Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Pseudoscience

The article calls homeopathy a pseudoscience, but nowhere in wikipedia's guidelines does this seem to be allowed. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories There is no scientific consensus that homeopathy is pseudoscience, especially in Europe, therefore, it is classified as a questionable science. Klocek (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not explicitly stated, in the Wikipedia guidelines that anything should be called anything. The thing is that there is nothing in the guidelines that says it shouldn't be - and anything that's not forbidden is OK. What we ARE required to do is to represent the world from a mainstream scientific perspective and to provide references for what we say.

The mainstream scientific view is that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience...and we have references to prove that. So there is no reason we shouldn't say so. More importantly, the WP:FRINGE guidelines make it clear that it would be a breach of the neutral position to allow the homeopathists to dominate the content of the article with their bogus (according to mainstream science - and therefore according to Wikipedia) position.

Aside from all of that - you may ask why poor old homeopathy is being called a pseudoscience in the first place? Some see this word as some kind of an insult. It's not, it's a straightforward classification of an idea or discipline. The definition of the word pseudoscience given in most dictionaries agrees with the one provided by Wiktionary, which I'll quote for you:

Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method.

Homeopathy undoubtedly purports to be scientific - it makes MANY claims to be able to produce certain results from certain practices based on scientific-sounding descriptions of some very odd properties of water.

The deciding factor is therefore whether or not homeopathy follows "The Scientific Method".

I suggest you read at least the introduction to our Scientific method article...but here is a summary of what this means:

Basically, the scientific method requires that you form an idea which you are not yet certain about. We call that a "hypothesis". A good hypothesis has to explain everything that we already know about the topic and then makes certain testable predictions about the universe. The next step is that you do some experiments to see if those predictions turn out to be true - and if they do, your hypothesis is a better explanation for how the universe works than the one we already have. So you write a paper describing your new hypothesis, what predictions you made, what experiments you did, what results you got and how you interpret those results to back up your hypothesis. This paper is then peer-reviewed for obvious mistakes and deceptions and to be sure that nobody else already showed it was true. That's by a bunch of other people who work in that field ("your peers") - and if it passes muster, it'll be published in some journal or other. If the hypothesis is reasonably compelling, other scientists will attempt to repeat your experiments to see if what you did really works as you claim and they may try to come up with alternative explanations for what you observed. They write more papers - perhaps devise more experiments to test your claims. Eventually, if enough of the other people who test this agree that your hypothesis is the best explanation for the experimental results, your hypothesis becomes accepted into the mainstream as a "theory". (Which is what used to be called a "law").

So - the burning question here is: Do homeopathists do this? The answer is a blindingly clear "NO!" - they most certainly do not. What they did is to come up with two basic hypotheses:

1. Diluting something until there is none left 'imprints' the water in some permanent or at least long-lived fashion.
2. Drinking imprinted water affects your health in some manner - possibly the reverse of the harm that would be caused by ingesting the original substance.

What experiments have been done to follow up on (1)? The answer is - none whatever. Not one single documented example of a homeopathist systematically testing whether water takes on this "imprint" has ever been performed! Where are the double-blind studies of (2)? Where is the statistical analysis of how many people were cured of their colds by very diluted raw duck liver?

That is why we call homeopathy a "pseudoscience" - it makes scientific claims - but never does the hard work to test them...instead they skip the basic science, skip the human trials and go straight to selling the stuff in little bottles in WalMart.

Wikipedia says that homeopathy is a pseudoscience because that is precisely, and undeniably what it is. This is the mainstream view of scientists - and it clearly follows the definition of the word and what is going on in the world of homeopathy.

We don't say that religions are pseudosciences because they tell people to take their wild and crazy claims on faith - and (with some exceptions) tend not to make scientific predictions or wrap themselves in the mantle of science. We don't say that quantum physics is pseudoscience because although quantum physicists make scientific claims, they really do follow the scientific method.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Klocek (talk · contribs) - there is a scientific consensus that homoeopathy is pseudoscience, including "in Europe". Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus that homeopathy is pseudoscience --24.107.242.181 (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Homeopathy with astrology are the textbook case of obvious pseudoscience.--McSly (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

no - you are wrong - look what the best review for oscillo says — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.242.181 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

While SteveBaker provides an excellent explanation above, the real reason the article includes "Homeopathy is a pseudoscience^[2][3][4]" is the ^[2][3][4] which (in the article) point to reliable sources that verify the statement. Anyone wanting to contest the statement needs to explain how the sources are incorrectly used, or provide other specific evidence to contradict the statement—bearing in mind that reliable sources are required. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that by "the best review for oscillo" you mean the Cochrane review, it doesn't say anything about whether or not homoeopathy is regarded as pseudoscience, so cannot be used as a source on this point. Brunton (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, if we need more sourcing for this, several of the essays in the book Philosophy of Pseudoscience (ed. Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry) recently published by the University of Chicago Press use homoeopathy as an example of pseudoscience, for example (p. 30), "Despite the lack of generally accepted demarcation criteria, we find remarkable agreement among virtually all philosophers and scientists that fields like astrology, creationism, homeopathy [...] are either pseudosciences or at least lack the epistemic warrant to be taken seriously", or (p. 49), "homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience". Brunton (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Please remove the following text. ...a pseudoscience and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.

Replace it with. ... "a system and philosophy of medicine born from acute observations that substances ingested by humans have presentations of symptomatology common to themselves and when matched closely to a specific individual's symptomatic presentation can produce a curing effect. One of the first observations of this principle was from Hippocrates, commonly recognized as the father of modern medicine. "

Reason for edit: (Requesting more substantive changes and reliable sources.) Calling homeopathy an ineffective pseudoscience is not correct and does not do justice to one of the two basic and founding principles of medicine, the treatment with similar rather than opposite medicines. The break with modern science occurs within an aspect of homeopathy in which the remedies are diluted beyond Avogadro's number. This, however only takes place in the higher potency (more dilute) prescriptions and not with lower potency (less dilute) prescriptions. Homeopathy has always had, low and high potency prescribers advocating their respective positions. It would not be correct to advocate for either one within a definition of Homeopathy. Also, Homeopathy is not an archaic form of medicine as there are thousands of active practitioners today. As Homeopathy is highly criticized by allopathic practitioners and promoters, and also highly politically and competitively, contentious within and between its own practitioner base, it is best to state the principles and leave out the judgements. As to Homeopathy's efficacy, besides the thousands of successfully treated patients from every civilized country in the world, the principle of the "law of similars" is well born out as a true and scientific principle through common observation and, in principle, used in commonly accepted treatments for snake bites, hangovers, and in vaccinations (the main difference not in principal, but being the material strength of the dosage) (the more concentrated the dosage the greater the toxic risk). This is the reason for Hahnemann's dilutions, a desire to effect a cure and "do no harm".

References

Cruscntrl (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think we were born yesterday. Not Done. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Cruscntrl, you have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. Please also read the section just above this - this article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complementary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentioned in the section above which I'm linking to here (and tell me also about it, on my discussion/talk page). I'm probably the only sympathiser you'll find here, so please follow my advice or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned (from this article).—Khabboos (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Khabboos:, it would seem you have not yet read the material I linked. Please do so. The above is certainly not reflective of an accurate reading. WP:RS pertains to all articles, not just those about CAM. WP:MEDRS interprets and clarifies the application of WP:RS in the context of medical assertions and all articles about medicine, including CAM. In every subject area, the underlying principle is that we should use the most reliable sources we can identify, and then reflect the thrust of what those sources say in our rephrased content. We avoid adding our own interpretation, per wp:NOR, wp:SYN, and various others. My comment above was definitely NOT a suggestion to complain, but to do the work of first understanding and learning to work within the policies which have been formed by consensus of the community over many years of discussion among a lot of intelligent, involved editors. Until one actually understands the policies and the discussion that formed them, one is unlikely to be able to make any constructive change to them. In short, one has to do the homework. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

correcting misrepresentative opinion

The asertion of the UK House of Commons Scientific Select Committee is contentious with regard to the support garnered from within the committe, it noted that only three of those sitting actually voted and of those three none had any specilaist knowledge of the subject. No Health Care Trust at the time were invited to speak neither was representatives from Homeopathic association and not least no patient was afforded the same opportunity. As to the closing Paragraph remark that the government agrees is disingenous especial in light of Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House Of Commons Science and Technology Committee, February 2010,which noted,these limitations make the Committee’s report an unreliable source of evidence about homeopathy. The jury must still be regarded as out on its efficacy and risk/ benefit ratio. Whether more research should be done, and of what kind, is another question. But there can be no ethical objection to it since the principal questions have not, as the Committee claimed, “been settled already”. Earl Baldwin of Bewdley. June 2010. Added to which 206 sitting MPs signed an early day motion expressing concerns over the report content and procedure (Topgrad (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from the report. If you want to have this modified or removed you will have to provide a WP:RS source of equal or greater weight which clearly contradicts the report. What you have provide so far is primarily WP:OR . --Daffydavid (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That EDM was by David Tredinnick (politician). 'Nuff said. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you LeadSongDog for interest sake what do you say about Earl Baldwins report and what is your opinion as to why 206 sitting MPs felt the need to sign it _(Topgrad (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not had the opportunity to examine that report, but in general politicians act for political reasons, not scientific ones. I would be surprised if even 20 of the 205 even read what they signed. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am prepared to be corrected regarding the ED as I undertsand it it was in response to the way in which the committe blatantly conducted itself and the biased minority veiw that was reported, political savvy to distance them selves for the flak maybe or, a demonstration of balanced democracy in action? (Topgrad (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

We've mentioned Deepak Chopra in this article as a proponent, but in the biography we have about him here at Deepak Chopra, there is no mention of homeopathy, so I think we should delete his name from this article or add a sentence citing a reference for his statement about homeopathy in his wikipedia biography.—Khabboos (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all the proponents should be sourced properly in the article. I don't know why they're not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't found any RS to support him being specifically a proponent of homoeopathy so I'll remove the mention. Brunton (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/wikipedia-call-to-action-to-update-homeopathy-at-wikipedia Be aware of online petitions! As a fun sidenote, this clearly demonstrate how homeopaths think how science works: By petition.^^Rka001 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are they calling for "a large number of people [to] sign this petition"? Surely, the less people that sign it, the more effective it will be. ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I got a request to sign a petition from change.org to avoid the Homeopathic section's closure at the Bristol (or was it Glasgow?) Hospital which claimed that a petition for it's closure was signed by 2000 sceptics/critics of Homeopathy, while they have 24,000 signatures to avoid its closure and were looking to make it 25,000 signatures. However, are we at wikipedia going to put such trivia into this article? I hope not!—Khabboos (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Rka001, if that petition is signed by say 25,000 people and submitted to Jimmy/Jimbo Wales and he agrees to put all the criticism in one section or have a different page for "criticism of Homeopathy" that petition may achieve what it was intended to.—Khabboos (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, that is not how Wikipedia works but I'm beginning to think you are already aware of that. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes and petitions carry very little weight. We work by debate and a consensus of ideas. It's not "one man one vote" - it's more like "one compelling argument, one vote" or, ideally, "one valid reference, one vote". When I look at the comments provided by people who signed that petition, they are almost all vapid "Me Too!" comments - or "Homeopathy cured me of XXXX, so it must work!" comments. Those are not useful arguments - and pretty much all of those 24,000 votes would count for precisely nothing in a consensus debate here on Wikipedia.

Understand that this is an Encyclopedia. Our goal is to present the universe as it truly is. If we allow a bunch of people who merely wish that the universe was other than it is to change our content, then all of our articles will reflect the world that people wish it was like, rather than how it actually is...and that would make for a pretty terrible reference book.

Just think about how "editing by petition" would work. I have no doubt you could find 24,000 Islamic extremists to sign a petition to change the article on the USA (I'll leave it to your imagination to fill in what they might demand we'd say about it)...should Wikipedia cave in to that kind of pressure? What about the holocaust deniers? Klu Klux Klan members? I bet the Flat Earth society could get that many signatures - and then we'd have to rewrite Earth to say that the earth is flat! Any group of people with an extreme viewpoint could very easily get that many signatures.

Homeopathy has been tested time after time in careful scientific experiments - and the overwhelming conclusion is that it doesn't work. Just because a lot of people wish that it worked, we can't write "It really does work!" in our article because that would be a lie. We could (and actually do) say that a lot of people believe that it works (see Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy)...and this petition does indeed back up that statement...and that's the only piece of information of any value contained in the petition.

So the petition is worthless and it can't/won't/shouldn't change a darned thing in this article.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with petitions is that you can get large-sounding numbers of people who simultaneously represent a negligible portion of public opinion. Consider the 2012 U.S. presidential elections. 67,323 people didn't just sign a online petition; they got off their couches, lined up, and voted to elect Roseanne Barr the 45th President of the United States. By that metric, the above-linked 3000-signature e-petition represents an idea about 4.5% as good as "Roseanne for President" (it scored 45 milliroseannes?). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's much less than 45 milliRoseannes - the presidential vote was only for eligible US voters. So the unit of one "Roseanne" is 67,300 out of the 211,000,000 eligible voters in 2012. Since the number of eligible participants in the petition is everyone with access to the Internet (2.4 billion people by some estimates) 3000 votes is more like 27 microRoseannes!  :-) SteveBaker (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a democarcy per se OK it is however supposed to be neutral that means to me not favouring one side or the other if thats the case from what has been discussed wiki has no intention in living up to its mission statement of providing balance. If not why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) plus how many volunteers actually read any studies before passing comment

Wikipedia's neutrality policy is complemented by the reliable sources policy, which means that only reliable sources can be cited, and all statements,whether fact or opinion, have to be from them. While the neutrality policy requires all viewpoints to be represented, how prevalent they are in the article are determined by how prominent they are on reliable sources. Reliable sources state that the higher quality studies show a lack of evidence for homeopathy, which is presented as a fact in the article because it is a fact that those studie say that, for example. Jh1234l (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's commentary on this is a great statement of how things are around here - check it out: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html SteveBaker (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair point however, given the spin that some researchers have intorduced in the work is there not, a requirement of wiki to revisit some of the more controvertial that have beed drawn into the light as seen, in the media in the USA and abroad to establlish their reliability or, does wiki rigidly seek to maintain the neutral staus quo and not correct theses reported discrepencies?(Topgrad (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk)

User:80.2.37.152, you have been instructed to sign your comments, but are still not doing so. Don't you read your talk page? Signing is a non-negotiable requirement here, so start doing it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I do if it is in a civil recgonised format unlike your remarks I think you need lessons in good manners and public relation my friend. If it to sign with four tildes found at the top of the page then why did you not just point me in that direction for information sake(Topgrad (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

Thank you for starting to sign your comments, and for creating an account. Instructions had already been left on your talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou didn't hurt did it? However for my part being a newbie finding my way around and understanding the protocols at the moment is difficult for me(Topgrad (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC))80.2.37.152 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

I understand! We've all been there. To make it easier for you, here are a few things that are immediately relevant:

• Use only one account, so remember to always log in using your Topgrad account. If you forget, then go back and sign them as you have done. Since the time stamp was right, you only need to replace the IP number part with Topgrad.
• Investigate the wikilinks people use so you understand the full meaning and intent of their comments.
• Keep an eye on your watchlist and your talk page. Messages there can be important, so keep the lines of communication open to everyone, especially editors who may hold opposing POV and be unpleasant. It's not easy, but you'll be better off if you do so. Take the high road.
• Read contribution and edit histories and always leave edit summaries.
• Then, regardless of how tough things seem to be going, try to remain calm and civil, and always assume good faith. Misunderstandings occur very easily when we don't have body language in the picture. Don't be afraid to ask for help. We're a team and need to work together.

