Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 9

message: Yes Midgley, but I know what my colleagues in basic science say about clinical science too, (and probably vice versa). Polite is good, after all we might just be wrong, and if we're right, what does it cost us to be reasonable? Maybe it costs us credibility if we're not, or are not seen to be. It seems to me that it should be in the interests of all parties that this article is seen to be fair. These articles must not be a platform for advocacy, and if they are seen to draw conclusions for the reader then they insult the reader's ability to draw conclusions for himself or herself. So Leifern and anyone else, please be specific, what will it take to get rid of this tag, because from where I stand, it seems that some think the article is POV because it doesn't indulge homeopathy's claims and some think it's POV because it doesn't damn them. While this tag is there it's an open invitation to make mischief; get rid of it and we have something to legitimately defend. Leifern, you don't like the balance of the Science section, please follow the tags, the balance is there, in reach. Personally I don't think that the way forward is to see more studies cited in the text because then we get into a cycle of which should be chosen, and how many is a fair balance, and what's wrong with them; the consensus is obvious, at present the data haven't convinced most medics and scientists yet at least, here's the biggest and most recent analysis that has informed the consensus view of medics and scientists, and here are the links if you want to see the data and the other side for yourself.Gleng 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Midgley 02:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ad Absurdum

message: I'm not sure it is really correct to say that the vast majority of the scientific community considers homeopathy pseudoscience.  I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't give much thought to homeopathy at all, or really know what it is. elizmr 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what I'd call a pseudofact. :-) --Lee Hunter 02:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moshe--do you feel really strongly that this word has to stay in?  elizmr 04:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd guess it's more likely that there are no such formal declarations.  Reputable scientific organizations don't feel a need to issue official reports that Ouija boards don't work or that Uri Geller can't bend spoons or whatever.  It's clear that homeopathy is not accepted by the scientific establishment. JamesMLane t c 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinions expressed by Randi are well taken, but I dont' think the BBC link is a reference which justifies saying that the entire community of science considers homeopathy to be "pseudoscience".  I agree with Gleng that "pseudoscience" it is a derog. term and thus can't be considered NPOV. I think what MOshe probably wants to say is that homeopathy hasn't been demonstrated to be effecive in double blind randominzed controlled trials.  Can't we say this without using derog language?  Also, as a medical practice, we need to realize that we probably shouldn't hold homeopathy to higher standards than we hold anything else that medical professionals do.  As authors of this article, we should probably realize that much of what is done by the medical community isn't based on the gold standard of double blind randomized controlled trials, but rather based on what the existing evidence would support at a given point in time along with the aim to do no harm.  A good case in point is the widespread use of hormone replacement therapy which was done based on observational studies.  When the randominzed trials finally came out and did not confirm the observational data the practice was largely stopped.  Mch of what surgeons do is not based on randomized trials at all.  This doesn't mean that there's pseudoscience or quackery being done, it just means that docs are doing the best they can based on available evidence.  We need to give homeopathy the benefit of the doubt when writing this article.  elizmr 15:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree strongly with Gleng that "pseudoscience" can't be used without negative conotations.  At the same time, I would say that a bald description of homeopathy--using remedies that don't contain any substance, giving sick people something that makes well people similarly sick--screams pseudoscience and it is not necessary to use the actual word to get that point across.  However, and (I don't mean to be insulting by saying this) it is a little facile to call something "pseudoscience" to be dismissive of it without really knowing all that much about it.  Hahnemann actually followed some pretty scientific principles of hypothesis, testing hypothesis, observation of results, as he developed homeopathy.  I think it is more exact and accurate to say that the MECHANISM of homeopathy is biologically implausible than to use the label "pseudoscience".  elizmr 15:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no. Remeber many homeopaths accept there is no plausible mechanism. While some suggested mechanisms are clearly pseudoscience others (such as god did it) don't really pretend to be science.01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you for or against the use of the word "pseudoscience" to refer to homeopathy?  