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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
In the lead it says that a few homeopaths are opposed to vaccination and anti-malarial drugs. I would say it is more than a few. Not most and not all, but I would say many homeopaths oppose vaccinations but maybe only a few oppose anti-malarial drugs. Maybe this sentence needs changing and a cite adding. For example, Tinus Smits is a prominent Dutch MD homeopath with a website and he opposes vaccines. How close to actual homeopathic views do you want the article to be? Peter morrell 09:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No we don't say what the scientific jnls say. 83% is very clearly a lot more than 'a few!' 72% is a lot more than 'a few.' The sentence is clearly incorrect. Many homeopaths oppose vaccination is a more accurate statement of the situation. Peter morrell 09:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK that's true but even with 23 cites in the lead we could still more accurately say many homeopaths oppose vaccination [24] [25] [26] and add those studies you have alluded to. How does that sound? It seems we either want accuracy or we don't. thanks Peter morrell 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If I were curious about homeopaths' responses to the criticism they've received, where would I find it in this article? Do they have a response (does anyone know)? Friarslantern ( talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What Brian said above is broadly correct about folks who OPPOSE homeopathy but what has been asked for is the response of homeopaths towards the views of such critics. This was covered extensively in the 19th century ad nauseam, but will not snuff out this type of tail-chasing argument. In brief, homeopaths either give up trying to explain how their remedies work or spend some time on this issue. I am in the former category and I suspect the vast majority of homeopaths don't really care tuppence how they work and fall back on the obvious efficacy of their remedies and the predictable nature of their use in clinical practice. Even the 'memory of water' idea is not universally supported within homeopathy as it is just another theory. Homeopaths, from Hahnemann onwards, have tended to despise theories and reside mostly in the pragmatic empirical field of curing folks of their sickness. Personally, I dont see how potentisation will EVER be explained through so-called rational science, not because it is magic, religion or belief, as the anti-homeopaths constantly mouth, but simply because we have no conceptual tools with which to describe it. It defies all logic and common sense derived from 'normal science.' All homeopaths can point to in the last analysis is their clinical work and that requires no religion or belief, it just is. does this suffice? Peter morrell 07:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As a small addendum to the comments above it seems likely that those homeopaths who strive to find explanations for it probably do so (at least in part) to try and find a bridge of conciliation with mainstream science and mainstream medicine. Overwhelmingly these tend to be MD homeopaths. Those who 'don't give a damn' about science and have abandoned any attempt to explain it tend to be non-MD homeopaths. However, I would add that it probably is desirable for homeopathy to be explained but the mechanism is so elusive after so many attempts to find one. The alternative view that many homeopaths adhere to is that all such studies have been flawed and that scientists are only interested in trying to disprove it ratehr than approach the issue neutrally. I can't say whether that is a justified view or not as I have not studied the issue of mechanisms myself in any great depth having focused mostly upon the practice, history and sociology of the subject. Hopefully these comments will be helpful to Friarslantern who first asked about this matter. thanks (PS. Sorry, Art, I have to go out now so will come back to your points later!) Peter morrell 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Several points flow from Art's post. I shall deal with them in turn.
When this article was in the sandbox, I got Peter to carefully explain EXACTLY what the potency measures meant, and wrote this up. I propose to expand this, potentially as a subsiduary daughter article to this one (or as a footnote, but I am not sure there is room). I feel this would be an extremely valuable contribution because in my surveys of the online literature, I have never seen this well described anywhere. It can be something that WP can really use to set WP apart; the one source that completely and clearly explains what exactly the potencies in homeopathy mean. Comments?-- Filll ( talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A daughter article would be preferred as this section of this article is way too long and boring as it stands, and any thought of extending it further would be opposed by many. My ten pennorth. Peter morrell 07:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There is already a daughter article on potentisation (can't recall the exact title) so that's where it should go. Peter morrell 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think Filll had something quite longer and more ambitious in mind than a short para! Peter morrell 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Somehow or other ALL the refs have been screwed up how why? dunno...can someone fix this? thanks Peter morrell 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. What about the potentisation daughter article, do you know what it is called? thanks Peter morrell 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Pov tag justified in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you overdid the deletions, WDM, slightly, principally because some of those were good and some were dubious, OK fair enough, BUT some had been there a harmlessly for a fair while and had consensus approval, so why not justify what you removed and why? just a helpful suggestion so as to clear it up. thank you Peter morrell 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars solve nothing and will not improve the article; after a nightly 'orgy' of same maybe it is time for folks to bring their issues to the talk page so their views can be discussed and perhaps a consensus might be reached, thanks Peter morrell 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water"
I think that that number should be changed to 1060. -- 200.69.215.69 ( talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the quality of the references here. OK, so lets look at the references on the "malaria" point, which should be pretty black and white.
One is an article on the guardian newspaper, which reports on the BBC news show http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/14/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth
One is a letter to the bmj with a single case report [4]
(if this is the quality of quotes that I can use, then can I please, PLEASE use a letter from the National Enquirer to prove that Michael Jackson killed Elvis Presley when he went back in a time machine).
And the other is a reasonably credible source. The BBC quoting it's show, and quoting the NHS London Homeopathic Hospital in saying that they believed there was no evidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm
If someone really wants to get cit-tastic they can of course cite the 1999 BMJ
[5]
quoting the "A recent meta-analysis, published in the Lancet, examined over 100 randomised, placebo controlled trials and found an odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval 2.05 to 2.93) in favour of homoeopathy. The authors concluded that, even allowing for publication bias, "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.""
Lets have a little bit more quality in our citations people. I know some of you love to get hot under the collar.. but it's a little crazy. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.130.204.163 (
talk)
12:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I firmly believe that this has no place in the introduction. Tim Vickers states that it succinctly communicates the opinions of many groups on the subject. It doesn't, it communicates the opinions of one group. Its place in the intro renders it too much importance and is a content bias. Rray holds that this is fine because it is a cited study, but a single cited study has no place in the introduction of an argument. Put it in criticism, and back it up with more studies. A collected list of citations which details opinions is better for expressing the opinions of a whole community than a single citation.
"In the words of a recent medical review" has no place in an encyclopedia unless said review is for some reason superlative. The use of the colloquial "quackery" itself is incorrect as "quack" is a derogatory term. The neutral definition of quackery (fraudulent medical practice) would be better.