Welcome on board! -- Brangifer (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for the welcome BullRangifer the info will come in handy although coping with unpleasant individuals whomever, can bring the worst out of me particularly the arrogant kind. I agrre cibvility is the standard and, as you are already aware good manners cost in my part of the world "nowt" which means nothing. I look forward to some healthy debates and correcting misrepresentaion in the pages of wiki. By the way I wish to change my tag to my real name could point me in the right direction please(Topgrad (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

Positive studies and clinical trials

I will find good references like Lancet, Nature, Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., JAMA etc. for these studies, but please let me know if we can insert these into this article —Khabboos (talk) 15:03, June 18, 2014‎ (UTC)

--

Redacted. At least part was a direct copypaste from [1]--LeadSongDog come howl! 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC) --

Where have you copied this wall of text from? Do you think anybody is going to read it? Isn't it a copyright violation? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It can't be a copyvio because I have only posted the studies and clinical trials the source mentioned! I have even added the html codes.—Khabboos (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, that was not the source I used (I got it from here). Anyway, can we add those studies/clinical trials using references like Lancet, Nature, Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., JAMA etc. into this article? Can I add that matter back here (on the Talk page) as a collapsed table?—Khabboos (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Please state your proposed added text and the source that supports it. Note medical sources need to be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, for example: Study 1) In vitro immunological degranulation of human basophils is modulated by lung histamine and Apis mellifica, by Poitevin B., Davenas E., Benveniste J., published in the Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1988, 25: 439-444, which showed Inhibitory Basophil degranulation and Study 2) Neuroprotection from glutamate toxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate, by Jonas W., Lin Y., Zortella F., published in the Neuroreport, 2001 Feb 92; 12 (2): 335-9., which showed Protective Glutamate toxicity etc.—Khabboos (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you read WP:MEDRS? These are rather old primary sources, so not at all suitable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that there are good, positive studies/clinical trials and we at least need to have an NPOV tag for this article - almost every sentence is attacking homeopathy (I've been topic banned from terrorism related articles and I'm looking for other articles to edit, so that I can appeal my TBan in a month).—Khabboos (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so you haven't read MEDRS. Please do so. **Very** few studies or clinical trials, even in non-fringe areas, are suitable. Also, seeking a second place to conduct wikicombat is not going to do your case much good. Why not work on something mundane for a while, instead? Just click the "random article" link and see what comes up? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

1. The point you are trying to make (there are positive trials) has already been covered in the lede, by citing two secondary sources on that matter. 2. We are not using primary sources because the underlying statistics predict 5% of the studies being false positives/negatives. 3. Of all things, this article is not the best choice to show your goodwill, especially when you are clearly biased against reporting the scientific consent. Rka001 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the time for any 'wikicombat', so I won't even edit this article. I did read the matter at WP:MEDRS. Now, as a rookie/novice here, I want to know what wikipedia's official policy is. It claims to be an encyclopedia and like say, the Encyclopedia Brittannica should simply explain what homeopathy is (I object to the words pseudoscience, nonsense, quackery or a sham, placebos etc. in this article), but almost all the comp. and alt. med. articles, including articles on its advocates/practitioners (like Deepak Chopra) are attack pieces. If I'm right, we can at least have an NPOV tag at the top of this article.—Khabboos (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is easily looked up and from a quick glance at your talk page it would appear the policies have been explained to you many times. A NPOV tag is not appropriate on this article and this matter has been discussed endlessly. See the archives for this talk page if you want a more detailed answer. --Daffydavid (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article cites published sytematic reviews and analyses rather than cherry-picked "positive" trials. By their very nature, systematic reviews include the "positive" trials. We don't need to include them twice, and doing this would give them undue weight. Brunton (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Daffydavid, I can't keep searching for it (there are so many pages to search), so can you tell me what the objection to the NPOV tag was, in brief.—Khabboos (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article reports the scientific consensus, supported by the types of source recommended by WP:MEDRS. The words that you object to including are also adequately sourced. Brunton (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't feel offended, but isn't that what others are saying about Homeopathy and not how an encyclopedia should explain Homeopathy (wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia right)?—Khabboos (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You fail to understand Wikipedia. Articles here do far more than "explain". They cover every aspect of the subject which can be found in RS. That includes controversies and opinions, not just the dry facts of what and how. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I just read citizendium's article on Homeopathy (which seems to be much better than this wikipedia article) and feel that we can use their references - the studies and mechanism of action of homeopathic remedies. Any comments?—Khabboos (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we use the references cited at citizendium here in this section of 'our' article?—Khabboos (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as we wouldn't have an article explaining what flat earthers believe without pointing out that their beliefs are patently contradicted by the scientific evidence, we don't have a homeopathy article explaining what practitioners believe without highlighting the abundance of evidence that demonstrates it is nonsense. That is in conformance with NPOV requirements. Creating a false balance is NOT in line with NPOV policies. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to read the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Citizendium operates under very different rules than we do - and the result is an encyclopedia that not many people trust enough to actually read. It has an Alexia rank in the 300,000 range and it's getting worse every month - where Wikipedia's rank is more or less always between 5 and 10. (That means that only half a dozen websites in the entire world are read more widely than Wikipedia - and a third of a million web sites are more widely read than Citizendium). Given that they are both publicly-editable free-access comprehensive encyclopedias - you have to wonder why that is.

Wikipedia's guiding principle on this kind of subject is that we unflinchingly take the mainstream scientific view. No serious, properly run systematic review has ever shown homeopathy to be any better than placebo - which is why we use that word a lot in our article. Yes, we also use the word "pseudoscience" - please look up the definition of that word before you assume it's some kind of derogatory term - it's not. It means that this is a field of study that makes claims of a scientifically predictive, testable nature (you give someone treatment X and their illness Y is made better Z% of the time) - but it's practitioners don't follow the scientific method (hypothesis, experiment, peer review, publication, systematic review, theory). Nobody can deny that fact - homeopathists don't do proper double-blind placebo-controlled experiments on statistically reasonable numbers of subjects...they do a "proving" and leap from trying it on one person to saying "Behold! We have a new wonderdrug!". We also use the words "nonsense", "quackery" and "sham" - they are in a sentence that says: "The continued practice, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to homeopathy being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense,[21] quackery,[4][22][23] or a sham." - we're not saying that it necessarily is any of those things - we're saying that mainstream science has "characterized" it as those things...for which we have multiple references - and which is obviously a notable fact about Homeopathy that (given WIkipedia's stated rules about following the mainstream scientific view) it would be biassed reporting if we chose to suppress it.

Personally: If you're trying to impress admins with how well you work in the Wikipedia community - you're going completely the wrong way about it - and I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you've been the subject of a topic ban. What you should be doing with your time is to get familiar with our community rules, guidelines and standards and doing more asking than telling. For sure, Wikipedia says that alt medicine is bunkum - it says that because that's the belief of mainstream science - and that is one of our guiding principles. As an editor interested in working in this kind of an article, you need to get familiar with those kinds of policy. If you've read - but don't agree with - that guiding principle, then you're in deep trouble because it's held at the very highest levels of the organization and produces strong keep consensus whenever it's discussed. There are other online encyclopedias (and perhaps Citizendium is one of them) who might feel differently - but that's their decision, not ours. Anyone can set up an "online encyclopedia" with any set of rules they want - and the readers will decide which of them is the most useful. The Alexia rankings are (in effect) a measure of the efficacy of the founding principles of these websites - and Wikipedia has clearly gotten it right in areas where Citizendium has failed miserably.

However, Wikipedia is by far the most trusted and widely read encyclopedia in the world - and I'd suggest that part of the reason for that is precisely because we take the mainstream view and don't allow crazy theories like Homeopathy to represent themselves as "THE TRUTH".

If you don't like that - then you don't have to continue to work here. But don't expect anything you say here to persuade us to say anything other than what proper hard-core science has to say on this topic - and that is most certainly that it's a pile of steaming bullshit.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

When wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, its articles should be encyclopedic, not attack pieces, right? (Smile)—Khabboos (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's only an attack piece if you assume the views of a homeopathist. If I were a believer in homeopathy, then probably, I would feel attacked by an article that says that everything I stand for is bullshit. On the other hand, a mainstream scientist who's spent their career studying human biochemistry, doing clever experiments, trying his best to cure cancer is going to feel every bit as badly attacked if we say that telling cancer patients to drink 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 diluted dog milk (yes, really!)...will cure them so much better than all that nasty science stuff. So in any controversial subject area, you're never going to please everyone...and if you're an information provider, you shouldn't even try. Instead, we have to pick a position on these matters that's 'neutral' - and write from that neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). In the case of medical and scientific articles, WIkipedia mandates (quite strongly) that the mainstream scientific view is the neutral position. So to be neutral in this matter, we say that science is right and homeopathists are wrong. Sure, someone gets upset - but the truth is often like that. SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line here: You have to argue either:

1. Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV/FRINGE/etc in matters like this are wrong...or...
2. Editors of this article are not following the WIkipedia guidelines.

Those are the only two arguments that carry any weight whatever. If it's (1) that is your beef (and I think it is) - then go to the pages describing those policies and try to get them changed (good luck with that! It's never going to happen!)....if it's (2) and you think we're disobeying Wikipedias guidelines - then please point out the specific section of the rules/policies/guidelines that you think we're infringing and we can talk about whether that's really a problem or not.

What won't work here (and will eventually land you with another topic ban for disruption) is arguing that homeopathy is true and that's what we should say. That's irrelevant because we have plenty of references for what the article says. SteveBaker (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK Steve, don't get mad with me, but if I say it's (1), how do I request a change of policy (never mind the result)?—Khabboos (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Each policy page has its own associated talk page for discussion of edits to that policy. Overall, policies are governed by wp:POLICY. For less specific issues, such as "what policy addresses XYZ" questions, try asking at wp:Village pump (policy). That said, it's far more productive to first understand policies before setting out to change them. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, LSD!—Khabboos (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not mad with you! If you really think that you want to try to get the policies on representing the mainstream scientific communities view as the neutral position - then (as LeadSongDog points out), you need to find the policy in question and discuss it on the associated talk page with the people who maintain that policy. However, in the case of the policy on the position of science and fringe theories, one has to appeal to a higher power because this policy comes about after a decision from "ArbCom" - and changing ArbCom decisions is a nightmare - they are kinda like the "Supreme Court" of WIkipedia. The idea that we follow the mainstream scientific view here has been stated and re-stated many times, by everyone from Jimbo down. If you plan to raise an issue with them - you'd better have a very clear, reasoned and concise set of arguments that hasn't already been talked to death before. If you start wasting their time with the kind of approach you've taken here - then you'll get very short shrift indeed.

• You need to read all of the links, findings and whatever from: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases - note particularly the lede, which says "Arbitration Committee rulings constitute the final step in the dispute resolution process."...yeah - final. The only way to get these kinds of decisions changed is to find radically new arguments that nobody has considered before. Merely repeating what's been said (and ruled upon) in that group before will get you thrown out in zero time flat!

• Note that one of those ArbCom rulings "...encourages administrators to apply discretionary sanctions to prevent disruption in articles related to pseudoscience and fringe science broadly construed." - meaning that people working around these topics are on a hair-trigger. The slightest hint of disruption could easily get you kicked out of Wikipedia forever...especially considering your recent history and topic-ban. So tread extremely carefully.

• Truly, honestly, this is such a core principle of Wikipedia that you really, REALLY stand no chance whatever of getting it changed.

• Note that one ArbCom ruling applies specifically to Homeopathy - and it was put in place precisely to deal with people trying to do exactly what you're trying to do (removing words like "pseudoscience" from an article that is very clearly about a pseudoscientific topic). Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy...so, again, beware! You're walking into a minefield.

• There is a strong consensus for the present position. To overturn a consensus, you need to get overwhelming support - near unanimity for your position. Do you really think you have any arguments that can do that?

SteveBaker (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew that this article was and still is under discretionary sanctions and that is why I haven't edited it yet. I will be careful in future also, thanks for the advice Steve!—Khabboos (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Steve, that may be an old link (re arbcom ruling). That's from 2008 and is mostly struck out. I think this should be the current link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that Melanie. It also lead to a note written by Jimbo on this subject that I was trying to track down - so it was doubly useful.

• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006653.html

It's well worth a read, no matter which side of the "Homeopathy is/isn't pseudoscience" debate you're on.