I'm arguing that we should not use it.  elizmr 02:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homeopathy per say no. Just as we wouldn't lable Church of England as pseudoscience. However if we deal with some of the proposed mechanisms then yes the word pseudoscience should be used.Geni 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homeopathy WAS developed through trial and error, not revelation.  I'm not sure what sources you are consulting to support your claims.  elizmr 14:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: I'm not sure what is wrong with saying that homeopathy doesn't "currently" meet standards of EBM.  It doesn't imply that it ever will or ever will not.  I have a problem with such a final sounding pronouncement in the lead, especially since homeopathy is difficult to study in rcts given the individualized nature of the treatment. Jeffrie, I see your user page says that you are a scientist, but really with all due respect being a biologist does not mean that you are the final arbitor here on Wikipedia of all biomedical scientific matters.   This is a group project: a collaboration.  Would you be ok with this if we said that homeopathy has only been recently studied using rcts, that it doesn't meet standards currently, and it may or may not in the future?  From my point of view, this is more a reflection of the actual state of the knowledge on homeopathy.  elizmr 15:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is my opinion that the use of the word 'currently' implies to the average reader that it may only a matter of time until homeopathy is proven. This may well be true, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is a redundant weasel word which doesn't add anything to the article. I also don't believe I've ever claimed to be the final arbitar on biomedical matters, nor the be disrespectful of the consensus. Jefffire 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: J--what do you think of the sentence written above?  elizmr 00:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jefffire 18:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  currently 

message: It is a lie that "the law of similars is based on Hahnemann's observation". His observation was that he experienced paroxysms of fever after intaking the drug, nothing more. The law of similars is an erroneous interpretation of this observation. The falsity of this interpretation is demonstrated by the facts adduced in my version. You obstinately remove the facts from the text; why? Because the word observation creates an impression that homoeopathy is rooted in facts; you intentionally try to deceive the reader.  
Aegeis 20:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hahnemann's Cinchona proving 

message: Aegeis--please try to assume that all the editors who are working here are doing so in good faith.  I doubt anyone is trying to deceive anyone by what they are writing.  There is no reason to insult other editors intentions.  elizmr 01:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assuming good faith 

message: While Hahnemann introduced these late in his life I'm pretty sure they were not a post Hahnemann invention.Geni 00:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LM potencies

message: (This is re the April 28 edit appearing under an IP number - I forgot to log in)
I was surprised to see the tag removed when people on both sides of the debate regularly comment that this article is biased or contains errors.
Right from the beginning: "Although homeopathy is reported to be growing in popularity..." - no one in the world will dispute that it is growing in popularity so why the tentativeness (unless we're willing to say that "homeopathy is reported/believed not to conform to scientific standards..."!)?
The science section is a total sham. No positive studies or the several comrehensive meta-analyses (published in Lancet and BMJ, no less) reporting positive or ambigious results are mentioned. The Lancet article is totaly misrepresented: it is not the largest meta-analysis at all because its results are not based on 110+110 studies but on 6+8 studies (please read the article rather than a press release before reporting on it) and, crucially, which are the studies used from among the 110/100 is not reported!
"There is scientific agreement that evidence based medicine should be used in healthcare and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential" is simply incorrect: there is no such agreement! This is a policy-line and the advertised image of medicine as a homogeneous entity, but not reality.
The AMA quote doesn't address homeopathy but a heterogeneous group of therapies and is compatible with any situation in which homeopathy has evidence for it yet at lease one therapy doesn't (that the meaning of "most" in my understanding, it's different from "all"). So the quote is inappropriate to this context.
The Regulatory Decisions section is totally out-of-context and irrelevant to the article (unless one is willing actually to report about homeopathic regulation in a comprehensive way) but no one seems to notice that because it has the "right" bias.
