1:10,000,000,000 6C = 1:1,000,000,000,000
The problem with using a "24x" is that some people might read that as 24-fold, since "x" is commonly used in chemistry to denote concentration/dilution (in this usage a 2X solution is two-fold more concentrated than a final 1X solution). I removed this to avoid the dual meaning. If we stick with just explaining the "C" notation this might be less confusing to the reader. Tim Vickers 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Tim, for each centesimal potency you need two zeroes on the scale so 4c is indeed 100,000,000. I thought you were the chemist! ;-) cheers Peter morrell 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I explained this all VERY carefully on the talk page of the draft in the sandbox. And it was summarily rejected. But it can all be made quite clear if necessary. I still think it belongs someplace in Wikipedia to make this disgusting dilution nonsense more transparent.-- Filll 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. If we do nothing else in this article but very very carefully explain, once and for all, what X, D, LM, C, etc potencies mean, and how they relate to regular scientific understandings, we will have accomplished more than any of the thousands upon thousands of nonsense articles on homeopathy that litter the internet. I think if we can just make this mumbo-jumbo clear, it will stand us in extremely good stead. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and a reference manual for all kinds of people all over the world. We are not supposed to be shills for pseudoscience and promoters of incoherent nonsense.
It would be extremely valuable, IMHO, to straighten out these matters of confusion, even if they seem overly technical to some. Because the first thing a scientist or regular pharmacist or a doctor wants to know is, what the heck do those potencies and this nonstandard nomenclature mean? And how do they relate to each other, and how do they relate to what is common knowledge in science? And of course readers cannot easily find anything except confused mumbling from people deeply steeped in mythology and magic, who are almost purposely not explaining it clearly. So let's make some unique contribution here. Let's correct this lacuna in exposition. -- Filll 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any sources for why homeopaths believe that dilutions make things stronger except for the Hahnemann theology? I mean are there homeopaths who actually claim to understand the physical mechanisms behind water memory? Or do they just take it on faith? And if they take it on faith, do they admit it? ScienceApologist 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A reminder that this all original research and so not very relevant. Do we have a reliable source that discusses homeopaths saying this? If not, it doesn't matter. JoshuaZ 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What role does the intention of the homeopath have in influencing the effectiveness of the remedy? -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
None whatsoever: "I have often had physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with the wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy." [41] Dr James Tyler Kent MD (1849-1916) Homeopath. Peter morrell 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I have been named in an RFC involving discussions here in Talk:Homeopathy, it would be good to let participants know in case they have any comments to add. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2. Whig 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting reading:
also
-- Fyslee / talk 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that NOPV issues have not been addressed properly. Examoles : [42] [43] [44]
It is obvious that there is not consesus here and therefore the under dispute sign must remain on the article. I will mark the article
* and I will ask Mercury to protect the flag since it reflects the reality in the talk page. I m sure he will do it.
Best wishes.
-- Sm565 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, Mercury you have to intervene and restore the under dispute flag and take further action as you said. User gave non reason for removing the flag and did not answer the specific questions.
--
Sm565 07:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I will ask again the editors who disagree to respect that there is non consensus in the article. I will give another example. There are many exmples explained in the talk page. If the editors read they will see that the sources dont support what the article says. [45] Please make sure you read the example. -- Sm565 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
he did not reply to my questions either. I mtrying to discuss here. I wonder why he disagrees with the above example. Adam agreed with me.
Please Mercury ask him to participate in our discussion before he reverts something.thanks-- Sm565 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is totally POV. You have to be more objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftilos ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes happens.I remember another user quackgur or something who did the same. We never heard of him. I dont remember you either the last montth- I dont see you anywhere in the talk page.-- Sm565 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well....you just appeared after him without giving any reasons at the right time as well. Where were you the last 2 moths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't find it odd at all. Somebody interested in Wikipedia and homeopathy wanders by and watches the circus a while, in particular the POV tag that comes and goes. He decides he wants to put in his 2 cents, so he opens an account to do so. Maybe he had already been editing anonymously for a while. Perfectly natural, but neither here nor there. -- Art Carlson 10:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that an adminstrator must intervene and protect the under dispute sign here.It is obvious that there is not agrement. Maybe another administrator must intervene. [47] -- Sm565 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile the under dispute flag must be there until we decide about the changes.
Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]
I think this is a not accurate. Some metanalyses conclude that "The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo." [48]-- Sm565 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It is unethical to hide published studies. Just show them all and allow to the readers to decide. We dont live in the dark ages. Dont you think?-- Sm565 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Double yes. We need more rigor in this discussion to keep from going around in circles. I would like to see - on the Talk page, not necessarily in the article - a table of all reviews, meta-studies, and statements from professional organizations, including the wording of their conclusions, any potential conflicts of interest, impact factors or other measures of respectability, and any other indicators of quality. When that is on the table, it should be easier to come to an agreement about what to include and how to summarize the state of the debate. (Individual studies would be too numerous and too difficult to evaluate, i.e. we need secondary sources, not primary sources.) -- Art Carlson 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this box:
This section describes the development of homeopathic thought in a primarily
in-universe style. Please rewrite this section to clarify the disputed nature of Hahnemann's opinions and provide the mainstream perspective. |
because it relates to writing about fiction. Homoeopathy may well be idiotic, but it's not fiction. Please don't go in for silly point-scoring in this way. PiCo 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice the article on these products is in the "homeopathic remedies" category. The article doesn't discuss these products, should we add them or are these not really homeopathic and the article miscategorised? Tim Vickers 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh my this is a difficult one! Strictly speaking they are not the same thing for a number of reasons: they are not proven, they are often used in mixtures, they are not potentised. That essay was requested because the German Govt were thinking of re-classifying BFRs as homeopathic (not sure if they ever did that) and so I was asked to see if I could 'construct a rationale' for their recognition as homeopathic remedies. This I did and found the case fairly convincing for the reasons I give in the essay. However, many homeopaths disagree with my appraisal of that topic and believe them to be different. So take your pick. Hope that clarifies. Peter morrell 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You could slim down that "flower remedies" section a bit though. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on miasms isn't very clear to me - I'll still left wondering what exactly a miasm is, and how it operates. I gather from it that homeopathy regards misams as the fundamental disease-causing agent; if this is so, it needs to be stated, together with a description of just how it's supposed to cause disease. PiCo 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will take a look at it a bit later on. thanks Peter morrell 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]
is not supported by the studies. Not accurate. See above why. Sentence should be modified. -- Sm565 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the sentence is not presice, the sources are there. I will come back to it.
My question is: according to the version of the mainstream view which is adopted in the article 2x dilutions have any effect on cells or not?-- Sm565 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This is minor issue in comparison with the reading of the sourses but if the article adopts that 2x "dilutions" have no effect on cells then the Zicam issue contradicts this whole point of view. If it was the 2x dilution which caused the damage then voila a tiny example that 2x dilutions might have an effect. Therapeutic or the ..opossite. If it was the mechanism of the bottle which caused the damage then the example is totally unrelatated if additonial explanation is not given. Perhaps I miss something here. objections? -- 70.19.106.170 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)-- 70.19.106.170 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont disagree with this. Just the way it is written implies that the medecin caused the problems something highly impropable -accordign to chemistry. Shouldn't for that reason the sentence be rephrased or .....vanished?
If 2x dilutions could have an effect we could ask for our million from Randi - right?) -- Sm565 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Tim Vickers, I have made some slight wording changes to make it more clear. Of course when dilutions of a substance are made, all the original molecules of the substance are still present in the whole mass of water used to make the dilutions, but there is basically too much room "in between" those molecules to have much of a chance of any of them being in a small dose of the remedy made from the dilution.
Now to illustrate the absurdity of the situation I'll just grab a number out of the air. (I should probably say 10 marbles, but I'll be generous and say 100 marbles.) We're basically talking about 100 marbles thrown out into space which then distribute (dilute) themselves in random orbits in an area encompassing the content of a sphere the size of the orbit of the moon around the earth and they fly around at random in that space. Then we take a thimble, close our eyes, and stick it up in the air hoping to catch one of those marbles, and then we empty the contents of the thimble into a bucket. What chance is there that a marble will fall out of the thimble into the bucket? Is it impossible? No, because there really are 100 marbles flying around somewhere out there. Is it likely? Well, when hell freezes over and the sun has burnt out, maybe by then it will have happened only one time.....;-) It's about the same chance (except on a much larger scale) of winning the lottery. Someone who buys a lottery ticket and someone who doesn't buy one have about the same chance of winning, but the one who doesn't has absolutely no chance, while the one who does has a chance in many million. But with homeopathy the chance of getting even one molecule can hardly be calculated, it's that far a shot. And to top it off, if even one molecule of the strongest poison known actually was in the remedy, what effect would it have. Zilch! (Remember that I am just illustrating here, so don't shoot me for some inaccuracies. Few illustrations stand on all four legs.)
What homeopathy does is violate the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics, as well as the modern scientific observations of dose-response relationships that have been demonstrated by pharmacologists. "The dose (still) makes the poison." Interestingly enough, in everyday life and in every other area, believers in homeopathy follow these rules of logic. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to function, carry on a normal conversation, pull up their own zipper, or balance their checkbook. But when they are talking about homeopathy, they suddenly suspend their logical thinking and enter a metaphysical fantasy realm where all things are possible, including the impossible. Go figure. -- Fyslee / talk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is very nice work, Peter. Whig 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There have been no rigorous scientific demonstrations of therapeutic effects of homeopathy in veterinary medicine and a German review of homeopathy in veterinary medicine has stated that the medical effectiveness of homeopathy in higher dilutions is not verified and that giving an animal a placebo can play an active role in influencing the owner to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[86] [87]
How possible is this? Placebo by proxy? I guess telepathy could play a role.... I read the sources. My opinion is that if there is no rigorous studies for whetevever topic - it is more honnest to write nothing or state there are no studies available .Right? -- Sm565 21:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is one valid pointOrangemarlin. [49] If the majority of the editors believe that I dont contribute to this project- please feel free to ban me for ever. best.-- Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC) One more : [50]----
I agree with Tim. Not serious studies no comment.-- Sm565 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The article was edited - by Tim I think - "The use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is regarded as controversial, as there have been little scientific investigation on if it has any effects in animals and current research in the field is not of a high enough standard to provide reliable data.[87] Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[87]"-- Sm565 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists. I m almost sure that most of the editors would consider this sentence unsupported. Did you read the source? [51]-- Sm565 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
These sentences below are included in the conclusions of 3 out of 5 the metanalyses cited in article. I would like your opinion on this:
[52] 1. "This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.". 2.Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. 3.Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.