There is a also a nice, simple, easy-to-understand ArbCom ruling which bears quoting here:

• " Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." - which passed on an 8-0 vote, seven years ago, and has never been revoked. Since mainstream scientists are generally agreed that Homeopathy is false - and universally agreed that its proponents are not following the scientific method, the ArbCom ruling says that we categorize it as pseudoscience. The only way to avoid that is to find references in solid scientific publications that say that it's not pseudoscience - or overturning the ArbCom decision. Since neither is remotely likely ever to occur - the pseudoscience label stays here.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

May I ask who are the members of the arbitration committe as I would like to enquire as to their disclosures regarding conflict of interest and, as to the ruling never being remotely changed may I add a note of caution and say never say never particularly in matters of science. At the same time as a newbie would you please tell me what is meant by the term discretionary sanctions attached here, this seems odd as wiki doesnot have a central editorial board (Topgrad (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC))80.2.37.152 (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) 80.2.37.152 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

This is getting a little beyond the scope of this talk page - but members of ArbCom are listed at WP:ARBCOM - which links to their personal Wiki pages. They are elected to ArbCom by open vote - you'd probably have to look at the questions and answers given during the election to find out what (if any) affiliations they reveal. That same WP:ARBCOM page leads to a document describing discretionary sanctions: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. You'll note that Homeopathy and Cold Fusion are specifically called out in that article, under the area of pseudoscience. SteveBaker (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A belated thankyou Steve for the input (Topgrad (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

Topgrad, you have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. Please also re-read this section from the beginning (if you haven't done so already) - this article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complementary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentions further above which I'm linking to here (and tell me also about it, on my discussion/talk page). I'm probably the only sympathiser you'll find here, so please follow my advice or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned (from this article).—Khabboos (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou Khabbos for the heads up and links as you may have already gathered I am a newbie I will try harder honest(Topgrad (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

Spare yourself the trouble, Topgrad. Khabboos clearly has not troubled himself to learn the rules here, as you can see by reading this page. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you LeadSongDog I will consider this when I make my own mind up (Topgrad (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

Memory of water

Can we use the references cited at citizendium here in this section of 'our' article?—Khabboos (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

From what I see there, all they are reporting are a bunch of claims that were not able to be independently reproduced. Since the original paper is pretty old anyway (1988 is *ancient* by WP:MEDRS standards) - it's scarcely saying anything that we're not already saying. SteveBaker (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Extremely high dilutions as basically only line of argument against homeopathy over several paragraphs?

Over several paragraphs in the "Evidence and Efficacy" section of the article, homeopathy is dismissed with the sole argument that extremely high dilutions (over D20/C10) statistically leave none of the original substance in the final product:
"The low concentration of homeopathic remedies, which often lack even a single molecule of the diluted substance..."
"The extreme dilutions used in homeopathic preparations often leave none of the original substance in the final product."
"The extremely high dilutions in homeopathy preclude a biologically plausible mechanism of action."
This, of course is statistically true for those extreme dilutions. However, this argumentation (and, I reiterate, this argumentation is basically used as the sole argument in those paragraphs) ignores that most homeopathic medications are usally administered at far lower dilutions (D3 to D12), which do not pose the need to argue with "water memory" or "quantum effects", as even a dilution as high as D12 (X12) still contains roughly 10¹¹ substance molecules per mol (14g/0.5oz) of water. I think pointing out the impossible "high" dilutions as the sole line of argumentation while completely ignoring the "lower" dilutions is a structural flaw of those paragraphs and should be adressed. -- megA (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a section discussing high dilution, under the "Plausibility" sub-heading. But it is not by any means the "only line of argument", nor even the major one. There is more emphasis on the lack of reliable evidence for homeopathy's effectiveness. After all, as my grandmother used to say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Gronk Oz, MegA is correct. While there are various other reasons to doubt the claims of homeopathy, they are nonetheless not adequately addressed in the specified paragraphs. MegA's point was about the article, not about homeopathy. This article actually does a pretty terrible job of providing references explaining why homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience. I came here looking for an easily accessible list of such references, but most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it. I understand why that is (they're meta-studies based on primary studies that were attempting to prove homeopathy was effective) but there are good primary studies, if you dig deep enough. They're old and not all of them are online, though. I'm trying to locate them now, but help would be appreciated. --Pyrrhoneia (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Go to www.giriweb.com GIRI was created in 1986 and represents relevant and independent scientific international organization concerning the study of high dilutions.The aim of the GIRI is to bring together pharmacologists, biologists, physicians,chemists, physicists and other professionals to keep in touch, to exchange experiences and develop joint research projects about high dilutions, homeopathy included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC) You may also consider IJHDR International Journal of High Dilutuion Research IJHDR is a full free open-access electronic journal specialising in the multidisciplinary field of High Dilution (HD) research. Hosted by GIRI, it is peer-reviewed, with an international editorial board and published quarterly.

You gotta be kidding us....the board of consultants is rife with known homeopathy proponents and lobbyists like Michael Frass, Otto Weingärtner, and Stephen Baumgartner. And that is even only the german-speaking part. At least, you gave us a nice example how homeopaths actually try to pretend being science (by creating a fake peer-reviewed journal), which by definition is pseudoscience. Rka001 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The IJHDR was previously titled Cultura Homeopática. Brunton (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I would ask, that you should bring yourselves up to date as to who is on the current board 2014 Baumunagtner sure, however non of the others you referred to appear to be on the board and just a point the edit was for Pyrrhoneia information, although I am sure that he/ahe is capable of making their own mind up as to its sincerity and the spirit it was given unlike, your ill mannered response good manners and civility even when debating cost nothing.(Topgrad (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As of today, all named persons are listed as "Consultants", and all three persons are well-known, heavily biased proponents of Homeopathy in the German speaking countries. I am sure, similar heroic figureheads of science are hidden in the list of the many editors and consultants of this journal. Someone recommended that journal as a source for reliable information about the topic at hand, but it took me like 2 clicks to see that is not. It is a very thinly veiled attempt to propagate the use of homeopathy. Rka001 (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just two clikcks an indication of an appropriately unbiased indepth investigation on your behalf did you actually read any? Could you let me know who are these heroic figures are maybe one is (RIP) Madame Madeline Batitde Professeur Honoraire Immunology, University of Montpellier by any chance?(Topgrad (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

Are you seriously proposing said Journal is a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards? As i said before, the names i recognize are notorious for propagating the use of homeopathy, hence cannot be possibly cited (neither here or anywhere else) for reliable, robust statements. Other names i recognize are Louis Rey (known for performing poorly designed experiments to proof the existence of a water memory). Someone is from "homeopaths without frontiers", whose german branch claims to heal malaria with homeopathy, so who are actually dangerous. A good chunk of the persons listed have the term "homeopathy" in their affiliation. So....how could you possibly claim this is a unbiased journal which is not subject to a severe conflict of interest? Rka001 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Only one Rka from which it appears you go on to tar every body with the same brush, you seem to have missed my point entirely, again I would ask have you personally read any. As to journals most I woud suggest seek to maintain the status quo via biased editorial, in this scenario and, re your reliability, any journal dependent on funds from advertisers particularly when large amonunts are at stake it can alledgedly be suggested they have a bias for commercial, legal or political reasons orthodox or compleimentary. As to the nameless someone who claimed to heal malaria well, nuff said even I would not condone that statement! Also can you answer the remainder of my question re conflicts of interest (Topgrad (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

Pyrrhoneia effectively asked for reliable sources to identify positive trials. Someone else (you?) proposed "IJHDR International Journal of High Dilutuion Research"for that matter, and i pointed out why this journal is not a reliable source as per MEDRS. You, however, persistently claim that it is a reliable source, but you do not back that up with anything outside of "Read yourself" and "Your answers are uncivil." Actually, they are not. I am not attacking you, i am attacking the use or the propagation of said material, which - even without reading it - can be easily identified as non-reliable as per MEDRS, which you might want to carefully read. At this point, i recommended us to drop the discussion. Rka001 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, will hold that under consideration and reserve the right to return to the topic once I have got to grips with the policy, plus from my perspective and it is not an attack however I fail to see how any comment can be made on subject without first hand knowledge of it irrespective of MEDRS. If it, is rubbish OK and I DO note there are doubious claims therein as can be seen in other Journals. As to persistence in my defence it appears only in this discussion box no where else, you may be confusing me with someone else? For now, I agree the matter rests (JoeEverett (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC))

I feel that repeating the same/similar sentence in so many places would be violating the WP:SPAM policy. Any comments?—Khabboos (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"This page in a nutshell: Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea; it is considered harmful, please do not do it and if you find some, please remove or rewrite the content."

That policy doesn't say anything about repetition of text in articles, so it seems that your feeling is without foundation. Brunton (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: Subsequent proponents

I think the whole "Subsequent proponents" section of the infobox needs revision. Help:Infobox says that the infobox should summarise important points from the article, and that it should not include material that "would not otherwise be included in the article body". What we largely have under "Individuals" is an assortment of individual homeopaths, only one of whom is mentioned in the article (and several of which are redlinks). I suggest that we remove any individual homoeopaths who aren't mentioned in the article from the infobox, and only include individuals mentioned in the article as important in the development and history of homoeopathy, for example James Tyler Kent, Royal S. Copeland (for his role in the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) and George Vithoulkas (who is mentioned in the article as being given credit by some homoeopaths for the revival of homoeopathy in the late 20th century). The "Organizations" listed all seem to be manufacturers of homoeopathic medicines. Brunton (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we remove all the names of the subsequent proponents, as well as delete the names of all the "organizations" listed (just above that); none of them are WP:Notable.—Khabboos (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Take a look at this version, and tweak if you feel the need. The category at the bottom of the article leads to all the notable links anyway. The infobox needs to be kept bare bones. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We have already mentioned this: "Hahnemann's miasm theory remains disputed and controversial within homeopathy even in modern times. In 1978, Anthony Campbell, then a consultant physician at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, criticised statements by George Vithoulkas claiming that syphilis, when treated with antibiotics, would develop into secondary and tertiary syphilis with involvement of the central nervous system, saying that "The unfortunate layman might well be misled by Vithoulkas' rhetoric into refusing orthodox treatment".[51] Vithoulkas' claims conflict with scientific studies, which indicated penicillin treatment produces a complete cure of syphilis in more than 90% of cases.[52]" in the sub-section titled, "In lieu of standard medical treatment", so I think we should remove it from the sub-section titled, "Miasms and disease". Why should we repeat the same sentences?—Khabboos (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone please answer my question in this section here, also.—Khabboos (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the text was slightly out of place in the earlier section and didn't really add anything there, so I've merged it with the later appearence. Brunton (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

I think we can find some good studies from the German and French wikipedias, let me start with these:-
Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. (This review of FOUR studies on the homeopathic treatment of people with respiratory allergies)

Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008). A 4th trial testing a “homeopathic formula” had a negative result.

Linde L, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al., "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. (Although a later review by some of these authors found a reduced significance, the authors never asserted that the significance was no longer present.)

Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. Published in the leading journal on respiratory medicine, this study shows remarkable results in treating the #4 reason that people in the USA die. Conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital.

Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. Published in the leading journal on its subject, this study showed clinically relevant improvements from homeopathy as well as influences on objective EEG readings.

Frei H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2005 Dec;164(12):758-67. Epub 2005 Jul 27. This highly sophisticated trial showed significant results from homeopathic treatment.—Khabboos (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What specific change to the article are you proposing here? Just listing random sources like this is just a waste of time. Make sure your next edit here is a concrete change proposal phrased in the form "I'd like to change X to Y" followed by direct quotes from the sources you want to use to back up the change. Also, some of the sources you have listed look pretty old so before you use them, please check the article as well as all the archive pages to make sure that they haven't been discussed before and that newer sources do not supersede them. --McSly (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of these been discussed here before, some of them quite recently.

The first one reports the results of a single trial and combines its results with three other trials by the same team. Regarding its significance, scroll down to the "Commentary" at the end of the paper. And see also this comment on the statistics.

The second one is an analysis of three papers by the same team, so the results haven't been independently reproduced. The statistical methods used in the first of the three has, according to a former page on the AMA website that has helpfully been cited by proponents of homoeopathy here, "been criticized for inconsistent/incorrect data analysis; use of different diagnostic and treatment categories but combining them in the conclusions of efficacy; and lack of chemical analysis of different treatments. The clinical significance of the results, given the self-limiting condition being studied, has been called into question." See Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics. 1995;96:961-964. The paper you cite reports that "all three studies followed the same basic study design, including similar entry criteria, treatment assignment, follow-up schedule, outcome measures and data analysis".

The third one is already cited by the article, along with the same team's 1999 reanalysis.

The last three are all fairly small single trials. The Frass paper is discussed here. This 2006 review paper describes the use of homoeopathy for fibromyalgia as having "positive results from studies with methodological flaws". And this systematic review of homoeopathy for childhood ailments says that "The evidence for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder ... is mixed, showing both positive and negative results for their respective main outcome measures".

Again: what is required by MEDRS is peer-reviewed and published systematic reviews, not cherry-picked individual trials. Brunton (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised that someone can randomly handpick all these really notorious studies, who have been systematically dismantled again and again. If you understand German and accept content with "sceptical" background, i can give you some very insightful reviews for the Frass and Frei studies. But again, you are proposing primary research papers, which we should not use. Primary research must become "canonical" by at least being cited in textbooks or reviews. The one review, you have proposed to use (for waht, btw?), Linde et al, 1997, has been overruled by half a dozen more recent reviews, and its worthwhile to know that the main author has stated in a German magazine, that his paper overestimated the positive effects being reported. Rka001 (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the comment reported by Der Spiegel in 2010 was "Wir können unsere damalige Schlussfolgerung so nicht mehr aufrechterhalten, denn die positiven Ergebnisse könnten auch durch Fehler in den Studien bedingt sein", translated by User:Hans Adler as "We can no longer maintain our old conclusions as stated, since the positive results could be due to errors in the studies." The "overestimated" comment comes from the 1999 reanalysis and is quoted in the article. Brunton (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm really getting kinda sick of people dusting off these crappy, ill-conducted, methodologically unsound, one-shot studies from biassed groups, done decades ago. Doing this in a frantic effort to get something positive said about Homeopathy in our encyclopedia. It is abundantly (and unsurprisingly) clear that homeopathy is pure, unadulterated bullshit with no basis whatever in science - and since Wikipedia is grounded in mainstream science - I don't see any way to change that...ever.

We're not about looking through old studies, trying to find one with a grain of promise for Homeopathy. The entire point of the WP:MEDRS rules is precisely to prevent this kind of cherry-picking of dubious studies. The only thing that could conceivably save this pathetic endeavor is brand new research, recently done - very, very carefully, double-blind, large-population, properly peer-reviewed, properly duplicated by truly independent labs - put through the statistical and meta-review wringer. Written about in a positive vein in a number of well-respected journals. Hailed as a breakthrough - causing chemists and physicists to go back to the drawing board and overturning two centuries of successful science.