Better than all of these would be a policy statement from a large organization such as the AMA: "There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well-designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies" http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html
Embattledseraph ( talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
features homeopathy. The legitimacy of homeopathy in India indicates acceptance by much of its scientific community. According to this (clearly bias, but probably not lying) website ( http://www.homeopathyheals.com/intro.html), 40% of licensed MD's in France either practice homeopathy or refer patients to homeopaths. Several news sources also mention a WHO study which was in favor of homeopathy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm Regardless of the scientific validity of the WHO's study, the WHO is composed of members of the scientific community. In summary, I have shown that using the "quackery source" to sum up the scientific community is a misrepresentation which excludes the following groups from that community: Many American Pharmacists, German M.Ds, French M.Ds., and Austrian M.Ds, much of India, and the World Health Organization. Embattledseraph ( talk) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (Sorry about the bad integration of references.)
Dr. Ernst, who is cited throughout the article, is repeatedly accused of having an anti-homeopathic bias, should he be allowed to be cited so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.146 ( talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
When talking about Clinical Trials, this article goes on to suggest that the NHS finds "no convincing evidence" but this is not supported by the reference. I have previously discussed this with the editor who vehemently reverted my changed, twice. Thus I'll let someone else change it this time. The NHS article (which is in a public "NHS Direct" watered down website) goes on to say that there is difficulty with the evidence, but not that no convincing evidence exists. The other bodies listed do (in my view anyway) hold the view that no evidence exists, but the fact that the NHS runs multiple homeopathic hospitals lies question to the suggestion that they are of the view there is nothing in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 ( talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree with what the meta analyses state please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone reverts edits please explain why.I thought this was the way to work here. thanks
U didnot make any edit war. I did not revert anything. User OrangeMarlin reverted the edits.
Lead is not neutral though. Studies dont state that. The homeopathic objections? This is what I wrote.
"Reasearchers in 1991 had concluded” that at the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias..This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy”.
Another metanalysis (1997) concluded “that the results are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo but there was insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.” . However the same researchers (2000) “concluded that in the ( above ) study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”
Another one concluded that “The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing”. INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy”
Other meta analyses found “that there is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.”
Homeopaths argue that “Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored”. They say that “The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology."
Please stop all this endless edit warring every night, Tim and Orangemarlin, and place the text as a quote or use the actual phrasing the cite says. thanks Peter morrell 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why this external link was removed?
"Join us to debate the evidence on both sides with Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and Dr Ben Goldacre, medical writer and broadcaster, and decide for yourself."
The Natural History museum website is not a good source? Or the editors dont like debates in general? The debate was about the Lancet (2005) meta analyses.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html
Ask Wikidudeman, it was HE who deleted masses of pro and anti links a few days back. I asked him to justify those deletions and he has never replied. thanks Peter morrell 13:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good to have different opinions.
A recent meta analysis found that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” Homeopaths criticized the study for being biased. Previous meta analyses found that homeopathic treatments were somewhat more effective than placebo ( or reported positive results ) but the evidence was not convincing because of the unknown role of the publication bias and the flawed design of the studies. One meta analyses found the evidence promising for some topics, another stated that” there was a legitimate case for further research” and two meta analyses found evidence that the higher the quality of the studies the less promising the results. Homeopaths contend that “the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology.” They say “homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect”
The previous summary was not neutral. The text of the original studies is above and you can compare.
I think this one complies with the WP lead rules. Feel free to comment and/or revert but please justify here. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.43.191.226 (
talk)
04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam is correct; however, it would be nice to get this sorted out and settled for good, because every single night we seem to have this same spectre of 'insert then revert' by the same small bunch of folks, and it is wrecking the general' stability of the article. Can't 72.43.191.226 and OM and Tim come to some amicable agreement re wording so we can get back to more serious topics? if possible, that would be great. just a suggestion. thanks Peter morrell 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Some meta-analyses stated tha studies on Homeopathy “seem to report positive results.” However, the researchers pointed out that the “evidence was not convincing because of the unknown role of the publication bias and the low methodological quality of the studies”; they also found “clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”
However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo not without its own critisism by homeopaths for being biased.
[7]
[8]
Homeopaths contend that “the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his/her single ailment, disease or pathology.”
[9] They believe that “homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect”
[10]
How about that? I tried to keep the sentences of the original texts - look above and compare.
The criticism for the Lancet 2005 studies is here
[11](I think a good source)
and here, in a video file. (Natural History Museum website - a good source). I think it was included before in the article. The museum being aware of the controversy on the recent studies (Lancet 2005) on Homeopathy organized a debate, which is available on line.
[12] “Homeopaths' objections ”.(BBC) [13] and Vithoulkas website [14] (the article refers to him - wikipedia has an article about him and includes his website as well ).
My point is that if you don’t include these most basic homeopathic ideas in the lead of an article about homeopathy, the article might be regarded as incomplete and biased. It fails to inform the reader about the most basic principles of homeopathy and why homeopathy is a controversial subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 ( talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The lead is not neutral. I agree with the comments stated. The article seems to be good. It needs to be balanced though. -- Radames1 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a controversy on the evidence.It is well known and documented Thats why I changed it.
INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy. [15] -- 70.107.246.88 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
David, do you mean that there is no controversy on the evidence? This is what all the sources say. From BBC to the meta analyses? Look above. Please justify your revert. -- 70.107.246.88 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[16] Another example: "Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy? Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics).
It is debated how something that causes illness might also cure it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And another one: WALTER STEWART (Research Chemist): If Madeleine Ennis turns out to be right it means that science has missed a huge chunk of something.
Here is another one: "NARRATOR: She (Madeleine Ennis) has reawakened one of the most bitter controversies of recent years" [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So you think that the above sources which state that there is a controversy are incorrect? -- 70.107.246.88 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion but this is not what the studies say and sources say.
I thought in Wikipedia we have to write what high quality sources state not what we think they say:
NCCAM and metanalyses say there is a controversy on the issue as you see above. You cannot change that even if you disagree with it.
