Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 17

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
This article is very well written, well referenced, and quite interesting. Other than a few minor grammatical errors, which I have fixed, I believe that, for the most part, it meets the current GA criteria. The only other issue that must be addressed prior to GA status is the  tags in the 'prevalence of use' and 'legal trends' sections. This is not really a major problem, and not worth failing the article outright. The sections do appear as sort of a mix or hodgepodge or random country information, and could be weaved together a bit better. Furthermore, the tags were just added a few hours ago by Adam Cuerden, so it must be addressed prior to GA. I will put this On Hold at WP:GAC for one week while this is addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll work hard to get it straightened out. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the confusion. That was also mainly due to the  tags as well. Dr. Cash 22:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now meets the GA criteria, and will be listed. Good work! Dr. Cash 18:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10784270&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230  
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1825800  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.106.170 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support studies on Homeopathy from [[User:Sm565|Sm565]] 

message: Though the article claims that surveys showed that less than 2% of people claimed using homeopathy in the last year, the amount who have actually done so is most likely much higher due to people who do not realize that they are doing so with certain over the counter medicines (mostly sold by a company called Similasan (someone should probably make an article about that company)).  Quite a lot of these are sold where I work (a Walgreen's), and a cursory investigation (making conversation with a few people buying them) has revealed that most people who are buying them either don't notice it says on them they are homeopathic or they have never heard of homeopathy or don't know anything about it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.43.159 (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the observations are nice, but they're OR and thus unusable.  Also the sampling group would be too small and not demographically balanced enough to be of any use.  Besides, people used to use cod liver oil for a variety of ills, so it's pretty likely that they'll use anything to fix what ails 'em.  •Jim62sch• 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: And 40% of Americans believe in alien abductions.  The irrelevancy of OR of homeopathy usage in the US is beyond belief.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  low prevalence of homeopathy use in US midleading. 

message: Wikidudeman, despite your high degree of ownership of this article, I will commend you on the mostly NPOV of the article.  If you want to get it to FAC, I will recommend somethings:
#The references utilize a whole host of formats.  Stick with WP:CITET, especially with the website references.  Make certain you put in the access date, so we can tell if it is current or not.
#Weasel words abound.  Look at User:Tony1#Featured article candidates.  Tony is a cranky individual, but his points are valid, and I think he has established the writing style that is encyclopedic.  
#This article has too many redundant words and sentences.  See Tony's tests on that point.
#We really need to chop the references.  it's making this article way too long (although I think the controversial nature will go against that).
#There are a couple of sections that are awfully long.  Subsections will help. I'm going to try it in a couple of areas.  
#I still believe that the LEAD is far far too long. --Filll 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your comments on the size of the Lead. Please see WP:LEAD. For an article of this size, a lead section of at least 3 paragraphs is needed to properly summarize it. Any smaller and it would leave out relevant material in the summary and would not be suitable. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting this to FAC 