The above is a sufficient sampling. I don't have the energy to debate homeopathy unless others are willing to apply the same criteria to both sides of the debate and actually educate themselves about this complex subject-matter before contributing to the article (as opposed to discussion, which is fine). But minimally the tag should remain as you ought to consider the consensus of those who may not be online in eternal vigilance yet have clearly expressed their disagreement with the article in its present state.Davidnortman 09:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the positive studies do not use strict enough scientific protocols so they can't be included in such a way as to suggest they are valid compared to the Lancet study. Jefffire 09:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Only the highest quality studies should be included, both positive and negative. Selection must be very careful in such a controversial area though. Jefffire 09:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depend on exacly how you define homeopathy there are 2-3 high quality studies into homeopathy. They all came out negative. Your 5-10 claim is false.Geni 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Table 3 does not offer (or purport to offer) a comparison of homeopathy with conventional medicine. It rather offers evidence for the claim that in homeopathy trials various measures (e.g. English vs. foreign-language, MEDLINE vs not, etc.) had a greater influence on homeopathy than conventional-medicine trials - the authors intention is to argue that the current homeopathic literature is more sensitive to bias due to such factors than are conventional-medicine trials; that's all - nothing there about comparative efficacy. The statistical comparison on which the authors based their conclusion re efficacy is based strictly on an unknown (because unreported) subset of 8 homeopathy and 6 non-homeopathy trials - as stated in the article summary as well as later within the body. I should mention also that the whole process of meta-analysis relies on homogeneity so "110 [representative] trials of conventional medicine" is a fiction, but this can be dismissed as private criticism. Within the article is also this interesting sentence: "For example, for the eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract that were included in our sample, the pooled effect indicated a substantial beneficial effect (odds ratio 0·36 [95% CI 0·26–0·50]) and there was neither convincing evidence of funnel-plot asymmetry nor evidence that the effect differed between the trial classified as of higher reported quality and the remaining trials. Such sensitivity  analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works." In short, claiming that this article is the most comrehensive meta-analysis, or that its conclusions are uniformly negative, is simply incorrect once the article is read. This article is worthy of inclusion simply because it was published in a prominent journal; but then so are the positive ones such as Reilly DT et al. "Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?" Lancet 1994;344:1601-06 and the accompanying editorial "Reilly's challenge" (p. 1585) - the first is a superb study in every respect (based my own subjective estimation plus the fact that it has not been subject to substantive criticism over the years) and the latter an honest editorial suggesting that the results are equally a challenge to trial methodology (if one does not accept the data as evidence for homeopathy) as they are in favor of homeopathy (if one accepts the conclusions). This subtlety of the data was reflected in the long-ago version of the science section but is completely missing from the present version.Davidnortman 13:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting defintion of homeopathy you are useing there. "Is evidence for homoeopathy reproducible?" tests isopathy not homeopathy. In any case the studies were not equiverlent so the reporducibilty question is imposible to answer from the data and there are questions over how many of the paincents had the supposed illness.Geni 13:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Davidnortman I think misrepresents the Lancet paper, and I quote from the discussion "We compared the effects of homoeopathy and conventional medicine that are seen in placebo-controlled trials, examined the presence of bias resulting from inadequate methods and selective publication, and estimated results in trials least affected by these biases. We assumed that the effects observed in placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy could be explained by a combination of methodological deficiencies and biased reporting. Conversely, we postulated that the same biases could not explain the effects observed in comparable placebo-controlled trials of conventional medicine. Our results confirm these hypotheses: when analyses were restricted to large trials of higher quality there was no convincing evidence that homoeopathy was superior to placebo, whereas for conventional medicine an important effect remained. Our results thus provide support for the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy, but not those of conventional medicine, are unspecific placebo or context effects."