-- 70.107.246.88 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The controversy is about the effectiveness and the theory. It is not about the people's perception. - this is what is clearly stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No Tim that's wrong. The controversy is very much about proving efficacy using trials, which as you know homeopaths regard as too crude a method and thus they show nothing. Also, your phrase 'the proper response to homeopathy'? huh? what is that about? the other issue is how such tiny doses can elicit actual physiological responses in folks...that they do so is of course potentially another pebble in science's shoe; so I think those are two points around which the controversy revolves. As for molecules, well of course, if homeopathy was a truly molecular phenonemon at all, even remotely, then its dosage system would be up the swannee as absurd as science believes it to be. If, however, homeopathy empirically can show physiological responses from such tiny doses, then either there is something more to matter than molecules or something very fishy is going on. Either way, science should investigate that more neutrally and more thoroughly than at present. Hope this summarises that issue for you. thanks Peter morrell 10:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with clinical trials, as anyone experienced with homeopathy will tell you, is that the choice of appropriate homeopathic remedy and potency is determined by "taking the case". In other words, the individual patient's mental, emotional, and physical symptom patterns are analyzed, and the remedy is chosen on that basis. You do not have specific remedies for specific conditions, except for a small number of what are termed "polycrests".
And yes "there is something more to matter than molecules" - atoms and molecules are made up of of waves. They only act as particles when standing waves function as expressions of elements in configurations we call atoms and molecules. Each molecule resonates with a unique pattern. It is THIS MOLECULAR PATTERN RESONANCE that is transfered to the dilutant, whether water, lactose, or alcohol. Arion ( talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Docboat, the medical and scientific communities have taken a position on the issue of evidence, and the views that you advocate are not in favor. This is not to say that the views are necessarily wrong, but it is to say that they are fringe. Wikipedia has relevant policies concerning such views which we must dutifully apply in this article. Ante lan talk 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Write a reliable source about your experience and we can discuss putting it in Wikipedia. Until then it is original research. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not think you understand what WP:NPOV means in cases like homeopathy. Since homeopathy is part of medicine, or purports to be, it is part of science. Therefore, the dominant POV for examining homeopathy is the scientific POV, according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Sorry.-- Filll ( talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If you can show that a diluted acidic solution (or basic solution) mixed with an acid will more rapidly reach a pH of 7 than mixing an acid with a strong base/alkali, then I would be fascinated. Please provide peer-reviewed mainstream studies in a mainstream scientific journal. The person who finds this will likely win a Nobel Prize.-- Filll ( talk) 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, the placebo effect is incredibly strong. It should not be knocked. And the administration of "medications" which operate by the placebo effect usually have no negative side effects. So it is not all bad...
So do not fight the verdict of the scientific community when it says that these medications act by placebo. There are worse things...-- Filll ( talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point. I think placebo only takes you so far.-- Filll ( talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Well if homeopaths do not rely on diluted solutions, what do they use? Please present reliable sources for your claims. If they do not produce remedies by a sequence of succussion and dilution, what do they do? Please provide reliable sources for your statements. I think that the article describes this process of succussion and dilution. Where does it say the wrong thing? We do not know what a "molecular wave pattern" is. Do you have a reliable source for that term, if you want to introduce it into the article? Also, for us WP:NPOV is defined according to our policies, using WP:FRINGE, [WP:UNDUE]], WP:WEIGHT etc. You might not like those policies, but those are the Wikipedia policies. There are many other Wikis which do not have these policies and I would be glad to give you a list of other Wikis if you want to write articles that do not abide by these policies.-- Filll ( talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is not neutral. A article about homeopathy must inform the readers about basic homeopathic priniples and views- for instance – how homeopaths regard meta analyses. -- Orion4 ( talk) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Homeopaths argue that Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored. They say that The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology
This is a view I just added to the article. It is stated in VIthoulkas website, The article includes and comment on his views hence it is a valid source. -- Orion4 ( talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Another source. BBC. A good source, I do believe. "It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion4 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is what homeopaths say. You have to include it you like it or not. At this point I request an administrator who is not inlvoved to protect the article and the under dispute tag if Adam Cuerden keeps reverting without disucssion.There more than two editors regard the artcile views as POV. -- Orion4 ( talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What homeopaths claim about peer-reviewed trials might be noted in a section on homeopathic viewpoints, but not in a section discussing the scientific analysis of homeopathy. This is simply a case of special pleading and unsupported by any kind of evidence. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Something like that might go in the article body, but certainly has to be carefully couched in the right terms, and should not go in the LEAD.-- Filll ( talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
After using homeopathic remedies for several years I was firmly convinced about their efficacy. But 2 days after starting a new treatment I felt very bad I could not understand why, as far as previous experiences have always been resolved with success. I called my doctor and I realized that I have misunderstood the dose and was taking the double of prescription. If remedy were a simple placebo there would not been any reason for getting worse. On the other hand, if it was a placebo in form of “pure water” it would produce whether a healing effect or no effect at all, but in any case not an aggravation of symptoms.
So, I strongly disagree with the biased content of the article about homeopathy which is obviously against it and stands for the placebo theory. I would be better a simple explanation of arguments about the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepbl2 ( talk • contribs)
As I survey the article, although it is immeasurably better than it used to be, I still see lots of examples of little problems. However, with the edit warring going on, it is almost impossible to fix these. People who are frantic to destroy the article by introducing statements that are effectively equivalent to "Homeopathy is fantastic and all other medicine is BS and we hate all doctors and scientists and science so there nya nya nya...now bugger off now" really is not helpful. There are still problems remaining in just a pure exposition of the subject, without having to contend with edit warriors who think if they just rant and rave enough, we will turn this article into a paean of praise for a pseudoscience. Sorry, but that ain't gunna happen. I would rather see the article deleted permanently than see that outcome. -- Filll ( talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In an article (in the lead) about homeopathy you have to include homeopathy's basic views on meta analyses. This is not a matter a evidence. They have an opinion - let the reader to decide if their arguments are strong or not. It is a matter of NPOV to include them - otherwise the lead and the article is biased and mainly incomplete. If conventional and mainstream science has strong arguments - it ( science ) has nothing to afraid of including the basic homeopathic concepts. Otherwise it seems you are trying to hide basic and highly important homeopathic views fearing that you cannot answer them properly. The sensitive editor will include the above opinions - I believe.
I think people should not revert without discussion. POV tag should attached and protected by univolved administrators. Who agrees ?-- Orion4 ( talk) 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) - I dont like edit wars
- http://www.vithoulkas.gr/EN/research01.html - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html
The introductory third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph. The very words "scientifically implausible" are an opinion, just as much as an opinion in the 18th century that watching live television from the other side of the world was "scientifically implausible". Arion ( talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
PLease dont revert without discussion. I added in the article the same sentence. If you disagree please explain why.-- Orion4 ( talk) 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV means not writing the article in a way that favors one side over another in an issue in which there are two opinions. Try to learn that.