message: This is currently the lead paragrpah for the section Clinical Trails:
Homeopathy is considered by some to have paved the way for modern medical practices including experiments to determine the value of medical remedies, systematic and quantitative procedures, and the use of statistics. Early scientists including Joseph Lister and Sidney Ringer stated that they were led by homeopathy to important pharmacological discoveries.[32] However, despite the fact that some of the procedures in homeopathy were ahead of their time, the medical effectiveness of homeopathy has been a point of contention since its inception. Early trials testing the efficacy of homeopathic treatments conducted by Hahnemann himself lacked the scientific rigor of modern scientific studies, and the first modern studies investigating the effectiveness of homeopathy date back to 1906.[64] During the 1940s the British government tested the efficacy of homeopathy on soldiers during World War II to determine whether troops using homeopathic treatments healed faster than those using placebo. Those using homeopathic remedies did exhibit increased healing patterns, however the methods of the studies have been questioned.[65]
It was deleted by one editor, reverted by another with the comment that deletion hadn't been discussed. So here's my reasons for agreeing that it should be deleted (I wasn't the one who did the first deletion):
*It's largely about some trials that took place so long ago as to be no longer relevant in a scientific sense (Lister, Ringer, WWII). I doubt, incidentally, that a trial that took place in 1906 can be called "modern". Incidentally, I see that the reference at footnote 32 is from the Franklin Institute, which is a museum.
*Everything this paragraph says can be rolled up into the following paragraph, which mentions at several places that modern studies have questioned or overturned the resulkts of earlier ones. These are, in fact, those earlier trials. There's no need to detail them like this, it's enough to say that they've since been overtaken.
Cheers. PiCo 06:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PiCo, you're a much more civil and patient person than I.  This is, FWIW, what I thought too.  So I agree, and the edits should stand.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC) Agreed, I'd also add that I find: "Homeopathy is considered by some to have paved the way for modern medical practices including experiments" somewhat dubious and assuming this is intended to be the reference for the statement, not terribly well supported.  – ornis⚙ 07:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia says that events that took place in 1906 can be called "modern". A.Z. 07:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything from the industrial revolution on can be considered part of the "modern era", but we're talking about medical science, were a narrower definition is warranted.  – ornis⚙ 07:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think the word "modern" is problematic and should be avoided. A.Z. 07:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unclear how modern is modifying experiments: does it mean the first experiments in the "modern era", or that the experiments were "modern" in some sense? •Jim62sch• 14:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I'm a bit less than impressed by a study on human medicine written by two veterinarians.  Seems just a bit odd, don't you think? •Jim62sch• 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if it's accepted as a reliable source, how is it supposed to support "Homeopathy is considered by some to have paved the way for modern medical practices including..."? At best the wording I'm looking at might support "Homeopathy has been claimed to have made important indirect contributions to modern medical practices, such as...". The first phrasing is a clear example of WP:UNDUE. ... dave souza, talk 15:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can phrase it however you want. Just as long as we mention that key fact that homeopathy is claimed by some to have made important contributions to modern medical practices. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...claimed by some..."  By whom?  Where is this claim?  Is it supported?  If not, it goes poof....as in bye-bye. This really isn't difficult. •Jim62sch• 16:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just how notable is this source? The linked author, Victor J. Stenger, "is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado." Doesn't sound like an expert on the history of medical treatments.... dave souza, talk 17:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to say "source rejected".  Now, if we could find a source from a professor of culinary arts... •Jim62sch• 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical trials 

message: I removed a couple links to borderline-relevant, but not-very-well-written articles. We have that big template for links, after all; it's not that helpful to give more emphasis to low-quality articles than the good ones in the template. Adam Cuerden talk 13:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Even if  I respect all the labor and kind intentions of the editors I feel that I should summarize my objections here. 
 
1. “Researchers conclude that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect. [6]" 
 
Here are studies supporting  Homeopathy which qualify to be cited. 
having been accepted to be published in serious websites, (some) having been cited in many articles, and written by scienticts and MDs they qualify, I think.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1825800 
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471/
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14734789&dopt=medline
 
“Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo, and one review found its effects consistent with placebo. There is also evidence from randomized, controlled trials that homeopathy may be effective for the treatment of influenza, allergies, postoperative ileus, and childhood diarrhea. Evidence suggests that homeopathy is ineffective for migraine, delayed-onset muscle soreness, and influenza prevention. There is a lack of conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for most conditions. Homeopathy deserves an open-minded opportunity to demonstrate its value by using evidence-based principles, but it should not be substituted for proven therapies. Series Editors: David M. Eisenberg, MD, and Ted J. Kaptchuk, OMD” 
from here:  
 
2."The meta-analyses that have been done on homeopathy have confirmed that its effects are unlikely to be beyond that of placebo and those studies that have shown positive results for homeopathic treatments were flawed in design" are highly inaccurate and supported only by this.: 
Dean ME. The homeopathic mustard gas trials of 1941–42 (this is the last paragraph)
'Forty years later, it was pointed out that the original analysis may have underestimated the efficacy of homeopathic Kali-bich in the first London series, because the placebo group in that experiment was untypical (Owen and Ives 1982). A single larger placebo group would have been a more efficient control increasing the number of participants available to be assigned to each of the test medicines. The pooling of results from separate medicines is also suspect. In spite of these weaknesses, the London mustard gas trials contained many of the methodological safeguards and requirements that would eventually be expected in clinical trials. These include concealed randomization to treatment or control, blinded dual evaluation of outcomes, and independent statistical testing.'
 