The trouble is that it's clear just from the outset that water can't possibly have this "memory" effect. If it did, then the inevitable sub-molecular concentrations of pollutants in the water that the homeopathists used would create such powerful effects as to make the use as a medicine impossible.

So to expect respected scientists to continue trying to make it work in the face of so many failed efforts at proving it is like expecting them to continue to prove the phlogiston theory or to continue to try to make perpetual motion machines or to try to make mice spontaneously appear from moldy bread. Each one of those things are about as likely to be true as Homeopathy.

There comes a point when you know the answer - conclusively and indisputably. That's where we're at with Homeopathy. The old studies are discredited - and don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing WP:MEDRS. The only new "studies" are by the homeopathists themselves - and we know that they do not follow the scientific method (that's why we call it a "pseudoscience") - so they don't meet WP:MEDRS either. New studies that do follow the scientific method are unlikely to happen given the obvious impossibility of it to be true - and the utter failure of previous tests to show positive results.

So it's a done deal. Mainstream science knows the answer: "Homeopathy doesn't work". That's what Wikipedia is required to say - and that's what it's going to say - probably from now until the Internet crumbles and dies.

Give it up. We're not saying that this nonsense works - we're just not. If you feel the need to write more nonsense about this ridiculous proposition, go find another encyclopedia to do it on. We're done here. Our encyclopedia article exists to tell the general public who care to inquire for the truth about homeopathy - which is that it doesn't work - period.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

SteveBaker, I don't think it is against the rules to search for studies and discuss them here.

McSly and others, I'm trying to show that Homeopathic medicines are not placebos and that there are studies/clinical trials which show it works, so that we can remove the word, "placebos" from this article.

References 2, 5 and 6 in the article are older than the studies I mentioned above. Are you people cherry picking studies to show Homeopathy in a poor light?

Here are some more studies:-

AUTHORS:WOLSCHNER U., STRÖSSER W., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Vertigo therapy: Cocculus -Heel versus Dimenhydrinate. PUBLISHED IN: Biologische Medizin,2001, 4.

AUTHORS:KÜSTERMANN R.W., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Antihomotoxic treatment of conjunctivitis. Results of a prospective, controlled, cohort study. PUBLISHED IN:Biologische Medizin,2001, 3.

AUTHOR:BONONI M. TITLE:Echinacea comp. Forte S in the prophylaxis of post-operative infections. A comparative study versus ceftazidime and ceftriaxone. PUBLISHED IN:La Medicina Biologica,2001/1; 17:22.

AUTHORS:MARONNA U., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Oral treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with Zeel S tablets. PUBLISHED IN:Orthopädische Praxis,2000, 5. La Medicina Biologica,1999 /4; 74.

AUTHOR:ARRIGHI A. TITLE:Evaluation of clinical efficacy in a homotoxicologic protocol for prevention of recurrent respiratory infections in pediatrics. PUBLISHED IN: La Medicina Biologica,2000/3; 13:21.

AUTHOR:WEISER M. TITLE:Homeopathic vs. conventional treatment of vertigo: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical study. PUBLISHED IN: Archives of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (American Medical Association), 1998, August.

AUTHORS:WEISER M., GEGENHEIMER L.H., KLEIN P. TITLE:A randomized equivalence trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Luffa comp.-Heel nasal spray with sodium cromoglycate spray in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis. PUBLISHED IN: Research in Complementary Medicine,1999/6.

AUTHORS:NAHLER G., METELMANN H., SPERBER H. TITLE:Treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with a homeopathic medicine – Results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial in comparison to hyaluronic acid. PUBLISHED IN:Orthopädische Praxis,1996, 5. PUBLISHED:Biomedical Therapy 1998;16(2):186-191

Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G (1991). Clinical trials of homoeopathy British Medical Journal, 302:316–323.

Mathie RT et al. Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in humans: characterising the research journal literature for systematic review. Homeopathy (2013) 102, 3-24

• Adverse effects of cancer management (Kassab et al 2009)
• Fibromyalgia (Perry et al 2010)
• Childhood diarrhoea (Jacobs et al., 2003)
• HIV/AIDS (Ullman, 2003)
• Osteoarthritis (Long & Ernst, 2001)
• Post-operative ileus (Barnes, Resch & Ernst, 1997).
• Rheumatic diseases (Jonas, Linde & Ramirez, 2000).

• Camerlink I et al. Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in the case of Escherichia coli diarrhoea in neonatal piglets. Homp 2010 99: 57–62
• Fisher P et al Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia) BMJ 1989 299 365-6
• Fisher P et al Effect of homoeopathic treatment on fibrositis (primary fibromyalgia). Br Med J 1989; 299: 365-366.
• Bell IR et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic... Rheumatology 2004; 43:577–582.
• Relton C et al.Healthcare provided by a homeopath as an adjunct to usual care for Fibromyalgia (FMS): results of a pilot Randomised Controlled Trial. Homp 2009;98:77-82
• Frei H, Thurneysen A. Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children: treatment effect or spontaneous resolution? Br Hom J 2001;90:180-182
• Jacobs J et al. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomised placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001;20:177-183
• Bergemann SM et al. Clinical studies on the effectiveness of homeopathy for URTI/A . In Bornhöft G, Matthiessen PF. Homeopathy in healthcare – effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs. Berlin: Springer 2011
• Adler U et al. Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial eCAM 2009 doi:10.1093/ecam/nep114
• Frei H et al. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Peds 2005; 164:758-67.
• Rossignol M et al. Impact of physician preferences for homeopathic or conventional medicines on patients with musculoskeletal disorders: results from the EPI3-MSD cohort. Pharmacopepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2012, 21(10):1093-101.
• Keil T et al Homoeopathic versus conventional treatment of children with eczema: A comparative cohort study, Comp Ther Med (2006), doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2006.10.001

—Khabboos (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, I don't see any change proposal to the article, just more random, useless sources. When are you going to stop wasting everyone's time? --McSly (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I did mention that I want the mention of the word, "placebos" to be removed and mention some of these studies as positive for Homeopathic efficacy.—Khabboos (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well said SteveBaker. Would you like a banana? Also, I intend to hat the nonsense Khaboos is posting unless there are any serious and well argued objections. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly not against the rules to suggest references for statements we make in the article.

However, it is against the rules to be a disruptive editor. And because we're under discretionary sanctions here - it's important not to repeatedly push the same set of junk studies over and over again. Most of these (if not all of them) have already been discussed and overwhelmingly rejected as being invalid/unsuitable under WP:MEDRS. My opinion is that none of these are worthy of any further discussion. But that's just my opinion. If you'd care to prune your list to JUST the ones that are:

• recent,
• widely accepted by mainstream science,
• peer-reviewed,
• published in mainstream journals,
• successfully reproduced by reputable laboratories,
• favorably mentioned in review articles and meta-studies,
• not already rejected here by consensus on other grounds.

...then we should certainly discuss them. But trotting out the same list of junk reports (as, sadly, most of these appear to be) time after time is "DISRUPTIVE EDITING" - and (given the hair-trigger admin attention to this article mandated by ArbCom) that could get you into trouble.

So I'm most certainly *not* saying "Don't provide useful references" - but I *am* saying "Don't bring out those that we've already discussed and rejected" *and* "Don't bring out those that fail WP:MEDRS".

The other problem is that the change you're saying you want to make isn't likely to happen. We have a plenty of references that do pass WP:MEDRS that say that Homeopathy is no better than placebo. That being the case, we simply can't remove the word "placebo" because that would violate WP:UNDUE. The very best (from your perspective) would be for us to change the article to say that research shows mixed results - but many show that it's no better than placebo. But even going that far is impossible without a pile of acceptable (ie passing WP:MEDRS guidelines) references that say that...and there simple aren't any such things because Homeopathy Doesn't Work.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have shortened the list, keeping only the most recent. Now can you comment on adding it to our wikipedia article?—Khabboos (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

A simple question. Are the articles on your list all:

• recent,
• widely accepted by mainstream science,
• peer-reviewed,
• published in mainstream journals,
• successfully reproduced by reputable laboratories,
• favorably mentioned in review articles and meta-studies,
• not already rejected here by consensus on other grounds.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I count approximately 22 27 studies in your 'shortened' list, not all of which even include full citation information. (Incidentally, it is bad form – actually, it's plagiarism – to copy and paste other people's work (even lists of citations that they've collected) without giving them any credit.)

How about you tell us about one or two studies that you have in front of you and which you have actually read, explain how they meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS – which SteveBaker and now AndyTheGrump have helpfully provided in bullet-list form above – and what specific change you would like to make to the article based on what you've read. Just demanding that the word 'placebo' be removed from the article isn't going to work, and it is likely to lead you to being banned from further editing on this topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes to all you asked AndyTheGrump. I want a sentence saying that homeopathy is effective or that it works by removing the word placebos.—Khabboos (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you were asked whether the articles were all recent. You answered 'yes'. Why does the list include material from 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999...? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you ask, "Are you people cherry picking studies to show Homeopathy in a poor light?" No, we are not: as per MEDRS the article uses the conclusions of peer-reviewed and pubished systematic reviews, which by definition do not cherry-pick, but consider the whole evidence base. Brunton (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Brunton, can you tell me if we can use what I've mentioned above to claim efficacy for Homeopathy and remove the word placebos from this article?—Khabboos (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I've removed a lot and can remove more of them if you insist, but can you tell me if we can use what I've mentioned above to claim efficacy for Homeopathy and remove the word placebos from this article (that point is more important)?—Khabboos (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No. You have entirely failed to demonstrate that that is the scientific consensus regarding homeopathy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@Khabboos: It's not complicated. If you can find *ANY* of those articles that meet WP:MEDRS (see handy-bullet-point-list above) then we'll certainly discuss them with you. But working our way through 20-odd articles is tedious and pointless - we've done it before and there is no value in doing it again. If you have any...even one...that meets all of the WP:MEDRS criteria above - then let's discuss it. Take your best shot - but using a scattergun loaded with junk is not the way to impress people here. You need one really solid, WP:MEDRS-acceptable reference. Every crappy reference you hand us detracts further from your case.

But do you seriously think we're going to say that Homeopathy is effective and remove the word "placebo" when we have WP:MEDRS-acceptable references that say that it's ineffective and no better than placebo? That can't happen. At best...with the best pro-Homeopathy references you could possibly imagine - we'd have to apply WP:UNDUE and say that it's a mixed message. Right now, it's not even that. What mainstream science tells us is that Homeopathy is junk - and that's what Wikipedia requires us to report. Only when mainstream science says that it works can we possibly report otherwise - and there can be no doubt that mainstream science doesn't think it works. SteveBaker (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream scientists will never accept Homeopathy. All the studies/clinical trials I mentioned above were positive for Homeopathy. I think I'm wasting my time here.—Khabboos (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears so. In regards to scientific matters Wikipedia, like any other reputable encyclopaedia, will reflect the consensus of mainstream scientific thought. It would be entirely dishonest to our readers to do otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. Homeopathists do not accept the need to use the astoundingly effective suite of techniques comprising "The Scientific Method" that has produced so many incredible advances in the 200 or so years we've been using it. If homeopathists did that then there would be one of two possible results:

1. They'd discover that homeopathy doesn't work - and with the open mind required of researchers, they'd drop the subject and move on to something else.
2. They'd discover that it does work - and if they'd followed "The Scientific Method" then mainstream scientist would be able to reproduce their result, agree that it works and Nobel prizes would be distributed accordingly. All of chemistry and most of physics would need to be rebuilt from the ground up - and everyone would have a lot of explaining to do.

...and we'd write about it accordingly.

That won't happen because too many homeopathy businesses are making a fortune by selling little bottles of water for $14 a pop in Walmart. The very last thing they want is to prove what they must already know to be true. SteveBaker (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just topic-ban User:Khabboos? WP:MEDRS has been half a dozen time pointed out and explained to him in detail. Yet he fails to either a) work accordingly or b) understand it. In both cases, he seems to be not suited to edit this article. Instead, he does spam this page with reference proposals he must be aware of not meeting our standards. Therefore, i propose to ask him to immediately stop wasting our time or to ask others making him stop. It's annoying. Rka001 (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is simply no justification for removing the word placebos from this article. It's properly sourced as the mainstream opinion and it's an accurate description. Khabboos needs to drop the stick and walk away from this topic or risk getting topic banned. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that K's behaviour here and elsewhere amongst fringe topics, specifically altmed, is just a further example of the behaviour that appears to have earned him a topic ban in a totally unrelated area. This has been predictable since his initial contributions here. Enough rope yet? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion or bureaucratic disputes over i-dotting and t-crossing, I have formally notified Khabboos that discretionary sanctions apply to the topic of homeopathy. If problematic editing persists, then a topic ban request at AE would likely be successful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, references 2, 5 and 6 in the article are older than the studies I'm mentioning below, so these should be acceptable:-

AUTHORS:WOLSCHNER U., STRÖSSER W., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Vertigo therapy: Cocculus -Heel versus Dimenhydrinate. PUBLISHED IN: Biologische Medizin,2001, 4.

AUTHORS:KÜSTERMANN R.W., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Antihomotoxic treatment of conjunctivitis. Results of a prospective, controlled, cohort study. PUBLISHED IN:Biologische Medizin,2001, 3.

AUTHOR:BONONI M. TITLE:Echinacea comp. Forte S in the prophylaxis of post-operative infections. A comparative study versus ceftazidime and ceftriaxone. PUBLISHED IN:La Medicina Biologica,2001/1; 17:22.

AUTHORS:MARONNA U., WEISER M., KLEIN P. TITLE:Oral treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with Zeel S tablets. PUBLISHED IN:Orthopädische Praxis,2000, 5. La Medicina Biologica,1999 /4; 74.

AUTHOR:ARRIGHI A. TITLE:Evaluation of clinical efficacy in a homotoxicologic protocol for prevention of recurrent respiratory infections in pediatrics. PUBLISHED IN: La Medicina Biologica,2000/3; 13:21.

