Leaping in late we already reflect the views of homeopaths We describe homeopathy as they see it We also describe it as the real world sees it in terms of what is objectively verifiable which is of course different Ullman is a massively unreliable source anyway he routinely misrepresents sources and repeats egregious errors even after they have been pointed out multiple times There are three problems with homeopathy there is no reason to suppose it should work there is no way it can work and there is no credible evidence it does work other than as placebo That is the consensus view of scientists who have reviewed the evidence base Fixing these problems is not Wikipedia s job Guy