Reilly is indeed a good researcher who elsewhere (in the BMJ) endorses the evidence based principles. Quoting him and others,
"If we are to ...combine the best of conventional medicine and complementary and alternative medicine in order to provide an informed choice for our patients, then it must be research led and evidence based"
However it is not true that his 1994 Lancet paper has gone unchallenged - the BMJ has published a failure to replicate his findings, and an accompanying editorial (BMJ 2002;324:498-499) editorial "Randomised controlled trials for homoeopathy". Quoting from that editorial, "The study by Lewith and colleagues (p 520) in this issue joins the pool of good quality placebo controlled trials and no doubt will take its place in the next meta-analysis.3 It is a negative trial in patients with asthma, showing no difference in lung function or their asthma-specific quality of life between those treated with placebo and those who received ultradiluted allergen. It is a test of isopathy (the use of homoeopathically prepared allergens to treat allergies), not a test of homoeopathy as such. The study was designed to replicate a previous trial by Reilly et al using the same intervention.4 The main differences between this and previous trials are the outcome measures and duration of treatment, which may account for the different result, although chance is another explanation."
Gleng 14:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Re Lancet 2005 trial: Nothing in the quote above talks about comparing 110 with 110 trials, and indeed there is no such statistical comparison presented in the paper. Note the authors' strange methodology: presuming that positive effects of homeopathy could be due to various biases/deficiencies, and then selecting quality criteria that will confirm that bias. But this is post-hoc reasoning; in any case (I won't pursue this point further here), this is what Table 3 refers to. I repeat that there is no statistical comparison of 110 vs 110 trials, and of course based on the above one can conclude that before the filtering down to 6+8 trials there was no difference (otherwise why was the filtering done in the first place?). In other words, the study begins with the claim that homeopathy appears to show a positive effect based on collected trials, yet that this effect could be due to biases that, once dealt with, leave only a handful or two of studies, which are then statistically analyzed. So again, insofar as this is a comparison of 110 and 110 trials we can only infer that there is no difference between the two groups; whereas the negative result for homeopathy emerges only subsequent to filtering, and is based strictly on the final subset. Under different filtering, as the authors themselves admit, at least one subgroup analysis shows positive results, but it is assumed (not demostrated) that those results are due to bias (because this is the starting assumption - I'm still scratching my head trying to understand how one can assume one's conclusion. / Re Reilly: By not being challenged I meant that it was not shot down as a bad paper, so the result stands for what it is: one unimpeachable positive study for homeopathy. Repeatability is another issue - (without remembering the details of that study or having in on-hand right now): The quote given above admits that different outcome measures were used, so how can the authors claim "failure to replicate" the findings? It should rather be considered a different study unless successfully argued that it is a replication (which it may well be); but this cannot be done by fiat.Davidnortman 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Davidnortman's remarks above.  elizmr 22:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand the authors' intentions and agree that they are those which you state. But the method of meta-analysis cannot be used automatically on a heterogeneous set of studies, and both sets in this study are highly heterogeneous - clearly the conventional medicine set which lumps together a huge variety of phenomena, but also the homeopathy set which lumps together several types of homeopathy. Furthermore, how can they compare 110 out of about 150-200 trials in the case of homeopathy, and 110 out of hundreds of thousands of trials in the case of conventional medicine? - Do you really think that the nature of the subgroups is equivalent? I rather think that this needs to be demonstrated. It may be that sensitivity to sample size, language of publication, etc. is greater in the homeopathy group simply because 110 best trials out of 200 is a worse-quality sample than the best 110 out of (say) 500,000? In other words, for every trial of homeopathy the matched trial of conventional medicine is expected to be of higher quality because the pool from which it is drawn is several magnitudes bigger. But beyond this fundamental issue, the authors do not explain why they chose the bias criteria that they did: For instance, does it matter whether a study was published in German rather than English? - It may well be that the better studies in homeopathy are done in Germany and not elsewhere. Are larger studies necessarily better than smaller ones? - No, we can look at P values as measures of reliability regardless of study size. In short, no justification is given for these selections. Other criticisms include: exclusion criteria for studies: "The commonest reasons for exclusion were insufficient information (precluding the calculation of odds ratios), ineligible study design, multiple publication, and inability to identify a matching trial of conventional medicine" - but what if any one of those criteria actually excludes better-quality homeopathy trials? Finally, the results could be interpreted in more than one way, one of which is that there is an insufficient sample size for making any conclusions about homeopathy; this is because the odds ratio for homeopathy was significantly below 1 (i.e. indicating an effect above placebo), it is just that the confidence interval was wide enough to envelop also the 1 (indicating no difference from placebo). But