3) The WHO draft supporting Homeopathy even if it is unpublished its content and the reaction which has caused are known , verifiable and recorded in the Lancet, and the BBC; the same sources that the editor used to criticize homeopathy. ( BBC about malaria and the Lancet for more studies ). Therefore the editor has the moral obligation to accept their validity and report what they are actually saying about the existing controversy on Homeopathy. Ithink it is a fair request.  
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm  and the Lancet. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673605671590
  
4) This following reference is also seriously challenged.  
“In 2005 The Lancet medical journal published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The study concluded that its findings were compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects.”
 
The report published in the Lancet on homeopathy on 26 August has been questioned by the Faculty of Homeopathy - the professional body that brings together GPs and hospital doctors who also practise homeopathy.
Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, London said: "Having read this report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375230
5) One basic objection from Homeopaths in not stated: it can be found in every major homeopathy website and it can be summarized: “that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool for all cases in homeopathy since many times the  same disease is treated with different medicine.
--Sm565 04:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SM565 - why  The neutrality of the introduction and "clinical trials" are disputed. 

message: Every time someone like docboat comes to this type of discussion and makes a broad statement that XYZ (whether it is quack medicine, Creationism, or the existence of Aliens at area 51) cannot be tested in a scientific manner (for any number of reasons), I am reminded of the essential precepts of what makes pseudoscience in each of these areas.  Essentially, those that make these pseudoscientific claims do so because the results of scientific testing refute the possibility that there is any theoretical support for each of these areas, whether homeopathy or the existence of Noah's Ark.  If there is a faith that homeopathy works, well that's not medicine or science.  There is only medicine--there is now Western or Eastern versions, it's either tested scientifically and accepted (happens all the time), it's tested and fails (most of the time), or no one has tested it at all (which means it's not medicine).  There is no evidence whatsoever that has stood up to rigorous analysis of any evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy.
*oh dear, poor thing you. Someone like docboat - is like what? Are you used to proposing vague statements and general slurs as a method of discussion? Because if so - as suggested by your recent diatribe, there can be little exchange of factual information and views, more an argument, and that is a shame. 
*Tested in a scientific manner? Homeopathy most certainly has been scientifically tested and found to be effective. You have your references already. But the issue I pointed out - had you cared to ponder awhile - indicated the unbridgeable gap between allopaths and homeopaths, and you are manifesting that truth in great fullness. 
*Faith that homeopathy works - well, the placebo effect is 30%, which is more than some medications I can think of, such as SSRI's - if they could bottle that success, they would make a fortune. And homeopathy does better than placebo
*Tested - did you know that only 30% of what doctors do is based on evidence? I should know, as I am a practising doctor. So 70% is not evidence based. Such as prescribing antibiotics to children with middle ear infection. Of all children tested, only 5% need AB, but in general 100% receive them.  
*But hey! If you choose to stay your particular course, that is fine. We need an article about homeopathy, not anti-homeopathy. I think you just proved that point. docboat 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Homeopathy most certainly has been scientifically tested and found to be effective."  Has it really?  I've yet to see a test that proved its efficacy, I've seen some that suggest that maybe, even given that the testing was incomplete due to proper baselines, there might be some evidence it might just may have some effect.  30% efficacy for placebo?  Really?  I've never seen a placebe effect that high for any drug (y'know, real drug). As for your claim that antibiotics are only needed in 5% of otitis media cases, I'd love to see the proof for that. Is you argument that viruses cause 95% of otitis media cases, or that docs are misdiagnosing swimmer's ear as otitis media (odd given that most cases occur in the winter)? Or, are you saying that otitis media is self-limiting?  If so,then...no, you answer first...I so love this. •Jim62sch• 16:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Holland in the 1980's or early 1990's - well known investigation, no reference to hand, but it is a standard quote in allopathic circles. I am surprised you do not remember the article. Otitis media was examined, all children given NSAID and returned after 2 days. 5% required follow up with ABs athe rest were improving. That was an evidence-based study and set the tone for re-discovering how little of our current medicine is actually evidence based. But I am a doctor, you may not have the knowledge and so you may wish to get the basic information? I am guessing here, but usually a doctor would have heard of that study. So back to you - that was the evidence, and your POV is what? docboat 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently docboat failed to read the identifying features of pseudoscience.  :)  I think his comments violate all the points, including taking it personally.  I don't. I'm not anti-Homeopathy, I am pro-scientific reasoning.  I don't believe in anything, I like to test theories, continue to test theories, then finally accept the theory, until it needs to be tested once again.  Homeopathy = Creationism.  Believe in something, ignore the science.  Oh well, I don't care actually.  If we can balance this article enough, maybe the person who gets this stuff off of google hits will realize, "hey maybe I should see a real doctor."  Oh, BTW, I love this shit too.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Balance is alwys good. Open mind is always good. We need both of those attributes here. Mind you, I only just discovered this topic, and so I have missed a whole load of opinion. Pro-scientific reasoning - good. So can you tell me why you reject observed results? The ones which show an effect for homeopathy? You don't "beleive" in anything - well, I hope you believe in your scientific principles - right? Those same principles which prevented the colleagues of Semmelweiss (qv) from accepting his observations? But hey - whatever floats your boat. docboat 05:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience

message: *Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless.
*Use of uncommon terms for common substances can also be misleading. For example referring to water as dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) and proclaiming that it is the main constituent of most toxic compounds.
OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 12:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of misleading language

message: I think that some members dont believe that the dialogue on Homeopathy should be public. 
Perhaps thats why they keep removing the under dispute sign from the article. 
Dont you think that the individual reader should be invited to this dispute. 
Is this a rational responce ? It seems very religious and dogmatic..... --Sm565 07:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's useful to claim something's POV without giving reasons. As it stands, every criticism section is being tagged as POV - which is effectively POV pushing for the homeopathic side, though probably not intentional. Adam Cuerden talk 07:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You still haven't provided any concrete examples of what it is specifically you dispute in the article.  – ornis⚙ 08:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rarely agree with Peter Morrell, but you're getting out of hand.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On removing the POV sign.  

message: Ahem, Aconite had been in use for centuries before homeopathy! and apart from that you should say SOME modern drugs. Not too sure about nitroglycerine it is a homeopathic remedy forsure but was it around before? Peter morrell 13:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added "Some". In order to determine exactly the details of homeopaties contribution to Aconite, I'd need the full text of the source. this one. If anyone has it, Please E-mail it to me. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New drugs

message: At WP:MOS, it says that italics should be used sparingly for emphasis. I don't see any compelling reason why this sentence should be emphasized any more than any other sentence. If there is a compelling reason why, please provide here as I don't think Kenosis' argument above is compelling enough. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason either. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we'll await his answer, then.  •Jim62sch• 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant policy discussion here only please

message: I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:
* Link to RfC at alternative medicine. 
-- Fyslee / talk 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC alert 

message: I am in the process of adding numerous new sources to the article and I thought I would ask everyone here to go through the article and add a "citation needed" tag to anything that they believe needs a citation so that I can add one. Please don't delete any information, simply add a tag and I will follow behind and add a reference for everything that has been tagged as needing a citation. Thank you. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann and first appeared in print in 1807,[28] although he began outlining his theories of 'medical similars' in a series of articles and monographs in 1796.[29]
Notes 28 and 29 do not support the statements in the sentence, they merely provide links to the publications mentioned.  They do not support the statement that the term homeopathy first appeared in the 1807 publication or that Hahnemann began outlining his ideas earlier.  Guettarda 14:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to fix that. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the case in some instances. I'm going through and making it easier to recognize. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help tag article 