1.How the introduction, which summarizes the results of the metanalyses on homeopathy", reflects these suggestions? 2.How these suggestions about replication of existing promising studies are compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a pseudoscience not worth researching. ( Before you answer please consider that no such suggestion for astrology (or other form of quackery we know of) has been recorded in any scientific journal or metanalyses.)-- Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind suggestions. I did correct them. Feel free to comment on my english. I always want to learn. Now, if you have an answer or comment on the real question, please let me know. -- Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone spells perfectly. When spelling errors exist in the article text, they need to be corrected. When spelling errors occur here in Talk, they might be mentioned in order to prevent the error from being replicated in the article text, but otherwise it is not constructive to mock and disregard editors for their spelling.
Whig 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I m sure Tim did not intend to be unkind. Whig I would like to hear from you too. BEst-- Sm565 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that if the specific scientists regarded homeopathy as a sort of quackery they would have suggested in the conclusions more research using phrases promising studies and positive trend?-- Sm565 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My main point is that in the introduction the metanalyses summary should be rephrased in order to include this conclusions ( promising studies positive trend request for more research) as well. Otherwise the sentence's meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy which is false- according to the actual studies. Opinions ?-- Sm565 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I think whig has the skills to propose a version like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This is sad. It is embarassing. Homeopathy is pseudoscience with no and I mean NO scientific or medical evidence to back it up. Nothing. Nada. To try to pretend otherwise is just pure nonsense. So stop playing word games in a language you do not understand and please go away to harass someone else.-- Filll 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy"?
"Further research on homeopathy is warranted"
"Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies" is a verbal throat-clearing ???? which is included in the final conclusions? Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions sentences for others forms of quackery? Examples?Please ?--
Sm565 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions for further research for others forms of quackery? Examples??-- Sm565 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is one of the current article's conclusion that Homeopathy is a sort of quackery based on these results. You just refuse to read the conclusions of the studies. [54] I just have not heard scientists to waste time on studying any form or quackery and after that to suggest further studies and in their conclusions to use expressions like there is a poditive trend is legitimate case for research and promising studies. Have you?-- Sm565 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that it is a pronouncement upon efficacy. I said that the suggestions of the conclusions for further studies because of the findings of positive trend and the considerations that there is "legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy" should be included in the summary of the meta analysis, otherwise the meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy and it does not reflect what the conclusions of the studies really say.
And of course these conclusions do not support the final statement in the introduction of the article:
The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.
because no scientists would support further studies on subjects which are a sort of quackery. -- Sm565 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting original formulation, but of doubtful validity. The study you're citing is in fact part of the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy. The statement you're quoting is, simply, true. It doesn't say "the absence of a scintilla of supporting data on efficacy", it merely says "the lack". - Nunh-huh 07:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis. Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jul;90(3):126-30. (link)
The answer is that 60% identified the correct bottle while 40% identified the wrong bottle. The results did not differ significantly from what you would predict from chance. Unfortunately the sample size is rather small. Do people think we should include it? Tim Vickers 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
“ | In this study a promising trend was observed that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. A multi-national, large-scale trial will be required to investigate this phenomena with adequate statistical power. | ” |
Whig 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think all three of us agreed that this was not a significant study and was not worth including. Couldn't we just leave it at that? Wanderer57 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It says plenty. Except for those who want it to say otherwise.-- Filll 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I follow William of Ockham. And I think the 80% figure is significant as well.-- Filll 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the 80% (actually 82.4%) is significant. And even statistically significant at some reasonably impressive confidence level. However, I would have to study the matter more to say anything more conclusive.-- Filll 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You are confused I am afraid, and this is bordering on trolling.-- Filll 05:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday someone added "the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics" to a paragraph about the dose-response relationship. Today I removed it and two people have reverted me.
Chemistry/physics are relevant in explaining why there is probably no active ingredient left in a homeopathic remedy, but this paragraph is about how homeopathy says that more diluted solutions are more powerful. The scientific concept that contradicts this is the fact that dose-response relationships are almost always positive, which is a concept in pharmacology, not chemistry or physics. -- Galaxiaad 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Is he by any chance a physicist? Whig 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Would someone like to support his credentials against this charge? Whig 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read and comment on this study.I think it could be used.
Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting
Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [56] Best.-- Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent > Who are you to encourage anyone? This sort of worthless nonsense spewed on the talk pages ad infinitum discourages real productive editors and destroys Wikipedia as a project. You have made it evidently clear you do not know the rules of NPOV, you do not understand Wikipedia, you are unwilling or unable to be able to learn about WP and NPOV, you do not know science, you do not know scientific protocol or medicine or really anything except how to troll and make other more reasoned and reasonable editors disgusted with your antics. I would ask you to please try to control yourself here and give it a rest. Or better yet, please edit something else.--
Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Do not embarasss yourself Whig further with this kind of nonsense.--
Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> It is reaching the point where Whig's comments should be summarily removed from the talk page on sight because of trolling concerns.-- Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> You are among those who is disruptive here Whig, sad to say.-- Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
To Sm565, if you don't have a reasonably good basis to believe that a study is credible and clearly indicative of some outcome, positive or negative, it is probably not useful. Whig 07:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion: 1 The limitations of the study are stated by itself. It is not a discovery. 2. It is not the editors job to evaluate metanalyses according to the methods used. The study falls into the wikidedia critiria for sources.I think. (Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and scienceand) It is large, and published in a respected publishing house. [57] All writers are scientists employed by universities. Why it should not be used? -- Sm565 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It qualifies according to the written critiria. What else more clear could be added? .-- Sm565 08:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
These are the criteria. [58] Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications-- Sm565 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The study has a conclusion whether we like it or not. Include it and criticize it. Exclusion cannot be justified according the above criteria.--
Sm565 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [56] Best.--Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not part of the conclusion. No study reports firm conclusions even the negative ones.The say we found insufficient evidence far way from firm conclusions. It is a study with a positive result, it qualifies and there is no excuse to not report it with its criticism. -- Sm565 08:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition. This is not a "firm conclusion" but it is reported.-- Sm565 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I would do that.But U think it is very clear.-- Sm565 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This article STILL contains vast baggages of criticism and this needs to be trimmed back to a bare minimum IMO. The title of this article is homeopathy and that is what it should predominantly be about NOT one long skeptical rant from the true believers of the 'american church of science,' which is very clearly what it has become. thank you Peter morrell 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter, after months and months here, I am afraid you do not really understand Wikipedia yet. Because of the WP rules for WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, [[WP:UNDUE}] etc, this article HAS to have a large measure of criticism. In fact, according to some interpretations of the rules, it might need to have the same proportion of criticism as there is in the medical field. That is, the overwhelming majority of the article should be written this way. From the POV of science and conventional medicine. Sorry. -- Filll 14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The article on intelligent design is a good example. It does reveal the position of the Discovery Institute, but it also makes it clear what the mainstream view is as well.-- Filll 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a misconception that came up again and again in the discussion above. There is no way even in principle for a study to prove that homeopathic remedies have no effect at all. A positive result can state with a certain degree of certainty that remedies have an effect. A negative study can only say with a certain degree of certainty that the effects, if there are any, are not larger than such-and-such. It is meaningless to say that a negative result is not statistically significant, you can just say that the sensitivity is too small to be of interest (e.g. in comparison to other studies that are more sensitive). Because of this, if remedies have no effect, studies will always be fluttering near the current level of sensitivity - proponents will always see a promising trend that justifies larger studies, and opponents will see the results as consistent with the null hypothesis. (The way I see it is, the studies have gotten sensitive enough that, if there should prove to be a barely measurable effect, it is so small as to be clinically uninteresting. It would be a scientific revolution, but to discuss that we have to get into the chance that the world has been built in such a weird way). The consequence for the article is that we need to concentrate more on the sensitivity of a study than the results (given that no studies show block-busting positive results.) In most cases we are spared evaluating individual studies (primary sources) in this way because there are several reviews and meta-analyses (secondary sources) available. -- Art Carlson 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is not NPOV. Asserting the POV tag is not vandalism. Whig 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
correct.with all the respect for the other editors.-- Sm565 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you assume anything like that looking at the talk page?-- Sm565 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think they are 2 at least.-- Sm565 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a nice civilized discussion just consensus has not been reached. -- Sm565 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Both are weasel words. I was trying to make it apparent, in order to fix this language. It needs work. Whig 18:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) To avoid this, try the options in the dispute resolution. Once blocked, your recourse will be explained to you on your talk page, if you choose that path. Mercury 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We have been trying to summurize the metanalyses conclusions objectively. --
Sm565 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we at least have general agreement that these are weasel words? Whig 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
“ | The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.[22][23][24] | ” |
Whig 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Both "often" and "many" are weasle words unless the source says exactly that. How Often? How Many? These variables aren't defined and thus are ambiguous. Does "Often" mean 50% of the time? 70% of the time? 99% of the time? Does "many" mean a lot? Does it mean most? Does it mean 99% of scientists? What does it mean? Wikidudeman (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
form of quackery ?I have also argued against that above. It is not supported by the conclusions and suggestions of the cited meta analysis.-- Sm565 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) There are no reliable sources that describe homeopathy as a "successfull (sic) form of alternative therapy". Any version of the article that describes homeopathy thusly would be in gross violation of NPOV and undue weight. I am willing to address some of the pro-homeopathic editors' concerns, but I cannot agree with this line of reasoning. We need to take the same approach to this article that has worked on articles like Intelligent design and Global warming, for example. Skinwalker 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is one reliable source -One could report and criticize its findings ( using references) [59] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs)
Obscure journal? ????? It is recommended .....I think. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) It is a metanalyses by: 1Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy, Graz, Austria 2University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Integrative Medicine Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA 3HomInt, Karlsruhe, Germany 4Complementary Medicine Research Unit; Primary Medical Care, University of Southhampton, Southhampton, UK 5VSM Geneesmiddelen, Alkmaar, The Netherlands 6ClinResearch GmbH, Cologne, Germany 7Tilburg, The Netherlands 8Institute for Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland -- Sm565 21:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Being randomized is not one of the wikipedia criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications According to these criteria it qualifies. Every good faith editor can see it. -- Sm565 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to worry about how to cite many sources calling homeopathy quackery. We don't have even a single such source. The 3 sources cited do not use the word quackery or anything similar in the abstract, and I seriously doubt they use it in the main text. The intro now clearly states that there is a "lack of evidence supporting its efficacy" and that it takes a "stance against conventional medicine". The last sentence of the introduction adds no new content and uses a formulation that is not supported by the sources. Unless some other sources can be found, where notable people or organizations call homeopathy quackery, the sentence should be stricken. -- Art Carlson 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try and keep this one simple as well, so I don't get confused. Why is the POV tag on the article? Mercury 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Because its main point of view is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Editors refuge to include studies from reliable sources which shows that Homeopathy has a therapeutic effect. [65] The interpretation of the cited sources is not objective. I have documented all these above. -- Sm565 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]
Really simple. -- Sm565 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost. Not all of them though. Read and decide.It is above. -- Sm565 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think if we can get that last sentence of the LEAD straightened out, there may not be a POV tag needed for the whole article. We can identify sections that need work as appropriate. I think this article is a lot better than it was a week ago. Whig 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opininion the meta analysis summary is not accurate as well. Other studies should be included not only the negative ones. Critisism of the cited studies is not included but it exists. I will try to work on that this week.-- Sm565 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure.-- Sm565 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the strategy here is obvious. Two or more POV warriors want to change the definition of NPOV and WP policies for this article and remove every negative statement about homeopathy. They want to remove all criticism of homeopathy from the article and violate all WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE guidelines. They want to stretch the definition of WP:RS and WP:V sources.