Mathie RT et al. Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in humans: characterising the research journal literature for systematic review. Homeopathy (2013) 102, 3-24

• Adverse effects of cancer management (Kassab et al 2009)
• Fibromyalgia (Perry et al 2010)
• Childhood diarrhoea (Jacobs et al., 2003)
• HIV/AIDS (Ullman, 2003)
• Osteoarthritis (Long & Ernst, 2001)
• Rheumatic diseases (Jonas, Linde & Ramirez, 2000).
• Camerlink I et al. Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in the case of Escherichia coli diarrhoea in neonatal piglets. Homp 2010 99: 57–62
• Bell IR et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic... Rheumatology 2004; 43:577–582.
• Relton C et al.Healthcare provided by a homeopath as an adjunct to usual care for Fibromyalgia (FMS): results of a pilot Randomised Controlled Trial. Homp 2009;98:77-82
• Frei H, Thurneysen A. Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children: treatment effect or spontaneous resolution? Br Hom J 2001;90:180-182
• Jacobs J et al. Homeopathic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a preliminary randomised placebo-controlled trial. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001;20:177-183
• Neuroprotection from glutamate toxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate, by Jonas W., Lin Y., Zortella F., published in the Neuroreport, 2001 Feb 92; 12 (2): 335-9., which showed Protective Glutamate toxicity etc.
• Bergemann SM et al. Clinical studies on the effectiveness of homeopathy for URTI/A . In Bornhöft G, Matthiessen PF. Homeopathy in healthcare – effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs. Berlin: Springer 2011
• Adler U et al. Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial eCAM 2009 doi:10.1093/ecam/nep114
• Frei H et al. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Peds 2005; 164:758-67.
• Rossignol M et al. Impact of physician preferences for homeopathic or conventional medicines on patients with musculoskeletal disorders: results from the EPI3-MSD cohort. Pharmacopepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2012, 21(10):1093-101.
• Keil T et al Homoeopathic versus conventional treatment of children with eczema: A comparative cohort study, Comp Ther Med (2006), doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2006.10.001

—Khabboos (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference no.2 in the article is actually from 1987 which should then make all the studies/clionical trials I mentioned acceptable, but I've still cut it short to those that are post Y2K.—Khabboos (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

2 questions.

(1) have you read these articles (in full, not just abstracts)?

(2) do you consider the articles compliant with WP:MEDRS?

I would recommend honest answers - you have already given a blatantly-false answer to a question I asked earlier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy, you earlier asked if what I mentioned here is:-

• recent, to which my answer is yes
• widely accepted by mainstream science, to which I would say the studies/clinical trials are acceptable
• peer-reviewed, to which my answer is yes
• published in mainstream journals, to which my answer is yes (I got access to some studies published in the journal, "Homeopathy", but I think you guys may not accept it)
• successfully reproduced by reputable laboratories, to which my answer is yes
• favorably mentioned in review articles and meta-studies, to which my answer is yes
• not already rejected here by consensus on other grounds to which my answer is yes (I've searched the archives)

—Khabboos (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You claim that the results of these papers have been "successfully reproduced by reputable laboratories". Can you provide the necessary sources to confirm this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference 5 was published in 2002, and reference 6 in 2005 (reference 2 is not used to source the position on efficacy, but the fact that homoeopathy is widely regarded as pseudoscience). The first 5 sources that you claim are more recent than these were published, according to your references, in 2000 and 2001. The Mathie paper doesn't seem to make any statement as to whether homoeopathy is effective; the rest of your list seems to be largely a repeat of the list you posted here two days ago, with a few removed. The first 6 were also ones you posted two days ago. Brunton (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Khabboos - Andy is asking a non rhetorical question to which he requires an answer, even though he already knows the answer. I've got popcorn. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK Roxy the dog, I'm replying before you finish the popcorn (Smile). I'm not here to indulge in wikicombat or edit wars. Just tell me if you guys have a conflict of interest or if what I've posted really fails to meet the WP:MEDRS standards, I won't bother about posting any more studies here.—Khabboos (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It is the other way round: You have to prove that the sources you are proposing to use are acceptable according our guidelines. In your shoes, i would be very careful from now: This is the third time you are just randomly copy/pasting papers without explaining what you want to do with them. Also, you have been told numerous times that you have to find material that is superseding the most recent review articles who are all unisono claiming that HP is not working better than placebo. Still, you are posting studies that are easy to mark as unreliable. So, you either have not read WP:MEDRS or you are not able to understand it. Rka001 (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

No. I do not have a conflict of interest. Do you? As for WP:MEDRS, you have provided no evidence that the material you have cited complies - and it is self-evident even from the title of at least one source that it doesn't. In any case, we are not obliged to waste our time seeking out inadequately-referenced and dated primary studies for which you are making claims (i.e. regarding replication) for which you have provided no evidence. You have provided precisely zero evidence that our article does not accurately reflect the scientific consensus regarding homoeopathy - something that, per Wikipedia policy, it is obliged to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

And what makes me extremely mad is the fact, that you are partially just copy/pasting exact content from listings as found in http://www.xerion.ca/XA_20071128B.pdf (those sources which are given in the CAPITAL format; this pdf was published by an italian homeopathy vendor) and from http://www.homeopathytoday.org/tag/pharmaceutical-drugs/. I am somehow not convinced your edits are made in good faith or done to improve the article. Rka001 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It's troubling that I've already noted to Khabboos above that copy-pasting material from outside sources – even lists of selected citations – without giving proper (or any) credit to its real authors is plagiarism. Either he isn't reading the replies he's getting here, or he doesn't care. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

OK guys, I give up, spare yourselves the trouble of replying.—Khabboos (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Passing comment on the original set of papers posted: This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008). Statistical significance is an 'all-or-nothing' tool - "highly significant" is a misunderstanding of the whole concept. It can be quite sensitive to sample size. Effect size matters, not the magnitude of the p value. Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup - and then there is the paper listed concerning a homoeopathic 'treatment' vs placebo test where "differences were not statistically significant" - thus confirming what our article already says. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to ignore this whole mess. It's obvious that Khabboos hasn't actually reviewed these sources himself, and he has yet to evince the necessary skills to separate the execrable from the merely dubious. Further, the commentary and citations in the first part of his post seem to be copy-and-pasted from an off-wiki blog comment by the topic-banned User:DanaUllman ([2]); I don't want to bring a topic-banned editor into this discussion unless it is absolutely unavoidable to do so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well. Is it best to ignore what studies conclude and conduct your original research to disprove homeopathy? By the way the study concluded: ' The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea and suggest that larger sample sizes be used in future homeopathic research to ensure adequate statistical power.Homeopathy should be considered for use as an adjunct to oral rehydration for this illness.'--BonjourMM (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Better Source for Placebo Claim?

The lede makes the strong claim that "its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos" yet the cited source is much less committal in its interpretation:

Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

Surely there is a better source, that more firmly supports the statement in the lede? I'd rather not back up an assertion that "homeopathic remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos" with a finding that "there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies." Most studies I've found online are meta-studies that are themselves based on analysis of earlier studies, many of which were conducted with the intention of proving that homeopathy works. So the meta-studies generally take the approach of finding flaws with the earlier studies, or cross-referencing effects to smooth out differences and reduce the significance of measured effects. I understand why they need to do this (nobody but homeopathy supporters tend to want to fund large-scale studies of homeopathy) but for something that is so widely accepted as pseudoscience among the mainstream medical community, surely there is some primary research with a less wishy-washy demonstration of the placebo claim?

Also, the same source is actually listed twice in the references. I'd try to fix it but the proper syntax for handling citations in Wikipedia is.. less than obvious to me. --Pyrrhoneia (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The quote is saying that because the measured results of homeopathy are most certainly no better than placebo, then the small amount of positive results found in the trials probably is because homeopathy is just a placebo. The results being statistically no better than placebo is a given. You can measure it, it's definitely true. However, the idea that the mechanism through which homeopathy operates is the same as the way a sugar pill operates isn't something that you can know for sure from just the data they looked at. I don't believe it, but maybe Homeopathy really does cure a few percent of patients because of god-knows-what-mechanism, but at the cost of suppressing the placebo effect and somehow making people not get better just because they think they will - resulting in a real treatment that happens to cure an identical number of people compared to placebo. So if homeopathy suppressed the placebo effect and provided some genuine benefit - then perhaps it "works" (albeit very, very badly!). So this report is carefully stating that these purely statistical results are not in any way disproving the idea that homeopathy is just a placebo - and they do show that it's no better than a placebo...which is a polite, carefully scientific, cagey, way of saying "it's bloody obvious that it's a placebo!" SteveBaker (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi SteveBaker. That's actually not what the quote is saying. "Specific effect" means effect over and above what would be expected from a placebo. The study indicates support — albeit weak support — for there being a non-placebo effect of homeopathic treatment. The part at the end about compatibility means that the effect is still within the margin of error... but that's a pretty awful point to use as the basis of the claim in the lede. The study cited did find that homeopathic remedies were more effective than placebo, which directly contradicts the statement in the article it's meant to support. I'm not asking for an argument against (or in favor of) homeopathy here on the talk page. I'm asking for a better reference. I acknowledge it's difficult to find such references (which is how I ended up at this article in the first place, hoping to find some) ironically because most researchers don't see homeopathy as something worthy of study, even to disprove it. Most of the primary studies are funded by groups attempting to prove that homeopathy works, and the negative results are mostly meta-studies that at best (given the source material) can only undermine the statistical significance of the original findings in support of homeopathy. But there are primary studies with negative results, though many of them are behind pay walls or are seriously outdated. The current cited source would only support a weaker statement in the lede such as "homeopathic remedies have been found to have no statistically significant effect over placebos" and I would much rather keep the current phrasing with a better citation, rather than water down the claim. Pyrrhoneia (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS does not favor the use of "primary studies with negative [or positive] results." What part of "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." is insufficient for the statement we make? While we don't have to use refs in the lead (because that content should be based on sourced content in the body of the article), and therefore we often use none or minimal references in the lead, I have added one more ref to that lead statement. I hope that will help. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst's systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy may be a useful addition to the Shang analysis on this point.

Part of the problem is that because of the sort of language they use and the nature of the question they actually ask, trials (and reviews of trials) are never actually going to conclude that a treatment doesn't work, because of the nature of the question being asked. They try to refute the null hypothesis that a treatment doesn't work. If the null hypothesis is refuted then the paper can conclude that the treatment is effective. If it isn't refuted then the conclusion will be that efficacy is not established rather than that the treatment is not effective, but "the treatment doesn't work" is a reasonably good "plain English" translation of the scientific terminology. This was also discussed here last September, archived here. Brunton (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

May I add from Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House Of Commons Science and Technology Committee, February 2010 who cited the NHS CRD at York in 2002, in which one of an Effective Health Care series on “the effectiveness of health service interventions for decision makers”. This bulletin made a systematic assessment of the evidence to date. It advised “caution” in interpreting this evidence, and warned that many of the areas researched were “not representative of the conditions that homeopathic practitioners usually treat”, and that “the methodological problems of the research” should be considered. It found “insufficient evidence of effectiveness to recommend homeopathy for any specific condition”. At the same time it could not conclude that homeopathy performed no better than placebo.(80.2.37.152 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC))80.2.37.152 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.37.152 (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Furthermore contributors Professors Linde and statistician Rainer Lutke held the reviews “conclusively demonstrate” a placebo effect is overstated and unsustainable on present evidence. In concluding Earl Baldwain found it questionable why a journalist doctor was invited to appear in preference to some other non-representative contributors to the inquiry. The written submission by Dr. Goldacr was notably short on supporting evidence, but contained unqualified statements on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, forcefully expressed (“extreme quackery” was mentioned). By contrast, the submission by the Complementary Medicine Research Group from the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York presented 68 references [Ev. 143]. In this appears the statement “To date there are eight systematic reviews that provide evidence that the effects of homeopathy are beyond placebo when used as a treatment for [five childhood conditions]”. This claim from mainstream academic centre, rated joint first nationally for health services research in the latest Research Assessment Exercise, stood in stark contradiction to Prof. Ernst’s referenced claims, and to Dr. Goldacre’s unreferenced statements. It would have been illuminating if the Committee had probed the Group about this, face to face as a witness, and attempted some resolution before agreeing in such unequivocal terms with the two witnesses who were invited to appear and were quoted favourably. The Committee criticised the supporters of homeopathy for their “selective approaches” to evidence [73]. However they could fairly be accused of the same. Unfortunately they did not (presumably) have, the scope to solicit the views of Dr. Linde from Germany which would have differed from those of, Prof. Ernst with regard to the evidence. (Topgrad (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC))

Pyrrhoneia is completely right with regard to the cited source. It merely states that its finding does not contradict placebo claims, which however is not enough to source the formulation in WP. Note that this is not an argument against homöopathy being just a placebo effect, but just an argument for citing different sources since the current source is indeed not properly paraphrased.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've added the Ernst "systematic review of systematic reviews" as a reference for that point. Looking at the studies cited in the "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy" section of the article, and the evidence submitted to the HoC "Evidence check", there doesn't seem to be much, if anything, in the way of more recent systematic reviews that contradict its findings. Brunton (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you be good enought to cite the findings of The Department of Health Sciences at the University of York 8 systematic reviews that found evidence that the effects of Homeopathy are beyond placebo for five childhood ailments and run counter to Ernst stated view and, further could it be indicated if not already that, Shang et al also has its critics re Failure to Exclude False Negative Bias: A Fundamental Flaw in the Trial of Shang et al. Helmut Kiene, Gunver S. Kienle, and Tido von Schön-Angerer. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. October 2005, (11(5): 783-783. doi:10.1089/acm.2005.11.783. (Topgrad (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

The second one appears to be a letter to the editor of a journal specialising in CAM. Using it to rebut peer-reviewed research would give it undue weight and be counter to WP:MEDRS.