With the advent of modern physics and the ever-widening knowledge of molecular waves, homeopathy has become scientifically plausible. Arion ( talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As I asked above, can you provide a reliable source on molecular waves?-- Filll ( talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Any physics textbook will explain molecular waves. Molecular waves are what all matter is made up of, including your body and this entire planet. You are asking me to explain matter? A simple explanation is that all substance is made up of waves that at certain modes of expression function as particles. One understanding of the duality of particles and waves has developed from early expositions of de Broglie's theory of matter-waves, linear velocity and inertial momentum. Some wave functions are mass-bound and others mass-free: electrokinetic energy, thermokinetic energy, electromagnetic energy, mass-energy and ambipolar massfree energy. Arion ( talk) 02:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not asking you to educate me in Physics. I already have a PhD in mathematical physics from one of the best Universities in the US, thanks. And I looked up some of those terms. Sorry they are related to orgone energy and the aether and are just in the realm of pseudoscience. Most of what you wrote was pure nonsense. Sorry.-- Filll ( talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is interesting (if sad) to watch someone like Filll flailing about with terms that they obviously don't understand in the slightest, trying to impress people who do understand them with his "PhD in mathematical physics". Arion ( talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim, you have not heard about how all enzymes are made up from fundamental enzymions? They are actually a form of tachonyium and capture the emitted karmic energy from people's emotional states. This is the hottest stuff. The rates of reactions are determined by the karmic energy gaps and the recombination of the enzymions causes the aether to pulse at a deep fundamental wave energy of the universe, connecting us all to the nether world and other universes in ohter dimensions. Did you not know?-- Filll ( talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not want Tim to feel left out. But I would like to see us actually improve the English in the text, which still could stand some use. I am tempted to make a sandbox copy and edit there, since it is very hard to edit with the threat of POV warriors.- Filll ( talk) 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam removed the following contribution from Orion.
First if these are quotes what are the citations? Second, this addition will lead to 'he says, she says', type editing where the whole flow of the text is interupted by counter points. If these points are to be made they should be as a note, in the main body of the article, or the whole section need to be adjusted so homepathic counter arguments are not interjected in the scientific arguments, IMO. For those who say this is unfair, go back and read how the intro looked only a few weeks ago. It was full of anti homeopathic interjections. Lets not now swing the other way. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Way I see it, Homeopaths just got two paragraphs largely criticism-free. We're now presenting the mainstream scientific opinion in the third paragraph, not the mainstream scientific opinion and facetious homeopathic objections. Adam Cuerden talk 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
By the principles of Wikipedia, as I understand it, the percentage of the article devoted to pro-homeopathy material should be roughly equal to the proportion of people in the relevant fields of science and medicine that have pro-homeopathy sentiments. Therefore, most of this article should have a skeptical tone. In my last evaluation, it was about 60% pro-homeopathy, not mainly skeptical. The LEAD must also follow these same proportions, roughly. and it is 2/3 or so pro-homeopathy. So I do not think homeopathy advocates have much to complain about.
Homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE theory and therefore is treated as such in Wikipedia. Maybe in Conservapedia or some other wiki you can find different rules for dealing with homeopathy. You can investigate. Wikipedia has its rules. And we try to follow them.-- Filll ( talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have participated on this Talk page for the last 24 hours. In that time I have been on the receiving end of rudeness, belittling, and mocking laughter at my comments given in response to questions.
The use of derogatory terms like "ridiculously patronizing and completely hypocritical" is not what is expected of Wikipedia editors (see Wikipedia:Civility). I would also like to caution all of us to remain careful not to engage in wording that might be construed as personal attacks, even if unintentional. We should not assume that someone has an "agenda", but instead assume that each editor is a sincere individual who is attempting, in good faith, to assist in the editing of an article to improve it to the highest standards of academic excellence. Arion ( talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have given you something to work with. I have repeatedly pointed out that the introductory third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph. The very words "scientifically implausible" are an opinion that does not belong in an encylopedia entry on homeopathy. You can cite a reference for a quote of that nature by someone in the Medical criticism section, but you can not state an affirmative statement like that in the article since that would be considered a non-neutral point of view ( WP:POV) and "original research" ( WP:OR). Arion ( talk) 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Things work here by compromise. We work together, and things get done. If homeopaths are unable or unwilling to learn the rules of Wikipedia and the reason that we write things the way we do, then they will find they have some difficulty. When I am confronting a haughty attitude from pseudoscientists, things are not going to go in a positive direction. -- Filll ( talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please try to reign yourself in. Many places above people who are arguing to turn this into a noncritical article praising the advantages of homeopathy have tried to goad others into fights or baited them. If you want civility, you have to give civility. Otherwise, things deteriorate. If you really want to help improve the article, please try to provide peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals for your claims. And sorry, but orgone and the aether are part of pseudoscience. This does not mean they might not be true, but so far there is no scientific evidence for them. So they are pseudoscience. Like homeopathy. Sorry.-- Filll ( talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Look at intelligent design for an article that has been widely acknowledged to be a balanced, NPOV article (except by those trying to promote intelligent design). Look in a mainstream accepted scientific theory like evolution, another article thought to be among the best on Wikipedia and NPOV; how much in there do you see about creationism and intelligent design and the controversy, which is immense in the United States? Almost nothing, because creationism and intelligent design are WP:FRINGE theories. These should be viewed as models for homeopathy. Try to understand first before you throw mud. Thanks.-- Filll ( talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, pretend I am from Missouri.-- Filll ( talk) 01:01, 8 December 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
In the lead it says that a few homeopaths are opposed to vaccination and anti-malarial drugs. I would say it is more than a few. Not most and not all, but I would say many homeopaths oppose vaccinations but maybe only a few oppose anti-malarial drugs. Maybe this sentence needs changing and a cite adding. For example, Tinus Smits is a prominent Dutch MD homeopath with a website and he opposes vaccines. How close to actual homeopathic views do you want the article to be? Peter morrell 09:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No we don't say what the scientific jnls say. 83% is very clearly a lot more than 'a few!' 72% is a lot more than 'a few.' The sentence is clearly incorrect. Many homeopaths oppose vaccination is a more accurate statement of the situation. Peter morrell 09:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK that's true but even with 23 cites in the lead we could still more accurately say many homeopaths oppose vaccination [24] [25] [26] and add those studies you have alluded to. How does that sound? It seems we either want accuracy or we don't. thanks Peter morrell 09:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If I were curious about homeopaths' responses to the criticism they've received, where would I find it in this article? Do they have a response (does anyone know)? Friarslantern ( talk) 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What