To exhaust the regular WP editors here, they have engaged in a massive campaign of talk page commentary. This is transparent. It is pointless. You know who you are. We know who you are. You are single topic accounts meant to cause chaos and disruption. And you will not succeed. Please reform your ways and do not force the hand of the community.-- Filll 13:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That is such pure fantasy! Where did you dredge that up from? As I see it, they do not want that. I think they want the article to be fair and balanced which it isn't at the moment. A fair and balanced account of homeopathy, and the trials, etc, which also includes the critique of the anti-homeo lobby. Presently about 50% of the article is criticism which many editors do not think is very fair at all. To reduce that does not mean to eliminate it completely. Such an idea is preposterous because everyone knows that the criticism of such a contentious subject is 'out there' and needs to be mentioned in the article. The argument here is really about how big that mention should be. Well, that's my ten cents; the editors you refer to can doubtless speak for themselves. thanks Peter morrell 13:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
According to
Wikipedia's neutrality policy everybody's got a POV. However, the
reliability and
verifiability of scientific consensus on the point that homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience is apparent and does not deserve sidelining.
ScienceApologist 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why the under dispute sign was removed?-- Sm565 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. No citation supports "is often described as a form of quackery".Also: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy", is not totally accurate.Sources interpretation problematic again. Please read above. I explained.-- Sm565 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No citation supports "is often described as a form of quackery".Also: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy", is not totally inaccurate.Sources interpretation problematic again. Please read above. I explained.-- Sm565 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources which equate homeopathy with quackery:
[73] [74] [75] [76] [77] etc. etc. etc. ScienceApologist 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thats one study...where did you get often?-- Sm565 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of removing all "anti-Homeopathy" material from the article and making a "pro-Homeopathy" article at [78]which is now 59,911 bytes, compared to the original size of 93,074 bytes, so the current version of the article is at least 64.4% "pro-Homeopathy". This is well above 50%.
I will note that this is a bit misleading since most of the high dilution material is not really anti-homeopathy at all, but I called it that anyway. Not all of the scientific testing is anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. The historical discussion of controversy is not really all anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. So at a minimum, the article is 2/3 pro-homeopathy, and the true figure is likely far higher. -- Filll 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Viewing ScienceApologist's further edits to the file, it is quite interesting to me which parts he believes are actually anti-homeopathy which I do not perceive to be negative at all. Perhaps we all should do our own version of a "pro-homeopathy" edit of the present article. I am somewhat surprised with some of SA's alleged anti-homeopathy pieces of text, frankly.-- Filll 18:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My pro-version (currently up at Talk:Homeopathy/pro) got a pro rating of 59.6%. I tried to be as much of a devil's advocate as possible -- anticipating all possible negative comments that could be made about the text I removed. ScienceApologist 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I have to admit, I am much more impressed with the balance between the pro-homeopathy and the anti-homeopathy material in the article than I was a few weeks ago. I was pleasantly surprised to do this measurement and find that there is a good solid measure of anti-homeopathy material in the article. This is necessary for NPOV. Perhaps we need more. Nevertheless, I think the article looks better than it did a few weeks ago in this regard. I also think that the LEAD looks much much better than it did; more compact, and a good solid fraction of it cautioning the reader that there is no support for this practice. I might read it a few more times, but I am ready to suggest I think it might be ready for GA status again. I will consult with other editors first, of course for their input.-- Filll 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
There is a clear NPOV dispute on this article. "Mainstream" scientific POV is presented throughout the article, which is appropriate to give most weight to, but alternative viewpoints are not given an adequate voice, nor are primary sources treated. Beliefs are attributed to "homeopaths" as a whole, by non-homeopaths. There is not an adequate factual description of homeopathy. It is treated as a subject to be dismissed. Whig 18:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whig ( talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, all of the sections in this article should be pro-science. If someone wants something else, they should make another article. Perhaps on another wiki.-- Filll 19:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Really? Well maybe there is something I am not understanding. I thought that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE meant that we did not promote fringe theories and characterized nonmainstream viewpoints as the mainstream would.-- Filll 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not edited the text of the article for weeks on end. So do not bite me ok? However, medical articles and science articles about pseudoscience topics are to be written from the mainstream viewpoint, as far as I know, and from my reading of the guidelines. However, it is not up to you guys, no matter what tantrums you might want to throw and how you want to spit and fume. This does not mean we do not present the pseudoscience view. We present both. But we make sure we temper the pseudoscience view with at least an equal measure of the mainstream view, if not more. However, it is not up to me or you either. It is up to consensus. So we will see where that lies.-- Filll 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Filll seems satisfied with the present state of the article while promoting a very explicit pro-"Mainstream science" POV and condemnation of alternatives, seems evident proof that it fails to be neutral. Whig 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I am speaking for myself now. And I am NOT happy with this article. I want it delisted as a GA. I want it to present the scientific and medical side first and foremost. I do not want to see it bending over backwards to try to rationalize some mythology or obsolete witchcraft with no and I mean NO basis in science, or medicine, or any evidence to support it, or any theory that would even make it plausible. It is claptrap. It is nonsense. It is horsepucky. It is bull. It is woo woo. Can I make myself any clearer? The present article is FAR TOO PRO-HOMEOPATHY. It needs to be made much closer to neutral and mainstream to be included in WP. Do I make myself clear? Or do you want it in even clearer terms? I will be happy to oblige you if there is any doubt.
I did not edit this article for weeks on end because I was driven off by an editor who was frantic to make admin. So I let him have a chance unimpeded, and I am not entirely happy with the outcome. So now we have to start the arduous task of fixing this mess. Capisci?-- Filll 20:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
"Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[12]"
Hahnemann wrote that how many hundred years ago before modern molecular biology? Attributing these words to "homeopathy" as a whole as if all modern practitioners must believe precisely this, is a complete farce. Whig 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be correct to attribute to Hahnemann what he said. We do not say all people in the group share one belief. Whig 20:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Two of them find homeopathy positive promising without yet definite conclusions.
Look at the results.
Dont ask me for Dr.Fisher. [9] -- Sm565 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
They are MDs and some of them are university proffesors. -- Sm565 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen some pretty weird stuff on this talkpage, but I'd like to point out the following:
There is no quantum mechanical basis for homeopathy, nor have their been any reliable papers written that support homeopathy through quantum mechanics. We can therefore abandon that rhetoric right now.
ScienceApologist 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, found an article. Towards a New Model of the Homeopathic Process Based on Quantum Field Theory. [10] It may or may not be suitable for reference in the main article, but establishes quite plainly that some homeopaths posit a quantum physical mechanism. Whig 09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I will ask the question again: Do all homeopaths believe in unbounded dilution? Whig 23:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is irrelevant to the question at hand. Adam Cuerden talk 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
“ | 30C is 1 in 10^60. We can estimate the number of original atoms using Avogado's constant, which tells us there are 6.022 x 10^23 atoms in a mole of substance. A mole of a substance has a weight measured in grams (the number of grams is based on its molecular weight, and hus can't be less than 1). Even if we presume that we start with a kilogram of the substance - that's less, perhaps substantially less, than a thousand moles - there is still less than a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance that a single molecule remains in a litre of the original. Any dilution greater than about 1 in 10^24 has this problem. Adam Cuerden talk 05:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | ” |
“ | Accepting your math for the moment, what dilution would 10^24 correspond to? Is 6C still too dilute? Whig 06:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | ” |
“ | About 12C, though the maths vary a bit depending on the amount in the original, and how much of the final remedy is actually taken. Given the size of homeopathic pills, I suspect that it'd actually be a little lower - 10C or so. However, remember, this is for there being a statistical likelihood of one molecule being present. If we're looking for, say, a part per billion - which is about the minimum limit of what could actually be detected - that's at most 4.5C. Adam Cuerden talk 07:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC) | ” |
Oh, and, Whig, it's cute that you copy-pasted my attempt to explain things to you from up above, out of cotnext, in order to replace my real thoughts. It's also attempting to make me support an argument I don't by making it seem I was replying to SA. Don't do it again.