Do you have a reference for the York paper? Brunton (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

From the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York evidence to The Scienctific Select Committe HOuse of Commons, when I find the reference I will post on to you. Could you explain what undue weight means in this sense or does WP:MEDRS as in general non acceptance of legitimate rebuttal merely skews to one side of the argument and therefore they could be accused of non-neutrality a corner stone of wiki? (Topgrad (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

The document type, as given by pubmed, is "letter". Letters are usually not peer-reviewed, and their use is explained in MEDRS. Also, the source ("The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine") is problematic. Rka001 (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Rka, this is despite the peer review of Shang initially failing to uncover this omission thus allowing this flawed study to be cited at length I believe this was also posted in the BMJ would this be at least be a more acceptable source, I will also endevaour check to acertain if peer reveiw was carried out.? For Burton above I have the refs and now I am in the process of collating them into an acceptable wiki format (Topgrad (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

Please be aware of the distinction between peer review and review articles. What Rka refers to is wp:UNDUE. There's a hierarchy of source reliability, as discussed at wp:MEDRS. To impeach a systematic review in a reputable peer-reviewed journal calls for a similar-quality but newer source. The same principal applies in all medical topics on Wikipedia, but is observed most closely in fringe areas, in accordance with wp:REDFLAG. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As a sidenote, while Shang et al. have been indeed attacked for their methodology, please be aware of the following before you spend too much time for collecting material refuting its use in the article: 1. There are more recent review articles, which do not reject the hypothesis that HP is not working better than Placebo, thus backing up Shang et al. 2. Shang et al. has so far not been retracted nor errated and articles which are critizing it have not been published in journals of similar quality and impact. It is fair to say, that in the 10 years of its existence, Shang et al., which has been cited 731 times as of today, must be considered mostly undisputed in reliable medical studies. I am only aware of Lüdtke and Rutten, 2008 (a review article in J Clin Epidemiol, IF 5.3), and they merely say that the effect as presented by Shang et al. is "less defined". I think the issue resolves around how many studies must be considered as High Quality. Everything else is content flagged as "comments" or "letters", which we usually do not use, or has been published in journals like "Homeopathy" or "Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine", which are not considered as citeable sources. Rka001 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

For Burton in response to your request of refs presented by Dr Hugh NacPherson Complimentary Research Group Department of Health Services University of York to the House of Commons Science and Technology Report Committee Evidence Check Homeopathy 2 Fourth Report of Session 2009-2010 pages 202 to 207, there are 68 refs the ones citted are 1 to 27 Ev 143 page 202 Ev 144 page 203 Ev 145 page 204 EV 146 page 205 there is a lot and would ask before risking your displeasure there is a mixture of complimentary Journals main stream Journals I will let you decide which you wish ones to accept as MEDRS, is this acceptable for your needs or do you wish for me to simply cut and paste them to you your gidance is appreciated?(JoeEverett (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC))

The source for your claim that "8 systematic reviews that found evidence that the effects of Homeopathy are beyond placebo for five childhood ailments" seems to be the sentence at the end of the section headed "the evidence base". It isn't a published review, so it doesn't fulfil the requirements of WP:MEDRS, and doesn't give references for the systematic reviews it is citing, as far as I can see. What you need to provide is peer-reviewed, published systematic reviews or meta-analyses that supersede and contradict Shang. Brunton (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I will speak with author and and check up on the observation you have noted (80.2.37.152 (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC))

Thankyou for your patience the author has not contacted so the references presnted, as follows for the 8 studies, I hasten to add there was 60 plus preseneted to the committee, In 44% (n-60) the studies report positive findings, where the homeopathy treatment showed statically significant superior effect compared to placebo, and HAVE BEEN REPLICATED (capitalis my emphasis for clarity only) in two or more studies in conditions of Childhood diarrhoea (individualized treatment),[1–3] Fibromyalgia,[4,5] Influenza, [6,7]Osteoarthritis, [8,9,10] Seasonal allergic rhinitis, [11,12–21] Sinusitis [22–25] and Vertigo.[26,27]. There are complementray jornals obviously included however more orthodox journals (in bold if it does not come throgh numnbers 2-4-6-8-9-10-11-15-17-22-25 and 27,the list also contains journals produced in French and German.

Redacted: list copypasted here from [3], typos and all. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As to Shang et al (the actual as you will know the leader of research group was Professor Matthias Egger then of Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Switzerland present position unknown by myself) stated that "eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract indicated substantial beneficial effect" sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works. However, the biases in these publications, as shown by our study, might promote the conclusion that the results cannot be trusted’. The suggestion being eight studies is too few however, Fisher Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. Mar 2006; 3(1): 145–147. Published online Jan 26, 2006. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nek007 states as their findings was based on eight studies, he rightly asks "is eight enough for a conclusion or not or does it depend on what that conclusion is?" Plus at the time and it must be repeated literature references were not given, nor information on the diagnoses, numbers of patients, etc., nor can these be deduced from the article. Prof. Egger refused several requests to disclose the identity of the eight trials. This was and still is not a matter of scientific method, but of natural justice: the accused has the right to know the evidence against them. Further more to the Select Committe report and their reliance on RCTs which even your self must agree has problems as to their external validity as does meta analysis therefore reliance on this and other RCT evidence cited by Ernst above all is questionable. The UK House of Commons report favoured these randomized controlled trials over other research methods. Overrating the strengths of RCTs and underrating weaknesses are no longer accepted internationally and are inconsistent with the view of important authorities. Such as The Advisory Council for Concerted Action in Healthcare of the German Federal Ministry of Health and Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, they consider it wrong to unduly favor RCTs.

Plus as a matter of interest I think to all, you must bear in mind what we are dealing with is fundamentally based in Vitalism, no amount of orthodox or allternative research based on conventioanal will answer the questions, it is simply not congruent. My objection is misrepresentation and giving validity to any crap science methodology which is manipulated for the purpose of self agrandisment, ego and commercial reasons much of which stems from pharmaecutical industry driven research along with all its historical baggage is deception even in science and please do not say it does not happen. (JoeEverett (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC))

JoeEverett, for these studies/clinical trials to be accepted, they have to meet the criteria at WP:MEDRS. If I'm right, whatever is published in the journal, "Homeopathy" (formerly the "British Homeopathic Journal") in unacceptable according to the rules mentioned at WP:MEDRS. I'd like to see some input from some more experienced editors here!—Khabboos (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe, I redacted your copypasted list above. Please do not do that. Simply provide the link to where you found the list. If there are specific papers on the list that you think meet wp:MEDRS, including wp:MEDDATE, please raise those one at a time. Plunking something like that in only serves to irritate the people you seek to collaborate with. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Joe, the studies in the list you pasted in do not support your claim that "8 systematic reviews that found evidence that the effects of Homeopathy are beyond placebo for five childhood ailments". None of them appear to be the reviews in question.

As for your claim that "Prof. Egger refused several requests to disclose the identity of the eight trials", that would appear to be a tad out of date: the identity of the trials was revealed in this response published by the Lancet on 17th December 2005; that's about eight and a half years ago (indeed, it seems to have been over a month before the source you copied and pasted it from was published - it says it was published on Jan 26, 2006). See also The Myth of The Secret Eight, a comment published in 2007. And as far as the Shang paper being based on 8 studies is concerned, see the author reply I've already linked to.

You state that "no amount of orthodox or allternative research based on conventioanal will answer the questions", and object to RCTs. All controlled trials do is detect and measure differences in outcome between groups, so your claim implies that there is no detectable difference between homoeopath and placebo. If you can provide a MEDRS source that backs up this claim we will indeed have found a "Better Source for [the] Placebo Claim". Brunton (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all comments noted LeadSong would you consider a Journal such Pediatrics as being credible form the redacted source Jacobs J, Jimenez L M, Gloyds S S, et al. Treatment of acute childhood diarrhea with homeopathic medicine; a randomized clinical trial in Nicaragua. Pediatrics, 1994; 93: 719–725., Burton I think you misunderstand me I contend RCTs are not congruent to the philosophy which underlines the medicne assist the body to heal itself and is not mediated by gross chemical means. If you want to know exactly what aspect of treatment works, (Comment by Claus Fritzsche free lance journalist areas of specialization are holistic health, complementary medicine and research, and border areas of psychology cite Von Inke Plishko That’s how lobbying works: Edzard Ernst and the “Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy” (UK House of Commons) Neuraltherapy blog 26 Marz 2101 "RCTs with their high internal validity are suitable". Observational studies, case series and longitudinal cohort studies are less suitable for this purpose. RCTs are well suited for measuring specific and nonspecific effects. However they they have strengths as well as weaknesses", my stance neither neither supports or refutes placebo; a philosophical posser for you what is it and why does it not work for all in all circumstances? (JoeEverett (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC))

The childhood diarrhea paper you cite is a single trial, so does not conform to WP:MEDRS. It has been discussed previously here. There seem to have been some issues with it: according to a page that used to be on the AMA website (and that has often been cited on this talk page) it has "been criticized for inconsistent/incorrect data analysis; use of different diagnostic and treatment categories but combining them in the conclusions of efficacy; and lack of chemical analysis of different treatments. The clinical significance of the results, given the self-limiting condition being studied, has been called into question." See Sampson W, London W. Analysis of homeopathic treatment of childhood diarrhea. Pediatrics. 1995;96:961-964.

The underlying philosophy or mechanism of a therapy is not relevant to RCTs; all they do is measure differences in outcome. If there's a difference in outcome between subjects given remedies and subjects given placebos then RCTs will be able to detect this. But that's beside the point here because MEDRS states that "The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)." If such studies are available (and they are) then policy is clear on this. Brunton (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

" most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it?"

This is by far the best comment I have read in this anti homeopathy article talk page ( I think people who edit here and know the tricks of wikipedia will discourage to participate in editing --- everyone who sees that the article is totally biased; they have locked it of course so only established - anti homeopathy editors can edit it.) --BonjourMM (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am positive you have several ideas how to improve the article then. Please let us know. Rka001 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

At the moment any "established" (autoconfirmed) editor (i.e. any Wikipedian who registered more than four days ago and has since made at least 10 edits) can edit this article. This is done to discourage vandalism and to give aspiring contributors the time to make themselves familiar with the relevant rules they'll need to follow like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, WP:RS/WP:MEDRS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT, which is neither a "trick" to keep out unwanted opinions, nor is it too much to ask. I don't think Homeopathy is the right article to start editing on Wikipedia (just like the World Cup wouldn't be the right place to start playing football), so yes, at this point of your Wikipedia career I'd discourage you from editing the article. You can try anyway in a few days, but you'll have to play by the rules. --Six words (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me you are discouraging because I do believe the article is biased - --BonjourMM (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM, I'm probably the only the only sympathiser you'll find here and I suggest you discuss everything you want to do to the article here on this Talk Page and follow the advice given by others or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned. There are some rules we follow here and until you get familiar with them, follow my advice!—Khabboos (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I think I m following the rules - I just said that I agree with Pyrrhoneia (talk) that "most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it" and the article should state something like that in the beginning. Unless in this talk page you are not allowed even to suggest an edit something that is not clearly an anti homeopathy statement. Don't you agree? --BonjourMM (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM, read WP:AGF while you are reading the others linked above. The study you linked is on a grand total of 242 children, hardly enough to conclude anything and you in fact linked the part where the abstract indicates a larger sample size is needed. To add this small meta-study in the article would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and this study has been debated here before.--Daffydavid (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM, you can suggest anything here on the Talk Page, but don't try to insert it into the article (even when you become eligible to do so) until 3-4 other users agree with your suggestion.—Khabboos (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM from his perspective does seem to have a perfectly good point as does the other contributors regarding and I mean no disrespect read the rules, the opening page in pariticular in my veiw requires balance re the language used, use placebo by all means however, on this page comments from the UK select committe (hardly in my veiw a peer review and neither was the Swiss HAT Assesment) for balance and neutraility it should state that this report was highly controverstial in its procedure and subsequent findings, I feel it should also be noted that there was no uninimity form MP the House of Commons ( I will check Hansard for further details). This is not disruption or vandalism this is emminently verifiable from UK media and House of Lords reports, I consider this would a be valuable starting point as Rka001 suggested.(JoeEverett (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC))

A 'lack of unanimity' among a large group of politicians probably isn't a good starting point for an argument about a scientific question. (In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Regrettably, many of our elected officials fail to grasp this distinction.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As you see several editors here think that the cited sources do not support at all the notion that homeopathy is placebo including me. Some of the themhave explained why. This is a starting point. --BonjourMM (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM, I posted a lot of studies/clinical trials here (please see the preceding sections), but all have been rejected, because it doesn't meet the WP:MEDRS criteria. While there may be clinical evidence that Homeopathy works, that is unacceptable on wikipedia. Now, when only a few studies/clinical trials have met the WP:MEDRS criteria, the wikipedians editing this article have concluded that whatever effects homeopathy has is due to the placebo effect. Now if you want that to change, you have to find and mention studies/clinical trials which meet the WP:MEDRS criteria. If you try to remove the word placebo from this article, I guarantee you will get blocked, banned or at least topic banned from this article - be careful!—Khabboos (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM, JoeEverett is a new user and we should wait for him to give a good reference about the British House of Commons report, and Rka001 and TenOfAllTrades are just mocking you sarcastically. Believe me, nobody supports you right now!—Khabboos (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My starting point was my agreement with a a user who accurately pointed out that most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it. Take a look yourself and you will see. Lets start from there. --BonjourMM (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please post that reference here for discussion here first Joe.—Khabboos (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be very valuable if you share the source for this statement. Until then, you should be very aware that this article will conclusively state that homeopathy is not working better than placebo until we find this scientific consensus being superseded by reliable sources matching the MEDRS criteria. We do not cite primary research until it is necessary, as we are constantly looking for review articles published in high ranking journals; we do, however, state that single studies may yield positive results (which is - btw - expected by a 5% chance of randomly significant results, and due to unrecognized type I errors). In addition, the current scientific consensus on homeopathy is in agreement with current consensus on physics, pharmacology, and other fields. This is very important to understand before you start editing this article. So, if you want to change the article in order to positively review the efficacy of homeopathy, it is your duty to bring on MEDRS-approved, undisputed, high impact review articles. Rka001 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to throw in my $.02, I'm perplexed why we're still having this discussion based on the lack of evidence provided to support the initial claim. Unless there is some evidence to back up the claims "most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it", there is no point in continuing this line of discussion. JoelWhy?(talk)

The scientific consensus is pretty clear (see as just a couple of examples the comments by Dame Sally Davies and Jack Killen under the subheading "Lack of efficacy" in the article). There doesn't seem to be a single comprehensive systematic review that has concluded that there is convincing evidence that homoeopathic remedies have effects over placebo. The best result was the 1997 Linde et al. meta-analysis, which concluded that the evidence is not compatible with placebo, but (as is already discussed in the article) the 1999 reanalysis of the same data set concluded had "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments", and which found insufficient evidence that homoeopathy was clearly effective for any condition. The conclusions of the systematic reviews is that the evidence fails to refute the null hypothesis (that homeopathic remedies don't work better than placebo). Without systematic reviews that have found conclusive evidence that homoeopathy differs from placebo we can't say that homoeopathy has been found more effective than placebo, per MEDRS. Brunton (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The article says "Overall there is no evidence of efficacy.[6][17][18][19] "

And the cited meta studies say CONCLUSIONS--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.