Brian said above is broadly correct about folks who OPPOSE homeopathy but what has been asked for is the response of homeopaths towards the views of such critics. This was covered extensively in the 19th century ad nauseam, but will not snuff out this type of tail-chasing argument. In brief, homeopaths either give up trying to explain how their remedies work or spend some time on this issue. I am in the former category and I suspect the vast majority of homeopaths don't really care tuppence how they work and fall back on the obvious efficacy of their remedies and the predictable nature of their use in clinical practice. Even the 'memory of water' idea is not universally supported within homeopathy as it is just another theory. Homeopaths, from Hahnemann onwards, have tended to despise theories and reside mostly in the pragmatic empirical field of curing folks of their sickness. Personally, I dont see how potentisation will EVER be explained through so-called rational science, not because it is magic, religion or belief, as the anti-homeopaths constantly mouth, but simply because we have no conceptual tools with which to describe it. It defies all logic and common sense derived from 'normal science.' All homeopaths can point to in the last analysis is their clinical work and that requires no religion or belief, it just is. does this suffice? Peter morrell 07:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 15:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As a small addendum to the comments above it seems likely that those homeopaths who strive to find explanations for it probably do so (at least in part) to try and find a bridge of conciliation with mainstream science and mainstream medicine. Overwhelmingly these tend to be MD homeopaths. Those who 'don't give a damn' about science and have abandoned any attempt to explain it tend to be non-MD homeopaths. However, I would add that it probably is desirable for homeopathy to be explained but the mechanism is so elusive after so many attempts to find one. The alternative view that many homeopaths adhere to is that all such studies have been flawed and that scientists are only interested in trying to disprove it ratehr than approach the issue neutrally. I can't say whether that is a justified view or not as I have not studied the issue of mechanisms myself in any great depth having focused mostly upon the practice, history and sociology of the subject. Hopefully these comments will be helpful to Friarslantern who first asked about this matter. thanks (PS. Sorry, Art, I have to go out now so will come back to your points later!) Peter morrell 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Several points flow from Art's post. I shall deal with them in turn.
When this article was in the sandbox, I got Peter to carefully explain EXACTLY what the potency measures meant, and wrote this up. I propose to expand this, potentially as a subsiduary daughter article to this one (or as a footnote, but I am not sure there is room). I feel this would be an extremely valuable contribution because in my surveys of the online literature, I have never seen this well described anywhere. It can be something that WP can really use to set WP apart; the one source that completely and clearly explains what exactly the potencies in homeopathy mean. Comments?-- Filll ( talk) 02:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A daughter article would be preferred as this section of this article is way too long and boring as it stands, and any thought of extending it further would be opposed by many. My ten pennorth. Peter morrell 07:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There is already a daughter article on potentisation (can't recall the exact title) so that's where it should go. Peter morrell 18:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think Filll had something quite longer and more ambitious in mind than a short para! Peter morrell 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Somehow or other ALL the refs have been screwed up how why? dunno...can someone fix this? thanks Peter morrell 18:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that. What about the potentisation daughter article, do you know what it is called? thanks Peter morrell 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Pov tag justified in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you overdid the deletions, WDM, slightly, principally because some of those were good and some were dubious, OK fair enough, BUT some had been there a harmlessly for a fair while and had consensus approval, so why not justify what you removed and why? just a helpful suggestion so as to clear it up. thank you Peter morrell 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit wars solve nothing and will not improve the article; after a nightly 'orgy' of same maybe it is time for folks to bring their issues to the talk page so their views can be discussed and perhaps a consensus might be reached, thanks Peter morrell 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
"a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water"
I think that that number should be changed to 1060. -- 200.69.215.69 ( talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking at the quality of the references here. OK, so lets look at the references on the "malaria" point, which should be pretty black and white.
One is an article on the guardian newspaper, which reports on the BBC news show http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jul/14/medicineandhealth.lifeandhealth
One is a letter to the bmj with a single case report [4]
(if this is the quality of quotes that I can use, then can I please, PLEASE use a letter from the National Enquirer to prove that Michael Jackson killed Elvis Presley when he went back in a time machine).
And the other is a reasonably credible source. The BBC quoting it's show, and quoting the NHS London Homeopathic Hospital in saying that they believed there was no evidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm
If someone really wants to get cit-tastic they can of course cite the 1999 BMJ
[5]
quoting the "A recent meta-analysis, published in the Lancet, examined over 100 randomised, placebo controlled trials and found an odds ratio of 2.45 (95% confidence interval 2.05 to 2.93) in favour of homoeopathy. The authors concluded that, even allowing for publication bias, "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.""
Lets have a little bit more quality in our citations people. I know some of you love to get hot under the collar.. but it's a little crazy. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.130.204.163 (
talk)
12:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I firmly believe that this has no place in the introduction. Tim Vickers states that it succinctly communicates the opinions of many groups on the subject. It doesn't, it communicates the opinions of one group. Its place in the intro renders it too much importance and is a content bias. Rray holds that this is fine because it is a cited study, but a single cited study has no place in the introduction of an argument. Put it in criticism, and back it up with more studies. A collected list of citations which details opinions is better for expressing the opinions of a whole community than a single citation.
"In the words of a recent medical review" has no place in an encyclopedia unless said review is for some reason superlative. The use of the colloquial "quackery" itself is incorrect as "quack" is a derogatory term. The neutral definition of quackery (fraudulent medical practice) would be better.
Better than all of these would be a policy statement from a large organization such as the AMA: "There is little evidence to confirm the safety or efficacy of most alternative therapies. Much of the information currently known about these therapies makes it clear that many have not been shown to be efficacious. Well-designed, stringently controlled research should be done to evaluate the efficacy of alternative therapies" http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13638.html
Embattledseraph ( talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
features homeopathy. The legitimacy of homeopathy in India indicates acceptance by much of its scientific community. According to this (clearly bias, but probably not lying) website ( http://www.homeopathyheals.com/intro.html), 40% of licensed MD's in France either practice homeopathy or refer patients to homeopaths. Several news sources also mention a WHO study which was in favor of homeopathy http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm Regardless of the scientific validity of the WHO's study, the WHO is composed of members of the scientific community. In summary, I have shown that using the "quackery source" to sum up the scientific community is a misrepresentation which excludes the following groups from that community: Many American Pharmacists, German M.Ds, French M.Ds., and Austrian M.Ds, much of India, and the World Health Organization. Embattledseraph ( talk) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (Sorry about the bad integration of references.)