message: (Copied from the GA review)
In the context of alternative medicine articles, almost all of which are simply awful, homeopathy stands as a rare example of an article that actually attempts to do it well.
Is it perfect? No. It's awkward in a couple points, and, yes, it wouldn't be unreasonable to be a bit more critical here and there. Could it be better? Yes. But it deserves more praise than it's getting from people who haven't participated in the process, and don't know what a long haul it is.
Does it violate WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE? When Wikidudeman asked me, I said "Technically, yes". But that, perhaps, is not nuanced enough for here.
Homeopathy violates basic principles of science, and so comes under the guidelines for pseudoscience and fringe views. The article does contain a fair bit of justified criticism - while describing miasms, and dilution and succussion, we do break to mention the problems with these ideas. Is it criticised enough? No, some of the criticism - notably of the high dilutions - is not particularly well-written, and more criticism of other homeopathic concepts wouldn't be inappropriate. The section on "Concepts", and, to a lesser extent, the other history sections, are probably the worst offenders: Hahnemann's ideas are presented as if they were true, and criticism is absent. This is a fairly easy trap to slip into when writing about how someone came about their views when your primary reference is their writings. But it's still not good.
Again, however, I'd like to point out that it's better, in this respect, than pretty much any other alternative medicine article. If we want to make it better, we are going to have to be willing and ready to get some people very, very angry at us. 
As for the sources... Well, Hahnemann's writings are fairly omnipresent, but given alternative medicine and other fringe theories' well-documented resistance to change, this isn't as bad as it might sound. The sources could definitely use a little clean-up, formatting of sources is inconsistent, and  source 35,  "The Naturopathic School. NCNM. Retrieved on 2007-09-13." does not really support its sentence. Source 128, "Homeopathy in Malaysia. Whole Health Now Homeopathy. Retrieved on 2007-09-25." - is probably not reliable enough for what it's used for.
Should it be GA? Well, if compared to other alternative medicine articles, perhaps yes. On objective standards, perhaps no. In any case, let's not downplay the achievement of getting it this far. Alternative medicine articles are an uphill battle that Wikipedia has only just started to fight. Attacking the people that began the struggle is inappropriate. Adam Cuerden talk 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well written.  But, if we can make Intelligent design work, this should be easier.  But I could be in denial.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello - I saw this on the FTN. I've changed around one section (5.1) which seemed awkwardly worded. Still, it certainly looks like a good startthis article looks good, especially compared with some of the other alternative medicine articles. Hal peridol 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that the first paragraph is kind of a summary.  I didn't think it was too repetitive. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You obviously weren't keeping up with the news.  Australia invaded Canada last week.  They defended themselves with hockey sticks, but alas, it was quick.  It was so quick you might have missed it.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts on this article 

message: Here are some fragments from the  cited  references  and its interpretation    in  the article. Everybody could draw his/her own conclusions. 
Article’s interpretation. 
1.   More recent controlled clinical trials on homeopathy have shown poor results, showing a slight to no difference between homeopathic remedies and placebo.[1] 
Cited reference  
a b c Questions and Answers About Homeopathy. National Institutes of Health.
This section summarizes results from (1) individual clinical trials (research studies in people) and (2) broad analyses of groups of clinical trials. 
The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.f Appendix I details findings from clinical trials. 
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses take a broader look at collections of a set of results from clinical trials.g Recent examples of these types of analyses are detailed in Appendix II. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. Examples of problems they noted include weaknesses in design and/or reporting, choice of measuring techniques, small numbers of participants, and difficulties in replicating results. A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.
Article interpretation.
2. Early meta-analyses investigating homeopathic remedies showed slightly positive results among the studies examined, however such studies have warned that it was impossible to draw conclusions due to low methodological quality and the unknown role of publication bias in the studies reviewed.[82]
The medical effectiveness of homeopathy has been studied in detail since at least the 1980s. All large studies showing homeopathy to be effective for medical purposes have been methodologically flawed, and earlier studies showing positive results have been questioned.[82]
Cited reference (pay attention to the added adjective and the omitted sentence at the end.) 
 
Clinical trials of homoeopathy.Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G.Department of Epidemiology and Health Care Research, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
RESULTS--In 14 trials some form of classical homoeopathy was tested and in 58 trials the same single homoeopathic treatment was given to patients with comparable conventional diagnosis. Combinations of several homoeopathic treatments were tested in 26 trials; isopathy was tested in nine trials. Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homeopathy.
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 homeopathy, but only by means of well-performed trials.
3. Article 
In 2005 The Lancet medical journal published a meta-analysis of 110 placebo-controlled homeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials based upon the Swiss government's Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine, or PEK. The study concluded that its findings were compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are nothing more than placebo effects.[6] 
Is the  following criticism  included in the article? 
“The report published in the Lancet on homeopathy on 26 August has been questioned by the Faculty of Homeopathy - the professional body that brings together GPs and hospital doctors who also practice homeopathy. Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal Homeopathic Hospital, London said: "Having read this report, the figures do not stack up. The much-trumpeted conclusion about homeopathy being only a placebo is based on not 110 clinical trials, but just eight. My suspicion is that this report is being selective to try to discredit homeopathy." --Sm565 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want me to add in the fact that the lancet analysis isn't without it's own criticism? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources Interpretation and counter critisism.  