Adam Cuerden
talk 02:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is difficult to follow. Quoting from the discussion:
First question, relating to the above, is it true that at a high dilution one dose of the solution might have 1 or 2 molecules of the "active ingredient", while another dose from the same batch could have zero such molecules? Because materials are not infinitely divisible, high dilutions would result in many doses that contain only the dilutant. Right?
Second question: If a patient goes to a clinic with a ailment for which there is a “conventional” treatment of proven efficacy, would it be ethical for a doctor, instead of giving the conventional treatment, to put the patient into a study where the treatment they would get is a homeopathic treatment of unknown value or a placebo? Wanderer57 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It is clear to me with the neutrality under attack for this article and being currently in protection, it is not fair to call this article "good". I have delisted it. ScienceApologist 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read the instructions at {{ ArticleHistory}} when updating GA status. Also, if editors will scroll to the bottom of the page after updating articlehistory, they will notice the red highlighted error category when errors are introduced to articlehistory. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the intro is far too long - tempers are running rather hot, and everyone seems determined to get in every single point they can, as early as they can. The proposed revision below cuts the lead back to the minimum - the material that's removed doesn't have to be removed from the article itself, it can still remain in the appropriate paras of the main article, but the lead needs to be concise and to distill the essence, not to touch on every detail. Anyway, the following is for your consideration, whicb I know you will give in a gracious and considerate manner. PiCo 03:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
+++++CURRENT VERSION++++ Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a controversial form of alternative medicine that aims to treat "like with like". It was invented in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann.[1] Substances, which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease, are administered in heavily diluted formulations, with shaking at each stage of the dilution. Homeopaths contend that the shaking causes some imprint (or memory) of the diluted substance upon the medium (usually water or alcohol), thus enabling it to treat the patient, even though in many common homeopathic dilutions no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain.[2] Homeopathy is based on a vitalist world view, which sees the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical vital force. Proponents claim that homeopathic treatment can harmonize and re-balance the vital force in the body, thus restoring health. These claims are unsupported by modern biology or medicine.[3][4][5][6][7]
Claims for the medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies.[8][9][10][11] Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[12] The scientific community asserts there is no evidence that water or alcohol retain any memory of a substance and that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect.[7][13][8][9] Homeopaths have been accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, or even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures.[14][15] Meta-analyses confirmed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that have shown positive results were flawed in design. These findings, along with the proscription by homeopaths against conventional medicine and encouragement of a "holistic" approach to health, are consistent with the argument that homeopathy is a sort of quackery.[16][17][18]
+++++PROPOSED REVISION++++
Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine that aims "to treat like with like". Invented in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann,[1] it is based on a world-view which sees the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical "vital force"; treatments aim to harmonize and re-balance the "vital force" through the administration in highly diluted doses of substances which in large quantities would cause symptoms similar to the disease.
Claims for the efficacy of homeopathic treatments are unsupported by clinical studies or by modern scientific knowledge,[8][9][10][11] and homeopaths have been accused of giving 'false hope' to patients who might otherwise seek effective conventional treatments, or even advising patients to avoid standard medical procedures.[14][15]
- - -
I have a supply of tablets that are sold as a homoepathic treatment for insomnia. They are lactose containing 3X dilutions of three other ingredients. At this dilution (assuming thorough mixing), there are definitely small amounts of each ingredient in each tablet, so there is no issue of infinitesimals or total absence.
The existence of remedies of this nature should remind us that all of modern homeopathy cannot be written off as being “unsupported by.... modern scientific knowledge” or words to that effect. I think the article (and probably the introduction) needs to acknowledge the diversity of practise, both to give a fair description and to avoid a "one critique fits all homeopathy" approach. Wanderer57 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Here [12] is an article detailing detection of Nitrogen dioxide at parts per hundred billion, which is clearly a feasible task in modern chemistry, therefore yes indeed 6c or 8c potencies do indeed contain detectable molecules. thank you Peter morrell 16:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [13] There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma.
2. [14]cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12535487 MAIN RESULTS: There were no studies that fulfilled the criteria for inclusion and no data to present. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia.
3. [15] Insufficient information was available on the method of randomisation and the study lacked clinically meaningful outcomes.REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction. It is likely that the demand for complementary medicine will continue and women will continue to consult a homoeopath during their pregnancy. Although caulophyllum is a commonly used homoeopathic therapy to induce labour, the treatment strategy used in the one trial in which it was evaluated may not reflect routine homoeopathy practice. Rigorous evaluations of individualised homeopathic therapies for induction of labour are needed..-- Sm565 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. [16] Reduction was mostly in mild attacks on placebo, more in moderate and severe attacks on homoeopathy. Few adverse events were reported. Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic treatment. The course of change differed between groups, and suggested that improvement reversed in the last month of treatment on placebo. On this evidence we cannot recommend homoeopathy for migraine prophylaxis, but cannot conclude that it is without effect.-- Sm565 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
5. [17] There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies.-- Sm565 05:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [18] methodological quality was variable including some high standard studies .... found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.-- Sm565 04:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects. -- Sm565 04:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. [19] Cancerous lymphocytes (Jurkat), having lost the ability to respond to regulatory signals, seem to be fairly unresponsive to high homeopathic potencies-- Sm565 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. [20] CONCLUSION: There is no indication that belladonna 30CH produces symptoms different from placebo or from no intervention-- Sm565 05:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [21] although favouring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.-- Sm565 04:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2.(pilot study ?) Efficacy Study of Homeopathic Potassium Dichromate to Treat Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients: [22]
“ | The most recent study was a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial of 50 critically ill ventilated patients with a previous history of COPD and tobacco use by Frass et al. Five C30 pellets of potassium dichromate or placebo were administered twice daily until extubation and it was found that those receiving the homeopathic formulation had statistically significant (p<0.0001) tracheal secretion reductions, earlier extubation times and shorter lengths of stay in critical care as compared to their placebo counterparts. | ” |
Whig 04:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. [23] The objective results reinforce earlier evidence that homoeopathic dilutions differ from placebo. -- Sm565 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
4. [24] individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia.-- Sm565 05:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
5. [25] individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of diarrhea and number of stools in children with acute childhood diarrhea.-- Sm565 05:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
[26] CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.-- Sm565 07:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [27] it shows positive but not conclusive. indicates that there Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy. 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, but only by means of well performed trials.".-- Sm565 06:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)-- Sm565 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. [28] 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-- Sm565 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)-- Sm565 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
3. [29] CONCLUSION: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies-- Sm565 07:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.-- Sm565 04:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)-- Sm565 04:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
2. [30] CONCLUSION: for childhood and adolescence ailmentsThe evidence is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition ......for childhood and adolescence ailments. -- Sm565 04:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1. [ [31]] "Having read this ( LAncet) report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy." -- Sm565 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
.........
These all the clinical studies cited in the article. If anybody can contribute to this list it would be helpful.I think all the studies could be used including the metanalyses and its critisisms. The basic homeopathic objection about the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial not being a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." must be added, briefly exlained and critisized.-- Sm565 06:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is verging on
WP:OR. Anyway, this page is not the place to debate Homeopathy itself. It is a place to discuss the article.--
Filll 16:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Whig, Did you get my E-mail? Look at the bottom section and see if you can add some stuff there so that we can get an idea of what your disputes with the article are. Just to summarize it all and clarify it all without having to read through all of these talk page posts. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm only part-way through, and spending so much time here on Talk:Homeopathy has left me little to get further. I think responsible editors will read this book in order to be properly informed of what homeopathy is, or at least how it was originally defined and practiced. Whig 05:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
How do guys type fast enough to produce so much verbiage in a few short hours? And does anybody think we have made any progress? I'm sorry (or maybe I'm not) that I don't have enough time now to mediate and/or join the fray, but let me suggest a way forward. The discussion now focuses on the summary of the scientific opinion in the introduction. This is understandable, but the main reason we cannot agree on the wording of the summary is that we do not agree on the content of the section "Medical and scientific analysis". We should work on that first, but ... To do justice to all sides would require going into great detail, including what is good and bad about individual studies, and what is good and bad about clinical tests of homeopathy in general. That level of detail is not appropriate in an overview article on homeopathy. The way out, as I see it, is to work on a supplemental article on "Medical and scientific analysis of homeopathy", or maybe just "Clinical trials of homeopathy". With more space available, we can be more comprehensive and work more closely with the reliable sources. My great hope (I have always been known for my unbounded naivety.) is that, once we have all the cards on the table, we can find a summary that all sides can live with, especially since potential misunderstandings can be mitigated by refering to the detailed article. I have a foggy outline in my head of what the new article should look like, but that will have to wait till later. Also, it might be easier to keep tempers under control if we first write the article off-line, like we did recently for the main article. I thought Wikidudeman did a good job there and would welcome it if he took over the process. -- Art Carlson 08:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Art, I see no problems with your suggestion and think it could indeed be a valuable addition and hopefully an arena which could generate more common ground and more light than recent heat! cheers Peter morrell 08:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think making a whole new article for the scientific evaluation of homeopathy is a good idea in the first place so it's not really relevant. However stating that "Wikidudeman has some POV issues himself" and that I have "existing WP:OWN issues" are clearly accusations. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please may the other active editors weigh in on the question of whether a supplementary article is a good idea. We can decide later how to produce it, whether under the mediation of Wikidudeman or someone else, or as a live article. -- Art Carlson 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There are obviously some people who see problems with this article and from what I can determine, these long and unregulated discussions don't accomplish anything. Therefore I want to try to resolve the disputes and get to the core of what problems some editors see with the article by having each editor who sees a problem with the article state in their own separate section what they see as problematic. Please list each problem as briefly as possible but don't forget to provide sufficient details. Be sure to list each separate problem with a * . Wikidudeman (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
...Well, as I said, I expect this to blow up in our face, but I'll have a go...