Dr. Ernst, who is cited throughout the article, is repeatedly accused of having an anti-homeopathic bias, should he be allowed to be cited so much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.67.146 ( talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
When talking about Clinical Trials, this article goes on to suggest that the NHS finds "no convincing evidence" but this is not supported by the reference. I have previously discussed this with the editor who vehemently reverted my changed, twice. Thus I'll let someone else change it this time. The NHS article (which is in a public "NHS Direct" watered down website) goes on to say that there is difficulty with the evidence, but not that no convincing evidence exists. The other bodies listed do (in my view anyway) hold the view that no evidence exists, but the fact that the NHS runs multiple homeopathic hospitals lies question to the suggestion that they are of the view there is nothing in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.204.163 ( talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree with what the meta analyses state please explain why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 ( talk) 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone reverts edits please explain why.I thought this was the way to work here. thanks
U didnot make any edit war. I did not revert anything. User OrangeMarlin reverted the edits.
Lead is not neutral though. Studies dont state that. The homeopathic objections? This is what I wrote.
"Reasearchers in 1991 had concluded” that at the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias..This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy”.
Another metanalysis (1997) concluded “that the results are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo but there was insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.” . However the same researchers (2000) “concluded that in the ( above ) study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”
Another one concluded that “The majority of available trials seem to report positive results but the evidence is not convincing”. INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy”
Other meta analyses found “that there is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies.”
Homeopaths argue that “Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored”. They say that “The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology."
Please stop all this endless edit warring every night, Tim and Orangemarlin, and place the text as a quote or use the actual phrasing the cite says. thanks Peter morrell 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why this external link was removed?
"Join us to debate the evidence on both sides with Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and Dr Ben Goldacre, medical writer and broadcaster, and decide for yourself."
The Natural History museum website is not a good source? Or the editors dont like debates in general? The debate was about the Lancet (2005) meta analyses.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html
Ask Wikidudeman, it was HE who deleted masses of pro and anti links a few days back. I asked him to justify those deletions and he has never replied. thanks Peter morrell 13:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's good to have different opinions.
A recent meta analysis found that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” Homeopaths criticized the study for being biased. Previous meta analyses found that homeopathic treatments were somewhat more effective than placebo ( or reported positive results ) but the evidence was not convincing because of the unknown role of the publication bias and the flawed design of the studies. One meta analyses found the evidence promising for some topics, another stated that” there was a legitimate case for further research” and two meta analyses found evidence that the higher the quality of the studies the less promising the results. Homeopaths contend that “the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology.” They say “homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect”
The previous summary was not neutral. The text of the original studies is above and you can compare.
I think this one complies with the WP lead rules. Feel free to comment and/or revert but please justify here. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.43.191.226 (
talk)
04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam is correct; however, it would be nice to get this sorted out and settled for good, because every single night we seem to have this same spectre of 'insert then revert' by the same small bunch of folks, and it is wrecking the general' stability of the article. Can't 72.43.191.226 and OM and Tim come to some amicable agreement re wording so we can get back to more serious topics? if possible, that would be great. just a suggestion. thanks Peter morrell 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Some meta-analyses stated tha studies on Homeopathy “seem to report positive results.” However, the researchers pointed out that the “evidence was not convincing because of the unknown role of the publication bias and the low methodological quality of the studies”; they also found “clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”
However, a recent meta-analysis comparing homeopathic clinical trials with those of conventional medicines has shown that any effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo not without its own critisism by homeopaths for being biased.
[7]
[8]
Homeopaths contend that “the idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his/her single ailment, disease or pathology.”
[9] They believe that “homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect”
[10]
How about that? I tried to keep the sentences of the original texts - look above and compare.
The criticism for the Lancet 2005 studies is here
[11](I think a good source)
and here, in a video file. (Natural History Museum website - a good source). I think it was included before in the article. The museum being aware of the controversy on the recent studies (Lancet 2005) on Homeopathy organized a debate, which is available on line.
[12] “Homeopaths' objections ”.(BBC) [13] and Vithoulkas website [14] (the article refers to him - wikipedia has an article about him and includes his website as well ).
My point is that if you don’t include these most basic homeopathic ideas in the lead of an article about homeopathy, the article might be regarded as incomplete and biased. It fails to inform the reader about the most basic principles of homeopathy and why homeopathy is a controversial subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.191.226 ( talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The lead is not neutral. I agree with the comments stated. The article seems to be good. It needs to be balanced though. -- Radames1 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a controversy on the evidence.It is well known and documented Thats why I changed it.
INTERPRETATION: Reviews on homeopathy often address general questions. While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy. [15] -- 70.107.246.88 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
David, do you mean that there is no controversy on the evidence? This is what all the sources say. From BBC to the meta analyses? Look above. Please justify your revert. -- 70.107.246.88 17:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[16] Another example: "Are there scientific controversies associated with homeopathy? Yes. Homeopathy is an area of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)A group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not presently considered to be part of conventional medicine. Complementary medicine is used together with conventional medicine, and alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine. that has seen high levels of controversy and debate, largely because a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics).
It is debated how something that causes illness might also cure it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
And another one: WALTER STEWART (Research Chemist): If Madeleine Ennis turns out to be right it means that science has missed a huge chunk of something.
Here is another one: "NARRATOR: She (Madeleine Ennis) has reawakened one of the most bitter controversies of recent years" [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 17:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So you think that the above sources which state that there is a controversy are incorrect? -- 70.107.246.88 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I respect your opinion but this is not what the studies say and sources say.
I thought in Wikipedia we have to write what high quality sources state not what we think they say:
NCCAM and metanalyses say there is a controversy on the issue as you see above. You cannot change that even if you disagree with it.