the difference in confidence interval might simply be due to the aforementioned difference in pool from which to draw the 110 studies on each side - this possibility was not excluded and cannot be, based on the provided data. In short, there is too much unexplained, possibly ad/post-hoc reasoning in this paper to read much clearly out of it. There is much room for error when starting with 500,000 studies and anding up with 6 - the room for random fluctuation (i.e. that these 6 studies are not representative of conventional medicine) is massive, and likewise (but to a smaller extent) for the 8 out of 200-or-so pool of homeopathy studies. To claim that this paper is somehow definitive is to be naive about the nature of statistics; maybe it doesn't suck as much as I think it does, but it certainly is not immune to serious methodological criticism, most of it extractable straight from textbooks of meta-analysis! Plug in crooked data and you will get crooked output, no matter how precise-looking - meta-analysis is a double-edged sword that we are still learning how to wield. You yourself state that you don't know of another comparative large study of this sort; if so, then how can this unusual design be used presumptively, without having undergone testing to see whether it tends to produce valid results?Davidnortman 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The format you are proposing is precisely the one that existed and to which I tried to revert to previously. Mostly meta-anlyses are referenced, as they act like secondary sources in pooling and discussing primary studies; I continue to disagree with your use of Cochrance/Bandolier summaries because they are no more readable than the original and are do not adequately cover the complete homeopathic literature. Just like the current version, that version was based on consensus over time, but unlike the current version it successfully presented both sides of the debate, however imperfectly. The current version is problematic almost throughout, and my proposed solution is to revert to the aforementioned version and take it from there. I am not prepared to argue my points one-by-one again - all this has already been done. (My underlying claim is that this article has degenerated after reaching a fairly good state, and the mere fact that this degeneration took place by consensus doesn't sanctify the present version, because it is largely based on distortions of previous material and removal of relevant material - what suggests to me that it was done by those who are not knowledgeable about the subject-matter. Theory of chronic disease is totally gone even though it is more peculiar to and characteristic of homeopathy than either the law of similars or minimum dose (and Hahnemann wrote Chronic Diseases besides the Organon); the miasms section (pretty much the only section outside of the science secion with new material in it) is a product of Aegis's infamous scholarship; etc.)Davidnortman 19:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I know it's not your version, but my point is that there is complacency on your and others' part in accepting an obviously skewed version when it fits your collective prior belief, and extreme criticism of any version that actually rings of neutrality. The consensus you are referring to (which you imply is normative in some sense) is merely the consensus of the skeptics that happen to be dominating this article.Davidnortman 07:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I apologize for sounding offensive, but my record shows a consistent tolerance of and incorporation of opposing views in my own contributions (see October 2005 history and back). I do not doubt your intentions of those of all but a couple of recent contributors, but competence remains an issue, in that it takes more than a casual acquaintance with homeopathy in order to contribute to an article on it. I have, for example, suggested that your search through Cochrance/Bandolier is inadequate because the databases are not comprehensive and emphasize clinically relevant studies (whereas as I discussed above a clinical study can also be used to produce a clinically irrelevant yet statistically significant result, which is relevant data in the debate). Nevertheless, the issue is not the contribution per se (which is constructive) but the presumption that that is all there is to it to the topic - that an Internet search is sufficient. Regarldess, the science section departs from your very statements about how the article should be, as it does not report the consensus properly (as mentioned above the AMA quote is inappropriate as it does not address homeopathy specifically and thus serves rhetorical purpose only), reports selectively on some obscure regulatory decision (out of, certainly, dozens around the world), fails to report on several positive, highest-quality studies, and leaves unmentioned the fact that there is a multidisciplinary reserach program investigating possible mechanisms of action, the existence of which at the very least should be reported (which does not, as some have claimed, automatically imply to the reader that there is a real effect involved). All these features were present in the previous version which suggested that despite a scientific consensus against homeopathy (a consensus which is built on the demand for conclusive proof) the actual data (which definitely do not represent conclusive proof but do demonstrate anomalies that have to be addressed) is somewhat more ambiguous, and informs a live scientific debate within the actual community of scientists, as seen in actual mainstream scientific journals.Davidnortman 10:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second every statement in Davidnortman's well-written and lucid note above.  elizmr 17:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and factual accuracy tag

message: "Homeopathic physicians are licensed to practice medicine in most countries of the world"
Please provide evidence that at least 97 countries have lisenced homeopathic physicians that are allowed to practice medicine.