message: I separated out Canada and Mexico from Australia.  That change lasted about six minutes till they were merged again
After separating out the part on Canada, and before it was merged again, I read it more carefully. Ugh!  Here is the beginning of the Canada piece for reference:
"In Canada, a study detailing the use of alternative medicines by children in Quebec found that 11 % of the sample of 1911 children used alternative medicines and 25 % of those who did use alternative medicines used homeopathy. The study also pointed out that homeopathy is more commonly used in children in Canada than in adults, 19 % of whom used alternative medicine used homeopathy."
Questions relating to this:
1) The statistics compare children in Quebec to adults in Canada; which used to be called comparing apples and oranges.  Also, the percentage of adults who use "alternative medicines" is not given. Is the conclusion that homeopathy is more commonly used in children than in adults warranted?  Can any useful conclusion be taken from these statistics?
:Doesn't matter.  It's just there to show approximately how many people in Canada use homeopathy.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is medicine and there's...something else.  There's no alternative medicine.  Best term is quackery or pseudoscience, but that's used in the article.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion. In Wikipedia, there is such a thing as alternative medicine. Whig 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the most widely understood meaning of "medicine" is "a substance or preparation used in treating disease", as in "that medicine tastes awful" or "if you take your medicine without kicking daddy, I will give you a candy".  To someone with this understanding, I think "alternative medicine" is liable to be confusing.   Wanderer57 19:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That's absurd, Wanderer. Whig 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently you should read WP:MOS.  Linking dates is appropriate.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except in this case, 1911 is the number of children. It is a fig., not a date. Wanderer57 
Finally, the article switches between Homeopathy and homeopathy.  Let's pick one.  Feedback please.
Wanderer57 00:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know the answer to your question.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a noun so should be in lower case. The article on drugs doesn't call them "Drugs" in the middle of sentences. Tim Vickers 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy in Canada 

message: Article states:
Systematic reviews conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for ….. dementia,[6
Source says:McCarney R, Warner J, Fisher P, Van Haselen R (2003). "Homeopathy for dementia". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD003803
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia. The extent of homeopathic prescribing for people with dementia is not clear and so it is difficult to comment on the importance of conducting trials in this area. 
I think that this is a mistake since the source  does not  really support its sentence.
So I will edit it, I m thinking of removing the word dementia for now.  Any objections? Best to all. --Sm565 03:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "absence of evidence" => "found no evidence". Sounds like an accurate paraphrase to me. --Art Carlson 07:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Art Carlson is right. The McCarney et al. found no evidence that supports the contention that homeopathy helps dementia, thus this is the same thing as "absence of evidence". An absence of something means that something isn't there. It wasn't found. This doesn't mean that Homeopathy doesn't help dementia, It just means that the studies found no evidence that it does. Which is what the article says. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that we should change the wording to read "Evidence was found that homeopathy is not beneficial" for the other conditions listed? --Art Carlson 16:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources Interpretation #2 