Adam Cuerden talk 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
No. This section is for each editor to elaborate on their problems with the article. Clearly stating them once and for all so that everyone can know them. And then other editors comment on them. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the history section mentioning the history of homeopathy even though other sections don't mention it. Why must other sections mention it exactly? I'm not sure I understand your problems with the section though. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I m surprised that the sign under dispute is removed. That means some editors dont want to accept that there is well documented opinion on the talk page different that theirs. I think that this is not respectful for the other editors and it is not in the spirit of the rules of wikipedia. The under dispute sign should be there as long as there is a dispute going on.If someone objects to this idea please explain.-- Sm565 02:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to apolozise. I thought that someone from the editors we were arguing in the talk page removed the under dispute tag but actually it was another user (I think) who did not participate in the discussion and gave non reasons for the tag removal from what I see in our talk page.
I do not consider "the article seems fine" a rational explanation since we had agreed to reach a consenus in this oage before any editing. Sorry QuackGur.Please next time try to participate in our discussion. .-- Sm565 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
put the wrong sign before.-- Sm565 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have as much time to spend here as I did over the weekend. Instead of rehashing again and again the issues that I and others have with this article in its present form, I will try to make some careful edits to the article and if they are removed we can come back and discuss them here. I may be more infrequent for the next few days, but at least now with the article unlocked we can make some forward progress together instead of arguing. I want to say that I do not recognize a current group of editors to be seeking an NPOV article, but I hope we can resolve this dispute in some mutually agreeable fashion, whether that entails splitting the article into two or more, or some other solution. Whig 05:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
However, the mainstream science POV does not really exists. I have never seen in any major organization like WHO website or the others cited references that Science considers homeopathy as a pseudoscience. They say "controversial".-- Sm565 07:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd be a lot happier if your first reference wasn't shitty random spammy crap off the intarwebz, not to mention the fact that this is probably giving undue weight to your point of view where it is not needed: specific examples are given elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 13:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Adam, for finally fixing it better than I could. much appreciated. cheers Peter morrell 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It's OK no harm done, but thanks again anyway. It's now much better and sharper. cheers Peter morrell 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but homeopathy ONLY uses single drugs (OK predominantly) so no complex mixtures with 64 ingredients etc. Peter morrell 18:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many guidelines. Sometimes these get in the way of the process of improving the quality of articles. However, in my experience, there is one guideline that never does, and that is WP:LEAD. It not only gives great advice on how to write leads, but also, implicitly, great advice on how to write articles. Almost every encounter I have had with an article in difficulty has been resolved by applying WP:LEAD. Get the article right first, and then use WP:LEAD to write the lead. The lead should summarize the article. It should cover the most important points in the article, and nothing which is not covered in the article. There should be no big surprises in the article for someone who has read the lead.
The lead of this article does not, currently, summarize it adequately. It does not cover the historical development, the various forms of current practice, the current prevalence, or the legal status, all of which are prominant parts of the article. This may mean that the article needs to be changed. More likely, however, it means the lead needs to be changed. Proposals to shorten the lead to 2 paragraphs for an 80+ K article are absurd.
My own opinion is that this article should be more strident but also more concise in its criticism of homeopathy. "Show, don't tell" is one of the key principles of NPOV. The article should spend more time describing homeopathy in neutral terms, so that the criticism of it as pseudoscience is obvious and does not require so much repetition. However, that is just my view, but I urge you to let WP:LEAD guide you. It is a great guideline. Geometry guy 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the area where ANYONE who thinks that this article has POV can summarize their reasons why. Everyone who thinks that this article is POV, please just summarize your reasons why you think that so that we can start fixing the article appropriately. POV tags aren't meant to stay forever and unless reasons are given and summarized clearly here by those who believe it is POV then the tag must go. I've read the discussions above and I can not determine exactly what changes to make to satisfy those who think that the article is POV so I request that they summarize their reasons here. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
(Moved off topic discussions here) Wikidudeman (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My only grouse about the article at the moment FWIW is that there seems to be too much critique built into the flow of narrative as it goes along and yet WDM promised some time back not to do that but to place critique in a separate section, what Adam amusingly termed a ghetto. Well, I would prefer that because it seems to me that the article never really gets into second gear; it is always looking over its shoulder for the dark shadow of a criticism to come bellowing down on anything it says. It is suffocated all the way along by critique. The whole thing reads as if it is way too cautious and defensive about saying anything about the subject this article is supposed to be about. Sorry if that offends a few folks but we must try and air our grievances as that is what we have been asked to do. Hope that's OK... let's discuss it then. cheers Peter morrell 19:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> It's a problem with separate "critique" sections that they're inevitably separated from the subject they're dealing with, so each argument has to be restated in order to state the objections. It also means that the "pro" arguments are presented without being put in the context of majority mainstream opinion, and so contravene provisions of NPOV and NPOV/FAQ. Hiding the critique away in its own section means that it's easily overlooked, and its readers get a false impression. It's a matter of balance, but each controversial section must be put in its proper context. .. dave souza, talk 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do, however, agree that the approach of "What Homeopaths believe" and then "What Critics believe" for each significant section of the article is one suitable approach to NPOV. ... Kenosis 23:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you realize that removing the under dispute flag without trying to reach a consensus using rational arguments and reliable references but using banners, you totally discredit your selves ? Serious readers who will try to investigate the subject they will not take you seriously if they decide to just take a look at the talk page and see the way you argue. Unless you think that wikipedia is for middle school students who want to copy quickly some info for their homework. Please stop doing it and accept that some people disagree with you and have taken the time to explain why.Try to do the same. It is more healthy I assure you. Best wishes.-- Sm565 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Sm565 23:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
User:ScienceApologist continues to remove the POV tag. I do not want to revert repeatedly. Please someone else restore the tag, so that we can continue this civil discussion. Whig 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The article states, "Homeopathy is inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since its theory states that extreme dilution makes drugs more powerful by enhancing their "spirit-like medicinal powers".[13]"
I have tried to restate this claim as follows:
"Some common homeopathic potencies are inconsistent with the laws of chemistry and physics, since the statistical chance of one atom of the original substance remaining in solution is vanishingly small beyond about 11C."
Some editing may be helpful to make this clearer, but the original claim is false. Spirit-like medicinal powers was a phrase used hundreds of years ago by Hahnemann, that does not mean all homeopaths believe that today, and furthermore I have already demonstrated at least one who does not. Whig 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree Whig. NOPV issues have not been addressed properly; potentization is the term I think.Not dilution.-- Sm565 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC) -- Sm565 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I will do; but I have to wait for user Orangemarlin; maybe since he removed the under dispute flag wants to participate in the discussion.-- Sm565 04:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No valid explanation was given for removing the flag.-- Sm565 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you see that the article is not supported by its cited references and its POV? [36] [37] [38] [39] -- Sm565 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I asked 4 questions a week ago and I did not get an answer in all of them. If someone want to comment I would like to hear your opinion. . [40]-- Sm565 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
{{RFCsci | section=RFC on Homeopathy !! reason=NPOV dispute is not being respected !! time=05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC) }} NPOV dispute is not being respected. 05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please investigate users conduct;other conduct issues as well; under dspute tag is removed even if there is a discussion on NPOV ; investigate if the article is supported by its citations - sources have been presented and compared with what the article claims in this page. -- Sm565 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)thanks
Can we please place all critiques into appendices? then the article can have an uninterrupted voice to speak about the subject without constant interruption all along the line. At every point where a criticism is made place a tag directing the reader to read a more balanced view and the critique by science and conventional medicine. Then the article can be read as one continuous flow of info about the subject the article is supposed to be about: homeopathy, without the numerous interruptions as it now stands. A tag at the head of the article can also advise readers to read the critique section as well as the text body in order to get a balanced view. Can we have some idea of who would support this idea? thank you Peter morrell 06:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The advantage of the suggestion is simply that any reader will be able to read the info on the supposed subject without interruption. The cricitisms will all still be there in undiluted or even in expanded form, but they are not getting in the way at every turn. Readers do not IMO come to this article principally to read all the critique or at least they come to read principally about homoepathy and any valid critique there is should not be distracting them from that priamry task. Currently that is exactly what happens: nearly every sentence is shadowed by a criticism. That interrupts the flow incredibly. Peter morrell 06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So, Tim, you agree that rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will stop it sinking? No way; until these crits are moved the article will never flow and the basic gist of homeopathy is continually interrupted by crit. Until that stops the article is a useless hybrid that no-one will enjoy reading and be only be thoroughly confused by. It cries out for it. Peter morrell 15:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Any other subject on WP you care to choose will give info about the subject in the title all through. This does not do that. It is a mess and one reason it is a mess is that it cannot even speak about the Main subject without numerous apologies, cautious deferential statements and shadowed by crit, it is crowded out by crit, choked to death by it all the way through. Read the goddam thing it is not an article about homeopathy it is anti-homeopathy and should be retitled as such. It's pathetic. Open your eyes. You're so soaked in science you just don't see it. thank you Peter morrell 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest: Not critisim in the beginning.
1.Homeopathy definion what it claims to be.
2.history
3.technical ( provings preparation)
4.Clinical studies. A table with all metanalyses stating its findings including its sourced critisism.No comments from the editors.
Labaratory studies. The same table. (Beneviste research.....etc) no comments report findings.
5.Separate critisim section in this form: ( safety concerns...) Many scientits say:. Homepaths claim ......
Many scientits say:. Homepaths claim ...
6.Popularity -countries practiced....
happy ending( kidding) I think it is fair and NPOV. -- Sm565 07:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also against WP:UNDUE. Adam Cuerden talk 07:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
we will give you more space if you want.....70% more in every paragraph.(Even if prominence according to citations cannot be established ) many scientists say 70% homeopaths say30% Homeopathy needs only a few statements to explain its objections. As long there is not censorship in anything. Do you agree?-- Sm565 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
70 30 I meant in the critisism section. The description of the phenomenon does not fall into WP:UNDUE. Critisism does. There is nothing to be afraid of if you have strong arguments the facts in a table and more space to argue . Peter. whig?-- Sm565 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Censorship : I tried to proposed adding objections from homeopaths and they refuged.
I don't see any solution.