"including such countries as the USA, England, France, Germany, Holland, and Switzerland."
Your souce does not mention t heUSA or Switzerland. There is no such thing as a licensed homeopathic physician in the uk. There are various private organiseations that keep lists but homopath is not a protected title.
"There are eight medical schools in France with post graduate courses leading to specialization in homeopathy."
We have a homeopathy around the world section already. Please use it.Geni 01:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no "licensed" homeopathic physician in the whole of EU, unlike real MDs. So I'm leaning towards that list being entirely made up. --Denoir 06:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hgilbert's edits

message: I have seen much more wholesale reverting on this page than others I have been involved with.  It seems kind of rude when someone has worked on a few edits to just do away with them.  Quite honestly, the world is not going to come to an end if this Wikipedia page has something that some of us don't agree with for a certain period of time.  Could we consider building on stuff people have added, trying to improve on it, or moving it to a better section rather than just reverting?  Could we consider objecting to an edit on the talk page rather than reverting?  elizmr 01:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing attitudes

message: It seems disingeneous to imply that the AMA statement is not intended to be applicable to homeopathy and to other alternative medicines. The body of the report discusses homeopathy specifically in the following terms, before drawing its conclusions:
"While most homeopathic remedies are not known to have harmed anyone (probably because of the extreme dilutions involved), the efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven. Some think it a placebo effect, augmented by the concern expressed by the healer; others propose new theories based on quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy.
A randomized clinical trial of homeopathic remedies has been touted as showing the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments in childhood diarrhea.20 However, 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.21"
The AMA statement, a policy statement adopted by the membership oof the AMA, is eviidence of the establishment view of the medical professon about homeopathy. This is why it is there. At present the science section is remarkably concise, civil, and restrained. Certainly add to it studies that you think are particularly notable; but if the impression is given by selection of citations that there is more than minority scientific support for the claims of homeopathy, then I would expect that many editors would expect to redress the balance by adding many examples of rigorous studiesGleng 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above portion is far more appropriate than the present one, and more informative, so I have no problem with it. I think it also shows the weakness of its own methodology: quoting one positive study (to show that there has been an effort at proving efficacy), discrediting it, at leaving it at that - as though there are no other studies on record. / I think that you and perhaps others are associating evidence with scientific support too strongly: from the fact that there are several high-quality studies of homeopathy that are not easily criticized on internal, methodological grounds [this is both a premise of the following and an alleged statement of fact] it does not follow that they cannot be criticized on external grounds such as lack of mechanistic support, being part of a research enterprise allegedly shown to be susceptible ot various biases, absence of reproduction, etc. A proper presentation of the debate, then, begins with a balanced, about 1:1 presentation of positive and negative data (roughly mirroring the relative number of good positive and negative studies counting meta-analyses), followed by commentary concerning the above 'external' factors, including the Lancet 2005 paper, the AMA quote, etc. but also some references to mechanism-of-action studies (in reply to the "there's no mechanism" criticism). This will explose the dialectical nature of the ongoing debate, without in any way privileging homeopathy - the experimental evidence is far too tentative to be the determining factor in people's beliefs for or against homeopathy. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who based his beliefs about homeopathy on the experimental evidence - everyone's decision-making takes place within a far larger sphere (personal experience, metaphysical beliefs, view of science, temperament, etc.). Incidentally this very idea was expressed in the subsection "the status quo" of the previous incarnation of the section, which stated that neither side was likely to be swayed by the evidence in its present state.Davidnortman 19:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science, AMA statement etc.