InterpretationThe results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.

None of the above cited studies - besides shang - say that homeopathy is placebo. Quite the opposite. They say less positive -which does not mean placebo. I dont think that there is any consensus - I think this what Pyrrhoneia meant. And I agree. How about you Khabboos ?--BonjourMM (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well my take on this BonjourMM is that you are doing a fabulous job of arguing a point that was never made in the sentence you are referring to. The word "placebo" is nowhere to be found in "Overall there is no evidence of efficacy." The references in the line that does mention placebo do in fact say "placebo". So far all I'm seeing is a Straw man argument. --Daffydavid (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The article writes and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.[5][6][7] 2 meta studies saying "no more effective than placebos" and all 3 meta studies I referred to say something very different. (NOT placebo, less positive etc) Therefore there is not any consensus as the article falsely claims. --BonjourMM (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll try one more time since you are not understanding what I'm saying. The [5][6][7] you are referring to ALL say that homeopathy is not more effective than placebo. You are trying to disprove point A (and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos) by arguing using references that validate point B (Overall there is no evidence of efficacy.) The only other interpretation I can come up with is that you think consensus has not been reached because the B references disagree with the point A being made. If this is the case, I would suggest reading WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONSENSUS. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:10, July 9, 2014‎ (UTC)

What I m saying is pretty clear .It does not matter how they are used in the article. My point is that the available meta studies arrive in different conclusions regarding placebo. 2 of the meta studies cited in article say that "that homeopathy is not more effective than placebo". 3 of the meta studies say (NOT placebo, less positive etc). The article summarizes their conclusions as they were stating the same things which is of course false. --BonjourMM (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources which mention placebo are very clear. No other source can change the fact that they use the word. That's what counts. We follow the sources. Those say "placebo" and other sources say other things. We often include several types of descriptions used in various RS. "Placebo" is one such description. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean that when they say "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo," they mean that it is ...placebo ? --BonjourMM (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM, you clearly haven't read the links provided above by moi and others. Please let us know when you have read them.--Daffydavid (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course I did. Can you answer the question above? So I can understand you : when they say "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo," or less positive they mean that it is ...placebo ?--BonjourMM (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

What proposal for improvement to the article is being discussed? It is necessary to stay focused on the article because this is not a forum for discussions about a topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM, you must be referring to this:

"Interpretation
"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." source

That's from 1997, done by researchers who are strong advocates of homeopathy, and the very next word after your quote is "however". Did you miss that? There are obviously divided opinions between advocates and skeptics, and we document both sides in the article. The Jonas' source above is about one 1997 meta-analysis, while the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's 2010 statement was based on ALL of the literature, and ALL the opinions mustered by ALL sides of the matter. The international homeopathy community mustered up their best research and best arguments, and they still couldn't convince anyone that homeopathy is anything better than a placebo:

"In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos. The Government shares our interpretation of the evidence." source

Do you have a proposition for how we could use such an old statement from 1997 that would really add anything to the article? We don't do original research here, so we can't use it to nullify statements by others. We already present statements from each side showing that there is disagreement, and we aren't allowed to create a false balance by giving minority, fringe, opinions more weight than they deserve. Frankly, it must be very embarrassing to admit one believes in homeopathy, at least it should be embarrassing, but we do document that such people still exist. That is a sad fact. There are also people who believe in a flat earth. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that we refer to that 1997, and provide the authors' later reframing:

The positive finding of one of the most prominent of the early meta-analyses, published in The Lancet in 1997 by Linde et al., was later reframed by the same research team, who wrote:

The evidence of bias [in the primary studies] weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials ... have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most "original" subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments.

References

Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

We do have a misconception here between the statements "there is no efficacy." and "HP is not working better than placebo.". Bot statements are validly supported by different sources.I give BonjourMMa point here, though,....why are we using the Linde et al, 1997, review? It was first soft-erratum-ed by the same team in 1999, and the main authour himself stated that the first study was bad (see his interview with "Der Spiegel"). I would propose, to entirely remove this reference, as it is outdated, and overruled not only by other publications, but also by the authors itself. In reality, the authors should have retracted the study, actually. Rka001 (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that a retraction is appropriate. Retraction of a paper should be reserved for situations where a paper's contents or conclusions are the result of misconduct, or gross errors or judgement, or serious objective (and not merely subjective) error. It's not merely something that should happen whenever a later meta-analysis – involving new studies not captured by the original publication, and involving different criteria for study selection and inclusion – reaches a different conclusion. We don't drop bits of the scientific record down the memory hole just because we later find out their conclusions were honestly wrong.

That said, I certainly agree with the general thrust of the remarks from BullRangifer and Rka001. A 1997 review based on data up to 1995 would seem to be problematic for use as a source, in that it necessarily omits nearly two decades of more recent work. Given that the study's own authors have since determined – based on more recent work, and a better-focused set of inclusion criteria – that their original 1997 meta-analysis overstated even the possible efficacy, I am surprised that we refer to it as anything other than a historical curiosity. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. That is the reason for wp:MEDDATE. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given up on this article, but like TenOfAllTrades, I would still suggest that, "we don't drop bits of the scientific record down the memory hole just because we later find out their conclusions were honestly wrong."—Khabboos (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, and to avoid any misunderstanding, the "we" I was using there doesn't refer to Wikipedia (and wasn't intended to imply anything with respect to Wikipedia editors or particular edits) but rather to the scientific community and the corpus of published work. The mere fact that an old finding has been superseded by newer, better data and newer, better analysis doesn't mean that a retraction is required—only that the old findings should not be cited as current or correct. Now, because we are writing a Wikipedia article and are able to update its content to reflect the newest and best findings in a field, we have to ability to avoid and remove citations in our articles that point to outdated publications and conclusions; we can and should strive to present the best-quality information to our readers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well. Then you can send a letter to the authors saying that their conclusions do not comply with wikipedia perception of scientific consensus on Homeopathy's efficacy and therefore they should retract the study. Problem solved. After all why bother summarizing the scientific literature and not just try convincing the authors to retract whatever study does not arrive to conclusion that Homeopathy has no effect over placebo. We "know" Homeopathy is a fraud. --BonjourMM (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, we simply accept the authors' own conclusion that they were wrong. When they admit their 1997 study was flawed, we accept that, and the article documents that fact. Case closed. Can we now just close this thread? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

They did not say that the study was wrong. That's absurd. Even the second meta study concludes "We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results." It does not say that they conclude it is placebo. Less positive is still positive and certainly not placebo. --BonjourMM (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an old discussion but worth rehashing. To test the hypothesis that X has effect slightly different than placebo Y in a sensible fashion requires an understanding of the Number needed to treat, measures of confidence (statistics), effect size, etc. For a confident statement on effects as small as what are reported in these papers, the NNT would need to be vastly larger than these trials (possibly larger than the human population of Earth). In other words, even if it were beneficial, the benefit would be so small and so rare that nearly any other reasonable option would be preferable. Buying a $1 lottery ticket improves my odds of winning, but the expected winnings are far less than that $1. Buying a lottery ticket gives an expected net loss. I'm far better off to spend my dollar on something tangible. These investigators, however, have a dilemma. They need to convey a complex result in terms simple enough for laypeople to grasp. It would be intellectually dishonest to say "it just doesn't work". If they said "we can't prove it works" that would be misread as "we think it works but can't prove it". If they said "we can't prove it doesn't work", that would be misread as "it might work, but needs more study to confirm". What they really should be doing is directly addressing the question of how large a study would be needed to yield a useful measure. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the editor's task is to summarize what the scientific literature reports on a topic and not to conduct their own research to decide if the findings are "correct" or "impossible". So if the meta studies arrive to different conclusions editors should report them all ----- they should not omit what they believe are improbable or whatever - as long the findings are published in so prominent sources. --BonjourMM (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There haven't been any reviews cited that have found conclusive evidence that homoeopathy has effects over placebo. The best result for homoeopathy was the 1997 analysis, but the authors concluded in their 1999 paper that it had "at least overestimated" the effects. The conclusion that you have recently quoted ("We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.") is not a conclusion about the efficacy of homoeopathy, but about the effect of study quality on outcome (hint: look at the title of the paper). If you want the article to say that there are reviews that have concluded that homoeopathy is more effective than placebo, then you will need to cite at least one that has come to a robust conclusion that they do. Brunton (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The sources I referred to "support" the sentence - not efficacy over placebo. I did not put it there. Besides that they evaluate the efficacy of homeopathy.

I think you are doing your own research there. You suppose to report the conclusions-- not to judge how strong are the conclusions and if there are positive but inconclusive- weak to write - it is not definitely proven therefore it is placebo. Finally, I suggest the article should report all the conclusions of the available meta studies. Most of the cited sources ( meta studies) so far they provided weak support for homeopathy ( positive evidence but weak this is not equal to placebo. Other people also think what Im saying is correct. Look above. --BonjourMM (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we then just remove the reference for that statement? It is not only old, but the study is flawed, as admitted by the authors at two different occassions, and there are better and more recent studies. Also, sorry for bringing up the retraction-argument. Just my point of view. But anyway, what is wrong with not using this paper as reference? We use it later on to describe the historical development of review articles on homeopathy, but that should be enough. There is no need to use it as a source for "There is no proof of efficacy." in the lede. Rka001 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How appropriate is to remove a paper just because it does not say that Homeopathy is only placebo? Even if you remove this one the later qualified study by the same authors report similar findings : less positive does not mean placebo as we said before. So are you going to remove all the metastudies by Linde ? And you just stuck with Shangs and Ernst whether Homeopathy is placebo or not - the conclusions of which have been severely criticized. And you have to report this criticism as well.--BonjourMM (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have given you reasons why i want to remove that reference from the one single statement in the lede, not from the article. Also, there is a bible-esque volume of discussion on the criticism on Shang et al., you might want to enter our archive before you bring up very old stuff again. Then again, there are more sources for the placebo-statement. Please read the chapter "Efficacy". Another please: Do not bring up random rants versus contents, but be bold and propose new content that we can discuss. Thank you. Rka001 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

And, BonjourMM, as we have also said before, the "less positive" comment that you are quoting from the abstract of the 1999 paper is not about the evidence for homoeopathy, but is a comment that the results of studies of higher methodological quality are less positive than the results of studies of lower methodological quality. You are misinterpreting the very sentence that you are quoting. The 1999 paper's comment about the conclusion of the 1997 paper is that it is likely that it at least overestimated the effects of homoeopathy, not that the results were less positive but still positive. Brunton (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you guys are misrepresenting the papers. Brunton the paper you are referring to does not conclude that homeopathy has not effect over placebo. "We overestimated" does not mean that it is placebo. This is your conclusion. An editor wrote that "most of the cited sources are meta-studies that actually end up providing weak support for homeopathy rather than refuting it" - only Shang says it is placebo - the rest of the meta studies do not say that - look above,. --BonjourMM (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The 1999 paper does not state a conclusion that homoeopathy has effects over placebo ("we overestimated" certainly doesn't mean that), so it can't be used to support a statement that it does. Brunton (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and "an editor" doesn't count as a RS. Brunton (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

So when they write "We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results. Because summarizing disparate study features into a single score is problematic, meta-regression methods simultaneously investigating the influence of single study features seem the best method for investigating the impact of study quality on outcome." what do they mean ? Placebo or non placebo or what? Less positive results means placebo or the meta study is irrelevant ? --BonjourMM (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I support BonjourMM on this point. I think we can quote the conclusions, "We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results......", instead of saying that it supports the belief that it's placebo.—Khabboos (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

BonjourMM: you keep quoting that abstract; I do not think it means what you think it means. The study was not investigating the efficacy of homoeopathy per se, but was investigating the "Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy". Its conclusion is not that homoeopathy works or doesn't work, it's that studies of higher quality have less positive results than studies of lower quality. It doesn't come to any direct conclusion about the efficacy of homoeopathy (because that isn't quite the question it was looking at) but, in its discussion, does call into question the result of the earlier 1997 analysis.