They just want an article saying :according to science homeopathy is fraud and no one is allowed to add any objection in the criticism section because it would be WP:UNDUE. What I proposed is fair I think. -- Sm565 08:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You have no excuse.
if you want critism in the introdustion give to homeopathic view 20% even less to object in this form. Homeopaths claim that..... You object even that. We dont live in the Dark ages. Even if you regard Homeopathy as a "fringe theory" its objections are an essential part of the information you give to the reader.You should not hide them otherwhise the article is incomplete. These are obvious things we should not be talking about. .-- Sm565 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not edit war. Try to discuss changes, I'll be blocking those who are disruptive on this article. Thanks, Mercury 12:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
If you are so uninvolved and even-handed in this matter, as you claim, then precisely why did you block the editor you did and not others? It takes two to edit war, surely? why not block folks from both sides? Peter morrell 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudeman (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Well he has had plenty of time now to chew it over, so who else has he blocked? answer: nobody. So you were incorrect WDM not for the first time. Peter morrell 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah well taping someone's mouth sure makes it go quiet but has the problem been solved? not really Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
OK let's tape a few more mouths and PRETEND we have a civil discussion and a good article. Dream on. Peter morrell 04:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Earlier I tried to raise the issues of whether Hahnemann’s views are representative of modern homeopathic practise, and of how much diversity there is in modern practise. I think these are relevant to the NPOV discussion.
For example, IF SOME modern homeopathic treatment uses low dilutions and does not depend on the idea of the “memory of water”, then all of homeopathy should not be criticized as being based on this idea.
However, I see in the article, in the Medical and scientific analysis section:
“Thus critics contend...” only follows from the preceding sentences in the case of highly dilute preparations.
To try to be very clear, I am NOT saying lower dilutions are effective. I don’t know if they are. I am saying that spreading a critique over an area of homeopathy where it does not apply is careless and leads to statements which are not-NPOV. Wanderer57 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Many modern homeopaths use the LM scale (such as LM1 LM2 LM3 etc) which are all below the Avogadro limit so your precious theoretical molecules are actually present. But many use 30c and above and they are pure space! does this help? both views need to be stated I think. Peter morrell 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Er, dunno, please show us the maths on that one Adam. thanks Peter morrell 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
As noted earlier, I have a supply of tablets that are sold as a homoepathic treatment for insomnia. They are lactose containing 3X dilutions of three other ingredients. Wanderer57 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Adam your latest edit...what does it mean? According to Avogadro's number, there are only 6.022 × 1023 particles per mole, with a mole of substances used in homeopathy ranging between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. Comparing the level of dilution to the number of molecules present, the chance of any molecule of the original substance being present in a 15x solution is very small, and the chances of a single molecule of the original substance remaining in a 24x or 12c dilution would be roughly 1 in 2 billion. please enlighten us. it reads much worse than before. Peter morrell 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Adam I will contend that you have no idea what you are doing and are completely out of your depth here. This sentence is meaningless twaddle: A mole of common substances used in homeopathy ranges between around 50 grams or so for a simple mineral to hundreds or thousands of grams for organic molecules. please explain what you are up to. Peter morrell 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Rigorous? please, Tim, that is rather gratuitous I think. I have tried to correct the problem. 24x is equivalent to 12c and 6c is 1,000,000,000,000 dilutions = 12 zeroes. does that now clarify? thanks Peter morrell 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of general 'sweetness and light,' OK I withdraw the twaddle word! however if you read what he wrote, esp. the grams stuff, well I'm sorry but it was a bit unintelligible to put it mildly. Mischief now managed. Peter morrell 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Peter, 6C is six successive 100-fold dilutions? Is this right?
1C = 1:100 2C = 1:10,000 3C = 1:1,000,000 4C = 1:100,000,000 5C = 1:10,000,000,000 6C = 1:1,000,000,000,000
The problem with using a "24x" is that some people might read that as 24-fold, since "x" is commonly used in chemistry to denote concentration/dilution (in this usage a 2X solution is two-fold more concentrated than a final 1X solution). I removed this to avoid the dual meaning. If we stick with just explaining the "C" notation this might be less confusing to the reader. Tim Vickers 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Tim, for each centesimal potency you need two zeroes on the scale so 4c is indeed 100,000,000. I thought you were the chemist! ;-) cheers Peter morrell 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I explained this all VERY carefully on the talk page of the draft in the sandbox. And it was summarily rejected. But it can all be made quite clear if necessary. I still think it belongs someplace in Wikipedia to make this disgusting dilution nonsense more transparent.-- Filll 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. If we do nothing else in this article but very very carefully explain, once and for all, what X, D, LM, C, etc potencies mean, and how they relate to regular scientific understandings, we will have accomplished more than any of the thousands upon thousands of nonsense articles on homeopathy that litter the internet. I think if we can just make this mumbo-jumbo clear, it will stand us in extremely good stead. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and a reference manual for all kinds of people all over the world. We are not supposed to be shills for pseudoscience and promoters of incoherent nonsense.
It would be extremely valuable, IMHO, to straighten out these matters of confusion, even if they seem overly technical to some. Because the first thing a scientist or regular pharmacist or a doctor wants to know is, what the heck do those potencies and this nonstandard nomenclature mean? And how do they relate to each other, and how do they relate to what is common knowledge in science? And of course readers cannot easily find anything except confused mumbling from people deeply steeped in mythology and magic, who are almost purposely not explaining it clearly. So let's make some unique contribution here. Let's correct this lacuna in exposition. -- Filll 23:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have any sources for why homeopaths believe that dilutions make things stronger except for the Hahnemann theology? I mean are there homeopaths who actually claim to understand the physical mechanisms behind water memory? Or do they just take it on faith? And if they take it on faith, do they admit it? ScienceApologist 19:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
A reminder that this all original research and so not very relevant. Do we have a reliable source that discusses homeopaths saying this? If not, it doesn't matter. JoshuaZ 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
What role does the intention of the homeopath have in influencing the effectiveness of the remedy? -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
None whatsoever: "I have often had physicians tell me that it was due to suggestion that my medicines acted so well; but my answer to this is, that I suggest just as strongly with the wrong remedy as with the right one, and my patients improve only when they have received the similar or correct remedy." [41] Dr James Tyler Kent MD (1849-1916) Homeopath. Peter morrell 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Since I have been named in an RFC involving discussions here in Talk:Homeopathy, it would be good to let participants know in case they have any comments to add. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2. Whig 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting reading:
also
-- Fyslee / talk 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that NOPV issues have not been addressed properly. Examoles : [42] [43] [44]
It is obvious that there is not consesus here and therefore the under dispute sign must remain on the article. I will mark the article
* and I will ask Mercury to protect the flag since it reflects the reality in the talk page. I m sure he will do it.
Best wishes.
-- Sm565 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, Mercury you have to intervene and restore the under dispute flag and take further action as you said. User gave non reason for removing the flag and did not answer the specific questions.
--
Sm565 07:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I will ask again the editors who disagree to respect that there is non consensus in the article. I will give another example. There are many exmples explained in the talk page. If the editors read they will see that the sources dont support what the article says. [45] Please make sure you read the example. -- Sm565 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
he did not reply to my questions either. I mtrying to discuss here. I wonder why he disagrees with the above example. Adam agreed with me.
Please Mercury ask him to participate in our discussion before he reverts something.thanks-- Sm565 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is totally POV. You have to be more objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naftilos ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes happens.I remember another user quackgur or something who did the same. We never heard of him. I dont remember you either the last montth- I dont see you anywhere in the talk page.-- Sm565 08:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well....you just appeared after him without giving any reasons at the right time as well. Where were you the last 2 moths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't find it odd at all. Somebody interested in Wikipedia and homeopathy wanders by and watches the circus a while, in particular the POV tag that comes and goes. He decides he wants to put in his 2 cents, so he opens an account to do so. Maybe he had already been editing anonymously for a while. Perfectly natural, but neither here nor there. -- Art Carlson 10:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that an adminstrator must intervene and protect the under dispute sign here.It is obvious that there is not agrement. Maybe another administrator must intervene. [47] -- Sm565 08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile the under dispute flag must be there until we decide about the changes.
Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]
I think this is a not accurate. Some metanalyses conclude that "The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo." [48]-- Sm565 09:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It is unethical to hide published studies. Just show them all and allow to the readers to decide. We dont live in the dark ages. Dont you think?-- Sm565 09:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Double yes. We need more rigor in this discussion to keep from going around in circles. I would like to see - on the Talk page, not necessarily in the article - a table of all reviews, meta-studies, and statements from professional organizations, including the wording of their conclusions, any potential conflicts of interest, impact factors or other measures of respectability, and any other indicators of quality. When that is on the table, it should be easier to come to an agreement about what to include and how to summarize the state of the debate. (Individual studies would be too numerous and too difficult to evaluate, i.e. we need secondary sources, not primary sources.) -- Art Carlson 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this box:
This section describes the development of homeopathic thought in a primarily
in-universe style. Please rewrite this section to clarify the disputed nature of Hahnemann's opinions and provide the mainstream perspective. |
because it relates to writing about fiction. Homoeopathy may well be idiotic, but it's not fiction. Please don't go in for silly point-scoring in this way. PiCo 10:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice the article on these products is in the "homeopathic remedies" category. The article doesn't discuss these products, should we add them or are these not really homeopathic and the article miscategorised? Tim Vickers 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh my this is a difficult one! Strictly speaking they are not the same thing for a number of reasons: they are not proven, they are often used in mixtures, they are not potentised. That essay was requested because the German Govt were thinking of re-classifying BFRs as homeopathic (not sure if they ever did that) and so I was asked to see if I could 'construct a rationale' for their recognition as homeopathic remedies. This I did and found the case fairly convincing for the reasons I give in the essay. However, many homeopaths disagree with my appraisal of that topic and believe them to be different. So take your pick. Hope that clarifies. Peter morrell 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
You could slim down that "flower remedies" section a bit though. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on miasms isn't very clear to me - I'll still left wondering what exactly a miasm is, and how it operates. I gather from it that homeopathy regards misams as the fundamental disease-causing agent; if this is so, it needs to be stated, together with a description of just how it's supposed to cause disease. PiCo 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will take a look at it a bit later on. thanks Peter morrell 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which collect together the results of many clinical trials, showed that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo, and studies that suggested homeopathic effects were generally flawed in design.[13][19][14][15]
is not supported by the studies. Not accurate. See above why. Sentence should be modified. -- Sm565 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC) objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the sentence is not presice, the sources are there. I will come back to it.