message: American Council on Science and Health states that
I am removing the pseudoscience category.
:Firstly, this one article writen by one man who appears to be quite biased on the issue. This is not official policy.
:Secondly, it is disputed. He is talking out of his ass.
:Thirdly there is a difference between ineffectiveness and pseudoscience. If homeopathy does work it is still a pseudoscience. Check the definitions of the words. Jefffire 12:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a diference between an indivial article and an official statement. Additionally even if homeopathy were to be shown to work, it would still be a pseudoscience. Furthermore, this single article couldn't in any way be used as a justification for overruling all other opinions on the maker. Please read the definition of pseudoscience before trying to make this point again. Your point about the bumble-bee is a pretty weak straw man attack. Noone has ever said bubblebee can't fly, only that they use principals different to aeronautics. Jefffire 19:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is undisputed that homeopathy in the area of stronger potency can achieve effects pharmacologically and toxicologically.
as the ACSH website does say, most people would call that scientific proof. Can we have some more editors contribute their say? (Note that the case for homeopathy is not limited to this citation; I have cited other journal articles that also support its efficacy and noted that it is taught in 8 French medical schools as a professional specialty.)Hgilbert 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It is possible to say anything about homeopathy, that doesn't make it right. One single article does not overturn the scientific consensus. Please read the article on science for clarification of why you are incorrect. Jefffire 08:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "It is undisputed that homeopathy in the area of stronger potency can achieve effects pharmacologically and toxicologically."
Of course! With a measurable amount of ingredients, it can have pharmacological and toxicological effects. It's not even homeopathic.
Hgilbert will have to do better than desperately grabbing at (the only available) straws that turn out to mean the oppositie of what he thought.
Homeopathy is not only a pseudoscience, it is a test of the ability of a person to think logically or not.
Dr. Ramey's close partner in anti-quackery efforts (homeopathy is as quacky as it comes), is another veterinarian, Dr. Robert Imrie, who has compiled the following list:
*Homeopathic Research
For more:
*HomeoLinks
-- Fyslee 17:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidently the story that "physics proves the bumblebee can't fly" is just that, a story. If I remember correctly Mr. Physics (or Andre Sainte-Lague) failed to take into account that the bee's wings are mobile vice fixed. A non-sequitor in homeopathy, for sure; it just bugs me when urban myths are used as part of an argument, erm, dialetic. I know that's POV, but if this urban myth/straw man tactic isn't nipped in the bud, pretty soon it will be said that George Washington was to tell a lie about the illegal logging of local cherry trees.    Modusoperandi 07:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Modus.  I think the bumblebee story could have its own article.  Or just place it with urban myths.  Its even used in some anti-science literatures.  Its just an excuse that is used as a scientific soundlike coverup.  Hylas Chung 10:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Every so often, I feel compelled, despite my better judgement, to say something on this page. Why does homeopathy need to be proven to have a page on Wikipedia, that is free from all this POV, heated argument, regular impasse etc.? I see no way forward if it cannot be agreed to have a simple, low-key, explanatory article on the page, stating the rationale that Hahnemann and followers have used, without either supporting or contradicting that rationale. I would be happy to write one, as I've said several times. There need be no promotion or support of homeopathy nor this determined onslaught. A worthwhile article can be written WITHOUT claims of efficacy. I bet there are hundreds of articles on WP, which explain something that has no basis in modern science (as we know it). :-) :-) :-) - Ballista 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACSH presentation