-- 70.107.246.88 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The controversy is about the effectiveness and the theory. It is not about the people's perception. - this is what is clearly stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.246.88 ( talk) 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
No Tim that's wrong. The controversy is very much about proving efficacy using trials, which as you know homeopaths regard as too crude a method and thus they show nothing. Also, your phrase 'the proper response to homeopathy'? huh? what is that about? the other issue is how such tiny doses can elicit actual physiological responses in folks...that they do so is of course potentially another pebble in science's shoe; so I think those are two points around which the controversy revolves. As for molecules, well of course, if homeopathy was a truly molecular phenonemon at all, even remotely, then its dosage system would be up the swannee as absurd as science believes it to be. If, however, homeopathy empirically can show physiological responses from such tiny doses, then either there is something more to matter than molecules or something very fishy is going on. Either way, science should investigate that more neutrally and more thoroughly than at present. Hope this summarises that issue for you. thanks Peter morrell 10:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with clinical trials, as anyone experienced with homeopathy will tell you, is that the choice of appropriate homeopathic remedy and potency is determined by "taking the case". In other words, the individual patient's mental, emotional, and physical symptom patterns are analyzed, and the remedy is chosen on that basis. You do not have specific remedies for specific conditions, except for a small number of what are termed "polycrests".
And yes "there is something more to matter than molecules" - atoms and molecules are made up of of waves. They only act as particles when standing waves function as expressions of elements in configurations we call atoms and molecules. Each molecule resonates with a unique pattern. It is THIS MOLECULAR PATTERN RESONANCE that is transfered to the dilutant, whether water, lactose, or alcohol. Arion ( talk) 05:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Docboat, the medical and scientific communities have taken a position on the issue of evidence, and the views that you advocate are not in favor. This is not to say that the views are necessarily wrong, but it is to say that they are fringe. Wikipedia has relevant policies concerning such views which we must dutifully apply in this article. Ante lan talk 21:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Write a reliable source about your experience and we can discuss putting it in Wikipedia. Until then it is original research. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not think you understand what WP:NPOV means in cases like homeopathy. Since homeopathy is part of medicine, or purports to be, it is part of science. Therefore, the dominant POV for examining homeopathy is the scientific POV, according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Sorry.-- Filll ( talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If you can show that a diluted acidic solution (or basic solution) mixed with an acid will more rapidly reach a pH of 7 than mixing an acid with a strong base/alkali, then I would be fascinated. Please provide peer-reviewed mainstream studies in a mainstream scientific journal. The person who finds this will likely win a Nobel Prize.-- Filll ( talk) 20:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, the placebo effect is incredibly strong. It should not be knocked. And the administration of "medications" which operate by the placebo effect usually have no negative side effects. So it is not all bad...
So do not fight the verdict of the scientific community when it says that these medications act by placebo. There are worse things...-- Filll ( talk) 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a good point. I think placebo only takes you so far.-- Filll ( talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Well if homeopaths do not rely on diluted solutions, what do they use? Please present reliable sources for your claims. If they do not produce remedies by a sequence of succussion and dilution, what do they do? Please provide reliable sources for your statements. I think that the article describes this process of succussion and dilution. Where does it say the wrong thing? We do not know what a "molecular wave pattern" is. Do you have a reliable source for that term, if you want to introduce it into the article? Also, for us WP:NPOV is defined according to our policies, using WP:FRINGE, [WP:UNDUE]], WP:WEIGHT etc. You might not like those policies, but those are the Wikipedia policies. There are many other Wikis which do not have these policies and I would be glad to give you a list of other Wikis if you want to write articles that do not abide by these policies.-- Filll ( talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is not neutral. A article about homeopathy must inform the readers about basic homeopathic priniples and views- for instance – how homeopaths regard meta analyses. -- Orion4 ( talk) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Homeopaths argue that Homeopathy demands individualization of the cases in order to show its best therapeutic effect. They contend that all the trials reviewed in the 6 meta-analysis studies these critical parameters were obviously ignored. They say that The idea of double blind research is valid for conventional medicine but not for homeopathy which is based on the principle of giving a remedy for a totality of symptoms of an individual and not only for his single ailment, disease or pathology
This is a view I just added to the article. It is stated in VIthoulkas website, The article includes and comment on his views hence it is a valid source. -- Orion4 ( talk) 00:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Another source. BBC. A good source, I do believe. "It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orion4 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is what homeopaths say. You have to include it you like it or not. At this point I request an administrator who is not inlvoved to protect the article and the under dispute tag if Adam Cuerden keeps reverting without disucssion.There more than two editors regard the artcile views as POV. -- Orion4 ( talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What homeopaths claim about peer-reviewed trials might be noted in a section on homeopathic viewpoints, but not in a section discussing the scientific analysis of homeopathy. This is simply a case of special pleading and unsupported by any kind of evidence. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Something like that might go in the article body, but certainly has to be carefully couched in the right terms, and should not go in the LEAD.-- Filll ( talk) 00:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
After using homeopathic remedies for several years I was firmly convinced about their efficacy. But 2 days after starting a new treatment I felt very bad I could not understand why, as far as previous experiences have always been resolved with success. I called my doctor and I realized that I have misunderstood the dose and was taking the double of prescription. If remedy were a simple placebo there would not been any reason for getting worse. On the other hand, if it was a placebo in form of “pure water” it would produce whether a healing effect or no effect at all, but in any case not an aggravation of symptoms.
So, I strongly disagree with the biased content of the article about homeopathy which is obviously against it and stands for the placebo theory. I would be better a simple explanation of arguments about the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Josepbl2 ( talk • contribs)
As I survey the article, although it is immeasurably better than it used to be, I still see lots of examples of little problems. However, with the edit warring going on, it is almost impossible to fix these. People who are frantic to destroy the article by introducing statements that are effectively equivalent to "Homeopathy is fantastic and all other medicine is BS and we hate all doctors and scientists and science so there nya nya nya...now bugger off now" really is not helpful. There are still problems remaining in just a pure exposition of the subject, without having to contend with edit warriors who think if they just rant and rave enough, we will turn this article into a paean of praise for a pseudoscience. Sorry, but that ain't gunna happen. I would rather see the article deleted permanently than see that outcome. -- Filll ( talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In an article (in the lead) about homeopathy you have to include homeopathy's basic views on meta analyses. This is not a matter a evidence. They have an opinion - let the reader to decide if their arguments are strong or not. It is a matter of NPOV to include them - otherwise the lead and the article is biased and mainly incomplete. If conventional and mainstream science has strong arguments - it ( science ) has nothing to afraid of including the basic homeopathic concepts. Otherwise it seems you are trying to hide basic and highly important homeopathic views fearing that you cannot answer them properly. The sensitive editor will include the above opinions - I believe.