message: Homeopathy (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek, ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine with metaphysical underpinnings, first elaborated in the eighteenth century, widely popular in the nineteenth century, decreasingly popular in the twentieth century, and still maintaining a following today, though among just a small minority.  
It has been widely and vigorously  criticized by scientists as baseless and ineffective.
Homeopathy is based on a vitalist philosophy, which sees the underlying causes of sickness as imbalances in a hypothetical vital force.  
The remedies are formulated to "treat like with like": substances are chosen which, in large quantities, would cause symptoms similar to those of a presenting illness, but are then administered in extremely diluted form.  
In fact, in many common homeopathic dilutions no molecules of the original substance are likely to remain, a fact which is central to criticism of the tradition by physical and biological scientists.
Homeopathy was first conceived in the late 18th century by German physician Samuel Hahnemann, who noted some similarity of the symptoms created by giving undiluted cinchona bark extract to healthy individuals, to those of malaria (which the bark was conventionally used to treat). 
Hahnemann concluded that, to be effective, a drug must produce the same sorts of symptoms in healthy individuals as those experienced by the patient with the illness that the drug is supposed  to treat.  
From this reasoning, a series of substances were selected whose administration created symptoms in patients similar to those they were suffering from.  
The original substance is then repeatedly diluted, and, at each stage of the dilution, the solution is shaken.  
Finished homeopathic remedies contain few or even no molecules of the original substance, but homeopaths contend that the shaking causes an imprint (or "memory") of the diluted substance upon the vehicle (the diluting water or alcohol itself).  
Proponents of homeopathy claim that homeopathic treatments can harmonize and re-balance a theorized vital force in the body, thus restoring health. 
Claims for the medical efficacy of homeopathic treatments, however, have been roundly rejected as unsupported by the collected weight of scientific and clinical studies. 
Homeopathic philosophy has been characterized as strikingly at odds with the laws of chemistry and physics, since it postulates that extreme dilution actually makes drugs more powerful (by enhancing, homeopaths believe, their "spirit-like medicinal powers"Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann's "Organon Of Medicine" translated by Dudgeon Fifth Edition § 269).  
Scientists have asserted that there is no evidence of water or alcohol retaining any sort of imprint of a substance that was once dissolved in it, and that any positive effects of homeopathic treatments must be due simply to the placebo effect. 
Furthermore, some health advocates have accused homeopathic practitioners of giving false hope to patients who might otherwise seek conventional treatments that have withstood testing by the scientific method. 
Many have pointed to meta-analyses which — they contend — confirm the fact that any benefits of the medicine are due to the placebo effect; they have criticized apparently positive studies of homeopathy as being flawed in design.  
These findings, they say — along with the common practice of homeopaths to proscribe their patients from receiving conventional medical treatments for a given malady while being treated for it with homeopathy — argue for labeling homeopathy as a brand of quackery whose use might ultimately even endanger the patient's health.
Friarslantern 20:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a straw man description of homeopathy. Whig 20:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain! This statement makes no sense to me. Friarslantern 21:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This LEAD is much much too long and has way too much detail. I also think it does not succinctly describe the main points. --Filll 23:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this version much better. It seems to be fair. I am still reading about homeopathy in order to better understand it, so I cannot vouch for its accuracy in all parts. Whig 08:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents 

message: Article states:
Systematic reviews conducted by other researchers found no evidence that homeopathy is beneficial for osteoarthritis,[7]
Source says:
The authors conclude that the small number of randomized clinical trials conducted to date, although favoring homeopathic treatment, do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.
So the article should state the exacts findings: 
Studies have shown that although favoring homeopathic treatment, the study does not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis. The clinical evidence appears promising, however, and more research into this area seems warranted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, let's just cut the damn thing. Adam Cuerden talk 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References interpretation  #3 

message: Dr Peter Fisher MA MB BChir FRCP FFHom is a Cambridge medical graduate and Physician to the Queen since 2001. To say he is not a scientist is to say a medical degree from Cambridge is not a science degree. Please amend or retract your comment. thank you Peter morrell 06:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the dispute about here? What would solve it? Please clarify in brief explanations what exactly the dispute is. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't encourage the trolls. Adam Cuerden talk 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one comment Adam: Peter, this shows you to be the either utterly nonserious or seriously confuddled, "Nor does anybody know what the shaking does."  This, "...who really cares what scientists think?" speaks to the very ignorance you accuse others of.  Yes, Peter, if it will make you happy, all existence and reality is just a metaphysical playground and via modern day alchemy we can find the truth.  •Jim62sch• 16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: It seems there are three actual separate issues confused above.
:* The description of homeopathy is one thing. There are descriptions of how homeopathists see it, and descriptions of how scientists see it, and so on. These are all descriptions. A description of homeopathy is going to draw on multiple views. It will describe what it is, and its concepts, structures and processes and so on, but without saying any given item is "true" or "not true" on either side. It describes.
:* However, when it comes to the validation and verification aspects of homeopathy, then the main view is science, since scientific testing methodologies carry significantly more weight than other methodologies. In this area, one has to reflect the balance that the bulk of reliable sources on testing of homeopathy are those conducted by scientists.
:* Likewise discussion of the theoretical basis of homeopathy is also predominantly the realm of science, which has a very good uunderstanding how molecules and reactions work. The reliable sources for theoretical underpinnings and comments on its "making sense" are predominantly going to be scientific ones. Alternative views how the world works may be notable, but are given less weight in this question.
In this manner, we can construct an article that fairly reflects both sides of a debate, with due weight.
Hope that helps.
FT2 (Talk | email) 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Of course I've been saying this for months. The article currently reflects this. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikidudeman, I am new to editing this article, but I do not agree with you that the article is anywhere near NPOV at present. That there is an obvious NPOV dispute cannot be unknown to you. Your defensive statements that the article is presently wonderful are not helpful. Whig 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should read WP:NPOV if you're a new editor.  This article is relatively close to NPOV, considering how much Pseudoscience is expressed in this article.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a new editor. Thanks. Whig 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view: Homeopathy and neutrality 