I agree with Rka001 that it (and the 1997 paper) shouldn't be used to support the statement about efficacy in the lede, and with Khabboos's comment that it shoudn't support the "placebo" claim, but I don't think we need to quote its finding about the effect of quality on outcome, at least not in the lede, although it could perhaps be added to the section on systematic reviews and meta-analyses (it was also a finding of the Cucherat et al. paper, and the 1999 paper could be added to support the same statement the Cucherat paper is used to support there, perhaps with some slight expansion of the statement to specifically mention that higher quality studies tend to be less positive). I am therefore removing both references from the statement in the lede and replacing them with a more recent and appropriate source. Technically we don't even need references for the lede, which summarises sourced material from the article, but experience has shown that any statement there that is not directly sourced will be challenged (see the archives!). Brunton (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just retrieved the full text from the 1999 study...in fact it does not even mention the efficacy of homeopathy. It is not within the scope of the study! What they say is:"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. 14 and 15) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments." This is excellent for supporting the statement of the decreasing effect size that come with better study quality, but it cannot be used for the statement regarding the efficacy. In fact, this is a very sugarcoated version of "sorry, we really messed up in 1999.", because if "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. (their statement from 1997!) is weakened and was "at least overestimated".....what does remain then? There is this question popping up in my head, WHY Linde et al. didnt recalculate the Odds Ratio for HP with the new data and increasing knowledge about publication bias at hand. Would have been pretty easy. Rka001 (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Brunton, reference no.6 (Shang, Egger et al.) has been criticized. Citizendium has this to say (in the 'efficacy' section of their article on Homeopathy) , "The study, published in the Lancet by Shang et al. took a novel approach; while traditional meta-analyses combine studies of a single condition, this analysis tested the hypothesis that all effects of homeopathy are placebo effects.[46] If so, the authors reasoned, then the predominance of positive reports reflects publication bias, and hence the magnitude of effects should diminish with sample size and study quality. They analyzed 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional trials. In both, effect size declined with improved study quality; however, some effect was still present in the largest and best conventional trials, but not in the largest and best homeopathy trials. The authors concluded that homeopathy was no better than placebo, and that no further research on homeopathy was necessary. The article was accompanied by two editorials, one titled “The end of homeopathy”.[47]" I therefore suggest that we either remove that reference or use the sentences from citizendium in this wikipedia article to show that it was flawed.—Khabboos (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Citizendium is not considered WP:RS and the opinions expressed are not supported by the references supplied (note that editorials are also not WP:RS). Perhaps you would be happier editing over there Khabboos? As it stands now you have given a vague edit suggestion with absolutely nothing to back it up. --Daffydavid (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't see any actual criticism of Shang in the quotation from Citizendium that Khabboos has posted, so it's difficult to see why the article needs to be changed based on that, or what changes would need to be made. Brunton (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but this time I support Khabboos's suggestion to some degree. Unless I'm misreading him, he's right. While Citizendium is problematic because of lax editorial policies (they allow sockmaster editors - who have been so disruptive they have been banned from this article and all of Wikipedia - to edit there!), and we certainly can't use them as a source, their statement is correct. We shouldn't violate copyright, but a rephrasing of the general idea might be good. Please reconsider his suggestion. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Shang has been criticized for their methodology. The problem with the critics is: They never published their point of view in comparable journals. And the authors of the few published papers are well known, highly biased homeopathy proponents. For example, Rutten & Stolper published their reassessment of the Shang data in ...... "Homeopathy". What can you do? If you want to have your paper seriously considered as reliable, dont publish in "Homeopathy". Rutten and Lüdtke at least chose a better journal in 2008(?), but this study is bullshit, too, as shown by mathematician Ulrich Berger in his blog. Then, we have the most recent one (Hahn, 2013), but this was published in a pretty bad journal, whose chief editor is H. Walach, a well known homeopathy lobbyist, who is notorious for trying to abuse quantum mechanics to explain a proclaimed efficacy of HP. In conclusion, the Shang study might have problems, but the published criticizm is even worse, and the reputation gap between Lancet and the other journals is comparable to The Guardian and The Sun. So, as far as reliable sourcing goes, the Shang study has not been overturned, and its conclusion is in congruence with all other reputable reviews. So, we have to go with it. If you understand German, the statistician Norbert Aust has published a very good read about the Shang study in his blog, and he concludes it is not really good. Aust is known for his "sceptical" views on homeopathy, so certainly not biased in favor of HP. However, before you cheer up, he reviewed all 8/21 studies used in Shang, too, and comes to the conclusion that every single study reporting a positive effect of HP is seriously flawed and should have never seen print. Rka001 (talk) 08:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. No matter what. I think Shangs metastudy should be removed unless its criticism is also included. --Saharadess (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the Shang, Egger et al. study from this wikipedia article or mention that it was flawed.—Khabboos (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to provide sources that comply with MEDRS to support that suggestion, and we also need to make sure we aren't giving the criticisms undue weight. I also suggest that you look back at the archives to make sure that you aren't bringing up sources that have already been discussed. Brunton (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks like I now have support from Rka001, Brangifer, BonjourMM and JoeEverett to remove the Shang, Egger et al. study from this wikipedia article.—Khabboos (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you look more carefully at what Rka001 and Brangifer have written. Rka001 has written that he wanted to remove Shang from the statement it was supporting in the lede but not from the article; [My mistake - Rka001 was referring to Linde 1997, not Shang 2005. Brunton (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)] Brangifer wrote that he agreed with the statement you copied and pasted from Citizendium, which doesn't actually criticise Shang, or give any reason for not using it. Brunton (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Brunton is correct. Khabboos, don't read too much into what I wrote or I'll have to avoid EVER expressing the least support for you, even if I feel like it for some reason or other. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There are also a LOT of critiques of that British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, but the only major published one was this Swiss Report: Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29.—15:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Khabboos (talk)

I therefore suggest that we remove the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report also from this wikipedia article or mention that it was critiqued.—Khabboos (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want that done you will need to provide RS for it. It will probably be for the best if you only consider using sources that were published later than February 2010, since that is when the HoC report was published. Criticism published before this is probably not going to be useful; the source you are suggesting was published in 2006, and in a specialist CAM journal. Brunton (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I had also read that the British Medical Association had termed homeopathy, "witchcraft". Would it be WP:UNDUE to mention that here?—Khabboos (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless you can source this, we don't need to worry about whether it's undue. Brunton (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

We have previously discussed the "witchcraft" wording, but haven't pursued its fate since then. It might be worth pursuing. See the discussion here: Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_44#British_doctors_call_homeopathy_.22witchcraft..22. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Brunton, are you saying that whatever medical journals publish is acceptable here and if there is a rebuttal of the same in a CAM journal it is unacceptable?—Khabboos (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Primarily, I'm suggesting that a paper published in 2006 is not going to contain useful criticisms of a report published in 2010, and that "I had also read" does not count as RS, but the reliability of specialist CAM journals has been discussed here in the past, in particular, I think, with regard to the journal Homeopathy. Brunton (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I am definately NOT supporting the idea to remove Shang et al from the article. You should read more carefully what i am saying. I wanted to remove the Linde 1997 reference for obvious reasons. I clearly explained why Shang needs to be included. It's criticism has been published in neglectible sources. Shang has its problems, granted, but in no way do these problems allow to remove it from the lede or the article. It is still a very highly published meta review, and its critics have published their stuff basically in Micky Mouse. As for your suggestion to remove the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report is ridiculous - your source is from "Forschende Komplementärmedizin", a journal that is comparable to "Homeopathy" and is certainly not the material we are looking for. Khabboos, you are trying to force your POV into this article, please be a little more careful. Rka001 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind where it was published, look at when it was published! Brunton (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Brunton I got this statement online, "In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011)." from here. I also googled that 'summarized health technology assessment' by Bornhöft G et al. and got this link. Can we cite it as a reference in this article? If not, can we use the references at the bottom, citing another source?—Khabboos (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You're cherry-picking. Homeopathy doesn't work, and unless we should just surrender Wikipedia to fringe ideas, and ignore the whole point of MEDRS, you have to bring a lot more than a "government report" that didn't actually say what you think it says. Just because Dana Ullman touts it, doesn't mean it has any scientific or medical value. I don't know at what point you're becoming a tendentious editor, but arguing the same point over and over and over and over and over is pretty close meeting that standard of tendentiousness. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Rka001, SkepticalRaptor, I'm not trying to force my POV into this article, I'm only discussing my opinion/s on this Talk page. Brangifer, I request you to be true to your conscience and support what is right!—Khabboos (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picking would mean that we cite only some studies/clinical trials in this article, but I'm suggesting that we consider everything, including what I'm typing about now.—Khabboos (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, can we move on from the endless addition of "references" to this page that are clearly non-RS. Please read and try to understand MEDRS. Also, try to understand that WP:CONCENSUS is not a vote. Brangifer has indicated already that his comment didn't mean what you think it means. When I read it, I thought his account must have been hacked. I agree with SkepticalRaptor about the tendentious editor point. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that reference? Please read this and this, too (it's rationalwiki, though. You absolutely need to stop proposing the use of sources you are clearly copy/pasting from other (non-reliable) webpages, and which you are obviously NOT checking for their usability. I think you are on the verge of becoming a case for admins to take care of. Rka001 (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, you claim that the 2006 paper you have cited includes criticism of the House of Commons report that would warrant its removal from the article (you claim that it is "the only major published" critique of the HoC report). Can you quote these criticisms, or explain how they came to be made around four years before the report was published? Can you quote any such criticism from the 2011 version? Incidentally, while it has been repeatedly described by homoeopaths as "the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine", the Swiss government apparently disagrees. Brunton (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

A discussion on a Talk Page doesn't break any rules, does it? I haven't even indulged in an edit war here!—Khabboos (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In your case, it depends if your behaviour is disruptive or not, and in my opinion, there is no denying you are behaving disruptively. I assume the behaviour you have displayed here and at other fringe articles you have become involved in since your topic ban elsewhere, is merely an extension of the behaviour that got you your ban in the first place. It is amusing that you are currently appealing that ban. If the evidence on this page is taken into account, then you should receive an extension to the topics of your ban, rather than a release from it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Given I have to scroll through 3-4 pages of comments to get to the bottom so I can comment is highly indicative of tendentiousness. Given that Khabboos has been sanctioned several times for this type of behavior, why do we allow it to continue. Khabboos has not brought anything new to this conversation. Nothing. It's the same old same old same old, that has been repeated ad nauseum. Can someone implement the topic ban, so that we can actually discuss improvements in the article? SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I dont think it is right to ban someone because he disagrees with the point of view of this article. I agree with Khabboos - he has good points - the article is really unbalanced and biased.--Saharadess (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The restrictions are already in place. He's pushing the limits of what told to him by whatever bureaucratic system that makes those decision here. He has not a single good point, as refuted by at least 10 other editors. And we don't ban anyone for disagree with a point of view. We ban people who pontificate over and over about Fringe science, which will never be accepted here. There are simply no really well done studies that show that homeopathy has any therapeutic effect, unless the study's endpoint is quenching thirst. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thats non sense. Can you give me 2 examples of "pontification" ? I see only suggestions for using specific reliable sources. Who are you? I see no user name. Did you cite any reliable sources or you are just repeating your personal views on homeopathy? --Saharadess (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, so what about the flawed Shang et al. trial?—Khabboos (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that it should be included only if its criticisms ( published in reliable sources of course ) are also included. Otherwise no. --Saharadess (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I already explained why the criticism of Shang is no way referenceable. Feel free to read it. How come so many new editors are coming here and are all repeating the same stuff? Rka001 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes - you explained your view but blogs and second rate journals do not count. Shang study has been criticized in first rate journals and since its criticism about the results and its methodology make its conclusion less definite--- one should report both sides of the argument, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saharadess (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Which first rate journals other than JCE, which is not a first rate journal, anyway? Rka001 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Metastudies on Homeopathy - is it placebo or not?

Can someone summarize what the available meta studies say about homeopathy regarding placebo ? - please list which meta studies support the placebo hypothesis and which don't.

--Saharadess (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a wider spectrum of editors should be invited here and appropriate time should be given to comment on the point of view of the current article. Since concerns have been expressed about its neutrality in the previous thread I will tag the article to make people aware that a discussion is in progress.--Saharadess (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed an unnecessary tag. The concerns in the previous thread that you mention have all been shown to be false, both in that thread, and endlessly in discussion in the past on this page. These concerns seem to be common to many "new" editors and I urge you to review the archives here regarding alleged neutrality issues. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I did. I see indeed the same people discussing the topic. Don;t you think it is beneficial for the article if a wider spectrum of editors comment- Is this a secret discussion? --Saharadess (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A tag won't do that. Start a RFC with specific questions to comment on if you want to attract more editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

So you want readers or other editors to believe that there are no editors who dispute the point of view and the way sources are interpreted or distorted? --Saharadess (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The lack of a tag doesn't imply that. The article reflects consensus. Consensus doesn't require unanimity, neither is it a vote. Brunton (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What Brunton said. Else, every single politician's bio would bear the POV tag. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If there are editors who dispute the article's neutrality then a tag is required. Unless you want to hide this discussion - but i wonder why - if you have so "strong" arguments people will be convinced that HP is placebo or whatever.--Saharadess (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Saharadess/Khabboos You should read the text in Template:POV. It says that "A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant." It also says that the tag can be removed if "There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved." The removal of the tag was reasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Saharadess, I suggest you discuss everything you want to do to the article here on this Talk Page and follow the advice given by others or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned. There are some rules we follow here and until you get familiar with them, follow my advice! Please avoid adding that 'tag' even if you feel that it is needed unless there's a consensus here (on this Talk Page)—Khabboos (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Six words has mentioned some rules in the previous section that you'll need to read and follow, like WP:NOR, WP:NPOV/WP:DUE, WP:RS/WP:MEDRS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT.—Khabboos (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

After reading the recent discussion threads started by newcomers I think it's necessary to tell newcomers (and remind everyone else) that the lead is a general overview/summary of the article - it isn't (and shouldn't be) overly detailed. The article itself does mention that there are (slightly) positive meta-analyses, that some studies find homeopathy better than placebo, and explains why the mainstream (medical mainstream, not homeopathic mainstream) interprets the totality of studies and meta-analyses as not providing evidence of efficacy. It seems to me that most of the criticism this article receives is caused by either not knowing or misunderstanding this principle. --Six words (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That and they want to "balance" the sc ientific consensus by statements of faith, special pleading and the other tools of the homeopathist's trade. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

History - First appearance in the United States

This article states the following:

Dr. John Franklin Gray (1804–1882) was the first practitioner of homeopathy in the United States, beginning in 1828 in New York City.

The Regulation_and_prevalence_of_homeopathy says this:

Homeopathy was first established in the United States by Dr. Hans Burch Gram[58] in 1825 and rapidly gained popularity.[59]

I think some adjusting is in order? --Mg009 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Six words (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

3,000 different remedies

Today, about 3,000 different remedies are commonly used in homeopathy.

Do we really need this? Even if it had a citation, I think it's rather weak. When is today, is 3000 a lot? This is just a pointless number in this context. --Mg009 (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Three thousand differently labelled remedies would be more accurate. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

To expand my reasoning a bit, I think there are several issues with that sentence. First, it's off topic (inserted completely out of nowhere in a paragraph about controversies among practitioners of homeopathy).

Second, the number itself doesn't give us a lot of useful information. Compare it to the 22 homeopathic colleges in the 19th century, which tells us about the spreading of homeopathy. We can easily place that number, since we have an idea of how many colleges there are normally in a country. At the very least it should follow the format of "in year X, there were Y remedies", and definitely not without a source (because the amount of different labels for water bottles is unlikely to be very notable, unless it's in a paragraph that is explicitly documenting the extent of the delusion).--Mg009 (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How about "As of the YYYY edition, the HPUS listed n remedies." Simple, verifiable, no POV to dispute. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good if it can be reliably sourced. Given that a remedy can be made out of pretty much anything I'm not sure how meaningful the actual number of them is, but something from an actual pharmacopoeia might be worth including. I've found various websites saying that there are over 3,000 remedies, but I haven't so far found anything to support the statement that that many are "commonly used". I've also found this, dated 2006, which says that "Over 3,000 homeopathic medicines have licences" in the UK, but that's not quite the same as over 3,000 different remedies as "medicines" could (and probably does) include combinations of remedies, and different products using the same remedies. Brunton (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

if someone has access, OCLC 798574726 is the source to use.LeadSongDog come howl! 01:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)