I think people should not revert without discussion. POV tag should attached and protected by univolved administrators. Who agrees ?-- Orion4 ( talk) 00:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) - I dont like edit wars
- http://www.vithoulkas.gr/EN/research01.html - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/plants-fungi/301106homeopathy/does-homeopathy-work.html
The introductory third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph. The very words "scientifically implausible" are an opinion, just as much as an opinion in the 18th century that watching live television from the other side of the world was "scientifically implausible". Arion ( talk) 01:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
PLease dont revert without discussion. I added in the article the same sentence. If you disagree please explain why.-- Orion4 ( talk) 01:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV means not writing the article in a way that favors one side over another in an issue in which there are two opinions. Try to learn that.
With the advent of modern physics and the ever-widening knowledge of molecular waves, homeopathy has become scientifically plausible. Arion ( talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As I asked above, can you provide a reliable source on molecular waves?-- Filll ( talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Any physics textbook will explain molecular waves. Molecular waves are what all matter is made up of, including your body and this entire planet. You are asking me to explain matter? A simple explanation is that all substance is made up of waves that at certain modes of expression function as particles. One understanding of the duality of particles and waves has developed from early expositions of de Broglie's theory of matter-waves, linear velocity and inertial momentum. Some wave functions are mass-bound and others mass-free: electrokinetic energy, thermokinetic energy, electromagnetic energy, mass-energy and ambipolar massfree energy. Arion ( talk) 02:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not asking you to educate me in Physics. I already have a PhD in mathematical physics from one of the best Universities in the US, thanks. And I looked up some of those terms. Sorry they are related to orgone energy and the aether and are just in the realm of pseudoscience. Most of what you wrote was pure nonsense. Sorry.-- Filll ( talk) 03:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree it is interesting (if sad) to watch someone like Filll flailing about with terms that they obviously don't understand in the slightest, trying to impress people who do understand them with his "PhD in mathematical physics". Arion ( talk) 03:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Tim, you have not heard about how all enzymes are made up from fundamental enzymions? They are actually a form of tachonyium and capture the emitted karmic energy from people's emotional states. This is the hottest stuff. The rates of reactions are determined by the karmic energy gaps and the recombination of the enzymions causes the aether to pulse at a deep fundamental wave energy of the universe, connecting us all to the nether world and other universes in ohter dimensions. Did you not know?-- Filll ( talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not want Tim to feel left out. But I would like to see us actually improve the English in the text, which still could stand some use. I am tempted to make a sandbox copy and edit there, since it is very hard to edit with the threat of POV warriors.- Filll ( talk) 03:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Adam removed the following contribution from Orion.
First if these are quotes what are the citations? Second, this addition will lead to 'he says, she says', type editing where the whole flow of the text is interupted by counter points. If these points are to be made they should be as a note, in the main body of the article, or the whole section need to be adjusted so homepathic counter arguments are not interjected in the scientific arguments, IMO. For those who say this is unfair, go back and read how the intro looked only a few weeks ago. It was full of anti homeopathic interjections. Lets not now swing the other way. David D. (Talk) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Way I see it, Homeopaths just got two paragraphs largely criticism-free. We're now presenting the mainstream scientific opinion in the third paragraph, not the mainstream scientific opinion and facetious homeopathic objections. Adam Cuerden talk 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
By the principles of Wikipedia, as I understand it, the percentage of the article devoted to pro-homeopathy material should be roughly equal to the proportion of people in the relevant fields of science and medicine that have pro-homeopathy sentiments. Therefore, most of this article should have a skeptical tone. In my last evaluation, it was about 60% pro-homeopathy, not mainly skeptical. The LEAD must also follow these same proportions, roughly. and it is 2/3 or so pro-homeopathy. So I do not think homeopathy advocates have much to complain about.
Homeopathy is a WP:FRINGE theory and therefore is treated as such in Wikipedia. Maybe in Conservapedia or some other wiki you can find different rules for dealing with homeopathy. You can investigate. Wikipedia has its rules. And we try to follow them.-- Filll ( talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have participated on this Talk page for the last 24 hours. In that time I have been on the receiving end of rudeness, belittling, and mocking laughter at my comments given in response to questions.
The use of derogatory terms like "ridiculously patronizing and completely hypocritical" is not what is expected of Wikipedia editors (see Wikipedia:Civility). I would also like to caution all of us to remain careful not to engage in wording that might be construed as personal attacks, even if unintentional. We should not assume that someone has an "agenda", but instead assume that each editor is a sincere individual who is attempting, in good faith, to assist in the editing of an article to improve it to the highest standards of academic excellence. Arion ( talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have given you something to work with. I have repeatedly pointed out that the introductory third paragraph, beginning with "The ideas of homeopathy are scientifically implausible . . .", is a blatantly non-neutral POV paragraph. The very words "scientifically implausible" are an opinion that does not belong in an encylopedia entry on homeopathy. You can cite a reference for a quote of that nature by someone in the Medical criticism section, but you can not state an affirmative statement like that in the article since that would be considered a non-neutral point of view ( WP:POV) and "original research" ( WP:OR). Arion ( talk) 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Things work here by compromise. We work together, and things get done. If homeopaths are unable or unwilling to learn the rules of Wikipedia and the reason that we write things the way we do, then they will find they have some difficulty. When I am confronting a haughty attitude from pseudoscientists, things are not going to go in a positive direction. -- Filll ( talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please try to reign yourself in. Many places above people who are arguing to turn this into a noncritical article praising the advantages of homeopathy have tried to goad others into fights or baited them. If you want civility, you have to give civility. Otherwise, things deteriorate. If you really want to help improve the article, please try to provide peer-reviewed publications in mainstream journals for your claims. And sorry, but orgone and the aether are part of pseudoscience. This does not mean they might not be true, but so far there is no scientific evidence for them. So they are pseudoscience. Like homeopathy. Sorry.-- Filll ( talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Look at intelligent design for an article that has been widely acknowledged to be a balanced, NPOV article (except by those trying to promote intelligent design). Look in a mainstream accepted scientific theory like evolution, another article thought to be among the best on Wikipedia and NPOV; how much in there do you see about creationism and intelligent design and the controversy, which is immense in the United States? Almost nothing, because creationism and intelligent design are WP:FRINGE theories. These should be viewed as models for homeopathy. Try to understand first before you throw mud. Thanks.-- Filll ( talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, pretend I am from Missouri.-- Filll ( talk) 01:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)