message: The lead has excessive white-space and most articles I'm aware of don't have that. Could someone please get rid of the extra whitespace Separating paragraphs in the lead? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format lead please 

message: Homeopathy isn't controversial, nor is it a form of 'alternative medicine'.  It has been debunked scientifically since it's inception, with the best in the publication 'The Memory of Water' which outlined homeopathic principles and their inherent impossibility as well as backing it up with empirically measured statistics.  To give credence by using terms such as controversial, or alternative medicine, would be the equivilent of adding weasel working to say, Fairies stating that some people don't believe in them, thus indicating others do.  The desperate, the profiteering, and the poorly educated are the only people who believe in alternative medicines.  This should be addressed in this article most thoroughly.  Jachin 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something has been debunked doesn't mean it's not an alternative medicine or isn't controversial. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quackery

message: This is a straight question, and I hope not an absurd one.
I know from my own experience that the practise of chiropractic has changed substantially in the last 30 years.  (I do not know if this is true of all chiropractors, very likely not, but it is certainly true of some.)
Chiropractic at its best is much different than it used to be.  
I'm wondering if something comparable can be said for homeopathy.  Are the work and the views of Samuel Hahnemann, about 200 years ago, a fair representation of the views and practises of modern day homeopathists?  Wanderer57 22:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we cannot really say what the views of homeopaths are as a single entity, only what certain homeopathic practitioners have said. Obviously, Hahnemann is a primary source, but later practitioners should also be cited. Whig 22:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Question 

message: Sorry for taking so much space - I have to summurize.  
The scientific community asserts …….that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect.[7][13][8][9]  not only it is not supported by the references but the references themselves indicate that there is no consensus in the scientific community;  furthemore there is clear evidence that a signifignat part of the scientific community strongly disagrees . 
Therefore  “The scientific community asserts” at the second part of the sentence  should be replaced with “Many scientists assert that any positive effects of homeopathic treatment are simply a placebo effect…..and others believe that Homeopathy treatment has an effect over and above placebo.
What I m suggesting is consistent with what the already cited references use: many,some... others. 
Here are all the sourses the editor(s) have used. 
1. The source is not related with the sentence about scientifc consesus and it is one study only. 
CONCLUSION: Trials of complementary therapies often have relevant methodological weaknesses. The type of weaknesses varies considerably across interventions.
2. Here it says many ....not the scientific community. 
Many medical doctors and scientists do not generally accept homeopathy because its claims have not been verified to the standards of modern medicine and scientific method. Some scientists argue that homeopathy cannot work because the remedies used are so highly diluted that in many there can be none of the active substance remaining.
Supporters of homeopathy counter the scientific arguments with claims for a high success rates in babies, infants, and animals. Others argue that much of the research conducted into the effectiveness of homeopathy is not representative of routine homeopathic practice and that homeopathic treatment cannot be properly tested through standard clinical means.
3. The Lancet article is criticized for being selective to discredit Homeopathy by another well-known institution, which belongs also to scientific community. One study again Not consensus again.  
4. It is obvious that there is not consensus on Homeopathy according to this statement. 
The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been 
contradictory".....
In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. Two groups of authors listed in Appendix II found some positive evidence in the groups of studies they examined, and they did not find this evidence to be explainable completely as placebo effects (a third group found 1 out of 16 trials to have some added effect relative to placebo). Each author or group of authors criticized the quality of evidence in the studies. --Sm565 03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You still fail to understand the meaning of scientific consensus. Adam Cuerden talk 03:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the term [[Scientific community]] used in the article (intro) is not supported