My question is: according to the version of the mainstream view which is adopted in the article 2x dilutions have any effect on cells or not?-- Sm565 16:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. This is minor issue in comparison with the reading of the sourses but if the article adopts that 2x "dilutions" have no effect on cells then the Zicam issue contradicts this whole point of view. If it was the 2x dilution which caused the damage then voila a tiny example that 2x dilutions might have an effect. Therapeutic or the ..opossite. If it was the mechanism of the bottle which caused the damage then the example is totally unrelatated if additonial explanation is not given. Perhaps I miss something here. objections? -- 70.19.106.170 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)-- 70.19.106.170 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont disagree with this. Just the way it is written implies that the medecin caused the problems something highly impropable -accordign to chemistry. Shouldn't for that reason the sentence be rephrased or .....vanished?
If 2x dilutions could have an effect we could ask for our million from Randi - right?) -- Sm565 19:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Tim Vickers, I have made some slight wording changes to make it more clear. Of course when dilutions of a substance are made, all the original molecules of the substance are still present in the whole mass of water used to make the dilutions, but there is basically too much room "in between" those molecules to have much of a chance of any of them being in a small dose of the remedy made from the dilution.
Now to illustrate the absurdity of the situation I'll just grab a number out of the air. (I should probably say 10 marbles, but I'll be generous and say 100 marbles.) We're basically talking about 100 marbles thrown out into space which then distribute (dilute) themselves in random orbits in an area encompassing the content of a sphere the size of the orbit of the moon around the earth and they fly around at random in that space. Then we take a thimble, close our eyes, and stick it up in the air hoping to catch one of those marbles, and then we empty the contents of the thimble into a bucket. What chance is there that a marble will fall out of the thimble into the bucket? Is it impossible? No, because there really are 100 marbles flying around somewhere out there. Is it likely? Well, when hell freezes over and the sun has burnt out, maybe by then it will have happened only one time.....;-) It's about the same chance (except on a much larger scale) of winning the lottery. Someone who buys a lottery ticket and someone who doesn't buy one have about the same chance of winning, but the one who doesn't has absolutely no chance, while the one who does has a chance in many million. But with homeopathy the chance of getting even one molecule can hardly be calculated, it's that far a shot. And to top it off, if even one molecule of the strongest poison known actually was in the remedy, what effect would it have. Zilch! (Remember that I am just illustrating here, so don't shoot me for some inaccuracies. Few illustrations stand on all four legs.)
What homeopathy does is violate the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics, as well as the modern scientific observations of dose-response relationships that have been demonstrated by pharmacologists. "The dose (still) makes the poison." Interestingly enough, in everyday life and in every other area, believers in homeopathy follow these rules of logic. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to function, carry on a normal conversation, pull up their own zipper, or balance their checkbook. But when they are talking about homeopathy, they suddenly suspend their logical thinking and enter a metaphysical fantasy realm where all things are possible, including the impossible. Go figure. -- Fyslee / talk 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This is very nice work, Peter. Whig 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There have been no rigorous scientific demonstrations of therapeutic effects of homeopathy in veterinary medicine and a German review of homeopathy in veterinary medicine has stated that the medical effectiveness of homeopathy in higher dilutions is not verified and that giving an animal a placebo can play an active role in influencing the owner to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[86] [87]
How possible is this? Placebo by proxy? I guess telepathy could play a role.... I read the sources. My opinion is that if there is no rigorous studies for whetevever topic - it is more honnest to write nothing or state there are no studies available .Right? -- Sm565 21:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is one valid pointOrangemarlin. [49] If the majority of the editors believe that I dont contribute to this project- please feel free to ban me for ever. best.-- Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC) One more : [50]----
I agree with Tim. Not serious studies no comment.-- Sm565 03:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The article was edited - by Tim I think - "The use of homeopathy in veterinary medicine is regarded as controversial, as there have been little scientific investigation on if it has any effects in animals and current research in the field is not of a high enough standard to provide reliable data.[87] Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.[87]"-- Sm565 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Other studies have also found that giving animals placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists. I m almost sure that most of the editors would consider this sentence unsupported. Did you read the source? [51]-- Sm565 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
These sentences below are included in the conclusions of 3 out of 5 the metanalyses cited in article. I would like your opinion on this:
[52] 1. "This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.". 2.Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. 3.Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies.
1.How the introduction, which summarizes the results of the metanalyses on homeopathy", reflects these suggestions? 2.How these suggestions about replication of existing promising studies are compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a pseudoscience not worth researching. ( Before you answer please consider that no such suggestion for astrology (or other form of quackery we know of) has been recorded in any scientific journal or metanalyses.)-- Sm565 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind suggestions. I did correct them. Feel free to comment on my english. I always want to learn. Now, if you have an answer or comment on the real question, please let me know. -- Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Sm565 23:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone spells perfectly. When spelling errors exist in the article text, they need to be corrected. When spelling errors occur here in Talk, they might be mentioned in order to prevent the error from being replicated in the article text, but otherwise it is not constructive to mock and disregard editors for their spelling.
Whig 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I m sure Tim did not intend to be unkind. Whig I would like to hear from you too. BEst-- Sm565 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that if the specific scientists regarded homeopathy as a sort of quackery they would have suggested in the conclusions more research using phrases promising studies and positive trend?-- Sm565 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My main point is that in the introduction the metanalyses summary should be rephrased in order to include this conclusions ( promising studies positive trend request for more research) as well. Otherwise the sentence's meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy which is false- according to the actual studies. Opinions ?-- Sm565 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I think whig has the skills to propose a version like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This is sad. It is embarassing. Homeopathy is pseudoscience with no and I mean NO scientific or medical evidence to back it up. Nothing. Nada. To try to pretend otherwise is just pure nonsense. So stop playing word games in a language you do not understand and please go away to harass someone else.-- Filll 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy"?
"Further research on homeopathy is warranted"
"Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies" is a verbal throat-clearing ???? which is included in the final conclusions? Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions sentences for others forms of quackery? Examples?Please ?--
Sm565 03:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this compatible with the idea that homeopathy is a sort of quackery? Do scientists use this kind of suggestions for further research for others forms of quackery? Examples??-- Sm565 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is one of the current article's conclusion that Homeopathy is a sort of quackery based on these results. You just refuse to read the conclusions of the studies. [54] I just have not heard scientists to waste time on studying any form or quackery and after that to suggest further studies and in their conclusions to use expressions like there is a poditive trend is legitimate case for research and promising studies. Have you?-- Sm565 04:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that it is a pronouncement upon efficacy. I said that the suggestions of the conclusions for further studies because of the findings of positive trend and the considerations that there is "legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy" should be included in the summary of the meta analysis, otherwise the meaning is totally dismissive for homeopathy and it does not reflect what the conclusions of the studies really say.
And of course these conclusions do not support the final statement in the introduction of the article:
The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.
because no scientists would support further studies on subjects which are a sort of quackery. -- Sm565 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting original formulation, but of doubtful validity. The study you're citing is in fact part of the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy. The statement you're quoting is, simply, true. It doesn't say "the absence of a scintilla of supporting data on efficacy", it merely says "the lack". - Nunh-huh 07:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis. Br Homeopath J. 2001 Jul;90(3):126-30. (link)
The answer is that 60% identified the correct bottle while 40% identified the wrong bottle. The results did not differ significantly from what you would predict from chance. Unfortunately the sample size is rather small. Do people think we should include it? Tim Vickers 02:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
“ | In this study a promising trend was observed that symptoms reported by some homeopaths may not be completely attributable to placebo. A multi-national, large-scale trial will be required to investigate this phenomena with adequate statistical power. | ” |
Whig 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think all three of us agreed that this was not a significant study and was not worth including. Couldn't we just leave it at that? Wanderer57 03:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It says plenty. Except for those who want it to say otherwise.-- Filll 03:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I follow William of Ockham. And I think the 80% figure is significant as well.-- Filll 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the 80% (actually 82.4%) is significant. And even statistically significant at some reasonably impressive confidence level. However, I would have to study the matter more to say anything more conclusive.-- Filll 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You are confused I am afraid, and this is bordering on trolling.-- Filll 05:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday someone added "the laws of logic, chemistry, and physics" to a paragraph about the dose-response relationship. Today I removed it and two people have reverted me.
Chemistry/physics are relevant in explaining why there is probably no active ingredient left in a homeopathic remedy, but this paragraph is about how homeopathy says that more diluted solutions are more powerful. The scientific concept that contradicts this is the fact that dose-response relationships are almost always positive, which is a concept in pharmacology, not chemistry or physics. -- Galaxiaad 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Is he by any chance a physicist? Whig 05:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Would someone like to support his credentials against this charge? Whig 07:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read and comment on this study.I think it could be used.
Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting
Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [56] Best.-- Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent > Who are you to encourage anyone? This sort of worthless nonsense spewed on the talk pages ad infinitum discourages real productive editors and destroys Wikipedia as a project. You have made it evidently clear you do not know the rules of NPOV, you do not understand Wikipedia, you are unwilling or unable to be able to learn about WP and NPOV, you do not know science, you do not know scientific protocol or medicine or really anything except how to troll and make other more reasoned and reasonable editors disgusted with your antics. I would ask you to please try to control yourself here and give it a rest. Or better yet, please edit something else.--
Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>Do not embarasss yourself Whig further with this kind of nonsense.--
Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> It is reaching the point where Whig's comments should be summarily removed from the talk page on sight because of trolling concerns.-- Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent> You are among those who is disruptive here Whig, sad to say.-- Filll 14:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
To Sm565, if you don't have a reasonably good basis to believe that a study is credible and clearly indicative of some outcome, positive or negative, it is probably not useful. Whig 07:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion: 1 The limitations of the study are stated by itself. It is not a discovery. 2. It is not the editors job to evaluate metanalyses according to the methods used. The study falls into the wikidedia critiria for sources.I think. (Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and scienceand) It is large, and published in a respected publishing house. [57] All writers are scientists employed by universities. Why it should not be used? -- Sm565 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It qualifies according to the written critiria. What else more clear could be added? .-- Sm565 08:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
These are the criteria. [58] Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications-- Sm565 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The study has a conclusion whether we like it or not. Include it and criticize it. Exclusion cannot be justified according the above criteria.--
Sm565 08:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Conclusion In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment [56] Best.--Sm565 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not part of the conclusion. No study reports firm conclusions even the negative ones.The say we found insufficient evidence far way from firm conclusions. It is a study with a positive result, it qualifies and there is no excuse to not report it with its criticism. -- Sm565 08:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition. This is not a "firm conclusion" but it is reported.-- Sm565 08:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I would do that.But U think it is very clear.-- Sm565 08:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This article STILL contains vast baggages of criticism and this needs to be trimmed back to a bare minimum IMO. The title of this article is homeopathy and that is what it should predominantly be about NOT one long skeptical rant from the true believers of the 'american church of science,' which is very clearly what it has become. thank you Peter morrell 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter, after months and months here, I am afraid you do not really understand Wikipedia yet. Because of the WP rules for WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, [[WP:UNDUE}] etc, this article HAS to have a large measure of criticism. In fact, according to some interpretations of the rules, it might need to have the same proportion of criticism as there is in the medical field. That is, the overwhelming majority of the article should be written this way. From the POV of science and conventional medicine. Sorry. -- Filll 14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The article on intelligent design is a good example. It does reveal the position of the Discovery Institute, but it also makes it clear what the mainstream view is as well.-- Filll 15:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a misconception that came up again and again in the discussion above. There is no way even in principle for a study to prove that homeopathic remedies have no effect at all. A positive result can state with a certain degree of certainty that remedies have an effect. A negative study can only say with a certain degree of certainty that the effects, if there are any, are not larger than such-and-such. It is meaningless to say that a negative result is not statistically significant, you can just say that the sensitivity is too small to be of interest (e.g. in comparison to other studies that are more sensitive). Because of this, if remedies have no effect, studies will always be fluttering near the current level of sensitivity - proponents will always see a promising trend that justifies larger studies, and opponents will see the results as consistent with the null hypothesis. (The way I see it is, the studies have gotten sensitive enough that, if there should prove to be a barely measurable effect, it is so small as to be clinically uninteresting. It would be a scientific revolution, but to discuss that we have to get into the chance that the world has been built in such a weird way). The consequence for the article is that we need to concentrate more on the sensitivity of a study than the results (given that no studies show block-busting positive results.) In most cases we are spared evaluating individual studies (primary sources) in this way because there are several reviews and meta-analyses (secondary sources) available. -- Art Carlson 15:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is not NPOV. Asserting the POV tag is not vandalism. Whig 17:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
correct.with all the respect for the other editors.-- Sm565 17:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you assume anything like that looking at the talk page?-- Sm565 17:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think they are 2 at least.-- Sm565 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a nice civilized discussion just consensus has not been reached. -- Sm565 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Both are weasel words. I was trying to make it apparent, in order to fix this language. It needs work. Whig 18:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) To avoid this, try the options in the dispute resolution. Once blocked, your recourse will be explained to you on your talk page, if you choose that path. Mercury 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We have been trying to summurize the metanalyses conclusions objectively. --
Sm565 18:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we at least have general agreement that these are weasel words? Whig 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
“ | The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, along with its stance against conventional medicine, are the reasons why homeopathy is often described as a form of quackery.[22][23][24] | ” |
Whig 19:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Both "often" and "many" are weasle words unless the source says exactly that. How Often? How Many? These variables aren't defined and thus are ambiguous. Does "Often" mean 50% of the time? 70% of the time? 99% of the time? Does "many" mean a lot? Does it mean most? Does it mean 99% of scientists? What does it mean? Wikidudeman (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
form of quackery ?I have also argued against that above. It is not supported by the conclusions and suggestions of the cited meta analysis.-- Sm565 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) There are no reliable sources that describe homeopathy as a "successfull (sic) form of alternative therapy". Any version of the article that describes homeopathy thusly would be in gross violation of NPOV and undue weight. I am willing to address some of the pro-homeopathic editors' concerns, but I cannot agree with this line of reasoning. We need to take the same approach to this article that has worked on articles like Intelligent design and Global warming, for example. Skinwalker 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is one reliable source -One could report and criticize its findings ( using references) [59] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs)
Obscure journal? ????? It is recommended .....I think. [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC) It is a metanalyses by: 1Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Homeopathy, Graz, Austria 2University of New Mexico School of Medicine and Integrative Medicine Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA 3HomInt, Karlsruhe, Germany 4Complementary Medicine Research Unit; Primary Medical Care, University of Southhampton, Southhampton, UK 5VSM Geneesmiddelen, Alkmaar, The Netherlands 6ClinResearch GmbH, Cologne, Germany 7Tilburg, The Netherlands 8Institute for Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland -- Sm565 21:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Being randomized is not one of the wikipedia criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications According to these criteria it qualifies. Every good faith editor can see it. -- Sm565 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to worry about how to cite many sources calling homeopathy quackery. We don't have even a single such source. The 3 sources cited do not use the word quackery or anything similar in the abstract, and I seriously doubt they use it in the main text. The intro now clearly states that there is a "lack of evidence supporting its efficacy" and that it takes a "stance against conventional medicine". The last sentence of the introduction adds no new content and uses a formulation that is not supported by the sources. Unless some other sources can be found, where notable people or organizations call homeopathy quackery, the sentence should be stricken. -- Art Carlson 11:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try and keep this one simple as well, so I don't get confused. Why is the POV tag on the article? Mercury 20:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Because its main point of view is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Editors refuge to include studies from reliable sources which shows that Homeopathy has a therapeutic effect. [65] The interpretation of the cited sources is not objective. I have documented all these above. -- Sm565 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC) [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]
Really simple. -- Sm565 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Almost. Not all of them though. Read and decide.It is above. -- Sm565 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think if we can get that last sentence of the LEAD straightened out, there may not be a POV tag needed for the whole article. We can identify sections that need work as appropriate. I think this article is a lot better than it was a week ago. Whig 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opininion the meta analysis summary is not accurate as well. Other studies should be included not only the negative ones. Critisism of the cited studies is not included but it exists. I will try to work on that this week.-- Sm565 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure.-- Sm565 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the strategy here is obvious. Two or more POV warriors want to change the definition of NPOV and WP policies for this article and remove every negative statement about homeopathy. They want to remove all criticism of homeopathy from the article and violate all WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE guidelines. They want to stretch the definition of WP:RS and WP:V sources.
To exhaust the regular WP editors here, they have engaged in a massive campaign of talk page commentary. This is transparent. It is pointless. You know who you are. We know who you are. You are single topic accounts meant to cause chaos and disruption. And you will not succeed. Please reform your ways and do not force the hand of the community.-- Filll 13:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That is such pure fantasy! Where did you dredge that up from? As I see it, they do not want that. I think they want the article to be fair and balanced which it isn't at the moment. A fair and balanced account of homeopathy, and the trials, etc, which also includes the critique of the anti-homeo lobby. Presently about 50% of the article is criticism which many editors do not think is very fair at all. To reduce that does not mean to eliminate it completely. Such an idea is preposterous because everyone knows that the criticism of such a contentious subject is 'out there' and needs to be mentioned in the article. The argument here is really about how big that mention should be. Well, that's my ten cents; the editors you refer to can doubtless speak for themselves. thanks Peter morrell 13:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
According to
Wikipedia's neutrality policy everybody's got a POV. However, the
reliability and
verifiability of scientific consensus on the point that homeopathy is generally considered pseudoscience is apparent and does not deserve sidelining.
ScienceApologist 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why the under dispute sign was removed?-- Sm565 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. No citation supports "is often described as a form of quackery".Also: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy", is not totally accurate.Sources interpretation problematic again. Please read above. I explained.-- Sm565 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
No citation supports "is often described as a form of quackery".Also: "The lack of evidence supporting its efficacy", is not totally inaccurate.Sources interpretation problematic again. Please read above. I explained.-- Sm565 16:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources which equate homeopathy with quackery:
[73] [74] [75] [76] [77] etc. etc. etc. ScienceApologist 16:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thats one study...where did you get often?-- Sm565 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of removing all "anti-Homeopathy" material from the article and making a "pro-Homeopathy" article at [78]which is now 59,911 bytes, compared to the original size of 93,074 bytes, so the current version of the article is at least 64.4% "pro-Homeopathy". This is well above 50%.
I will note that this is a bit misleading since most of the high dilution material is not really anti-homeopathy at all, but I called it that anyway. Not all of the scientific testing is anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. The historical discussion of controversy is not really all anti-homeopathy but I called it that anyway. So at a minimum, the article is 2/3 pro-homeopathy, and the true figure is likely far higher. -- Filll 17:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Viewing ScienceApologist's further edits to the file, it is quite interesting to me which parts he believes are actually anti-homeopathy which I do not perceive to be negative at all. Perhaps we all should do our own version of a "pro-homeopathy" edit of the present article. I am somewhat surprised with some of SA's alleged anti-homeopathy pieces of text, frankly.-- Filll 18:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My pro-version (currently up at Talk:Homeopathy/pro) got a pro rating of 59.6%. I tried to be as much of a devil's advocate as possible -- anticipating all possible negative comments that could be made about the text I removed. ScienceApologist 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
<undent>I have to admit, I am much more impressed with the balance between the pro-homeopathy and the anti-homeopathy material in the article than I was a few weeks ago. I was pleasantly surprised to do this measurement and find that there is a good solid measure of anti-homeopathy material in the article. This is necessary for NPOV. Perhaps we need more. Nevertheless, I think the article looks better than it did a few weeks ago in this regard. I also think that the LEAD looks much much better than it did; more compact, and a good solid fraction of it cautioning the reader that there is no support for this practice. I might read it a few more times, but I am ready to suggest I think it might be ready for GA status again. I will consult with other editors first, of course for their input.-- Filll 13:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)