Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 12

message: New outline on homeopathy and classical homeopathy
Please add your editions in these versions --Homy 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homy outline 

message: Whoever added in these references as part of the criticism of the 2005 Lancet meta-analysis, you should be ashamed of yourself. Did you even read them?
* Volume 11, Number 5, 2005, pp. 759–761; THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. A “Maddox Effect”? A Reason to Adopt Time Series Protocols in Tests of Homeopathic Remedies ALEX HANKEY, Ph.D.
This article doesn't even MENTION the Lancet study, and that's still better than the second one:
*Out of step with the Lancet homeopathy meta-analysis: more objections than objectivity?
I would love to hear someone (maybe the person who added it?) explain why an article from 1998 is being used to directly criticize a study from 2005. Did homeopaths invent time travel when I wasn't looking? Or are homopaths so bloody desperate for any scientific voice that they need to deliberately confuse a meta-analysis done in 1997 with the one done in 2005? I know, I know, never attribute to malice what can be attributed to mere ignorance. 
There's no question that I'm removing these references, and I'm also adjusting the text to reflect the due weight that the remaining online, effectively self-published, criticisms should be given. I further recommend that in the absence of any other criticisms that meet basic standards for scientific discourse (i.e. published in a peer-reviewed journal), this section should probably be removed. T.J.C. 03:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic Dishonesty

message: *Homy, if you want to add significant content, please discuss here first.
*Geni, if you don't like a recent edit, stop reverting to much earlier versions that miss out subsequent corrections. Jedermann 11:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wp:bollocks  --Homy 12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BOLLOCKS. Please note the 3rr rule warning I put on your talk page. It'll take a while to report you, so you have plenty of time to revert yourself. Jefffire 12:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version war between Homy and Geni

message: If I can interject here, as I wrote the original wording of the Lancet 2005 study, and as some issues here seem to have come up again and again in the past. The Lancet study is not a conventional meta-analysis; but a novel approach that considered the hypothesis that publication bias leads to an excess reporting of positive results from small trials. The authors analysed 110 trials and 110 matched conventional trials, the drug effects diminished with trial size and rigor in the homeopathy group but not in the conventional medicine group, leading them to conclude that the results are consistent with all the effects of homeopathy being placebo/false positive results. The statement that this is the largest and most rigorous I think came initially from the accompanying Lancet editorial, I'm not sure now, lost in a history of edits and revisions that has introduced distortions.
The study has been widely misunderstood, not surprisingly because it has an unusual approach; one misunderstanding is perpetuated in the present wording (8 trials; not true). 
I think my original wording of this section was:
In August 2005, The Lancet published a meta-analysis of trials of homeopathy, the largest and most rigorous analysis so far, involving 110 placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials . The outcome of this suggested that the clinical effects of homeopathy are likely to be placebo effects. For reactions to this study from homeopaths, see 
’’
I still think that’s all that need or should be said. However in response at different times and different people, the section was expanded to clarify the study (apparently using my account from the Talk pages, but this was edited and errors introduced later.
I think it’s best to see words from the article;in Table 3 of the paper for instance, the legend is: Univariable meta-regression analysis of treatment effects in 110 placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and 110 matched trials of conventional medicine. (The paper also compares the very best studies of which there are relatively few, and that's where the 8 comes from). In 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." 
What I suggest is that any account of the Lancet paper should be firmly based in what the authors actually said, anything else risks OR. We report, we don't interpret
On the Linde study, this is complex as the authors themselves complained subsequently about their findings being misrepresented (by both sides in fact) and they appeared to back off. It might be worth now backtracking citations to that study to see how it has lasted, but I think it has indeed been superceded
Gleng 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well what a useless waste of people's time the whole thing was. Forsure, I for one will not be visiting this article again. Too much bitching over hairsplitting details and too much bile between so-called editors. Count me out. Peter morrell 17:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lancet 2005

message: I propose separating several spin-off articles. I think "Clinical testing of homeopathic treatment" and "History of homeopathy" are good suggestions from earlier. What do people think? TimVickers 20:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I say above, I fully support "History of homeopathy" as a sub-article as it seems a fascinating subject that there is a lot to write about. I have to say that at this time I would recommend any "Clinical testing of homeopathic treatment" for deletion if it were created as based on similar article I have seen, such as "Objective validity of astrology" or "Cold fusion controversy", it would just degenerate into edit wars and/or a PoV fork. On the other hand, "Creation-evolution controversy" seems to work, but it does have a veritable army of dedicated and experienced editors to keep it in line. Jefffire 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a very good rule of a thumb for such splits. Bravada, talk - 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Having suggested 'History', I now think it's too big on its own. What about a number of basic topics to include their own histories? Like 'Homeopathic pharmacy' (manufacture, dosages, forms, table of potency dilutions, Hahnemann's repeated changes in methods, standard pharmacopeias, and some rather remarkable methods of manufacture listed here)? And the article Homeopathic proving is already there but could use material from here about origins and predecessors, how Hahnemann did it, and what has happened since. The head article surely only needs a brief description, and some reference to systematic reviews of recent provings (highly critical). I understand Jeff's caveat about a science section, but it's such a large complex topic. Can I suggest that here it should use only reviews (such as 2 that I posted done by neutral reviewers). The same can be done for basic research - I know at least 3 systematic reviews. Even if you don't accept this, Scientific testing needs a rewrite. It's off-balance with disconnected subheadings and items that belong under higher-level headings given their own section (2006 cancer review, basophil) then a section that tries to explain what EBM is before listing unsytematically chosen reviews. I also don't understand the need for the Vaccination section, some of which belongs under Antivaccinationist. Anyway, there is too much fascinating information waiting to go into satellite articles that won't fit in here. Jedermann 11:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do we go from here?

message: Homeopathy is a complete and utter scam.  how about a section on all of the people who are now dead because they chose to use homeopathy rather than actual medicine to treat their illnesses?  how about a section on the many many studies that have debunked this snake oil treatment?  How about the many suicide attempts made by skeptic organisations around the world where individuals have swallowed entire bottles of homeopathic sleeping pills and other snake oil remedies?  How about statement of the fact that some of the dilution levels claimed by homeopathy are completely impossible to attain?  how about explaining the amount of medical training required to create homeopathic remedies or to dispense them?
This article is completly biased towards the multi-billion dollar snake oil industry. 194.46.231.96 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, 194.46.231.96. Your user Talk adds great weight to your argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194.46.231.96   Jedermann 14:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as your choice to argue via the Ad hominem fallacy adds weight to yours. Is that your best argument? Skeptic Jim 08:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who bothered to read the article beforehand would not aggressively demand things that are already included. And pointing to User:194.46.231.96's astonishing record of WP vandalism and abuse was a warning not an argument, since this is a contentious article that has been repeatedly vandalized. As for me, I'm not in an argument for or against. I would just like proponents and skeptics to respect such facts as can be ascertained in the present state of knowledge, and to improve the quality of the criticism they aim at each other. Jedermann 09:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that was an ad hominem attack regardless.  I didn't read the full article because it's way too long.  But I did read the first three quarters of the introduction and I didn't see anything that in any way suggested that homeopathy is considered to be a pseudoscience, bullshit, snake oil or even unscientific by the scientific community.  When you have a 90k article I think it's unreasonable to assume people will read the entire article Skeptic Jim 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had read ONLY the introduction it would have been clear to you it was a balanced article. I can't understand why you would read the first three quarters of the intro and then stop right before reading the paragraph that starts with the word Critics.  Why did you choose not to read that paragraph? This article is about homeopathy as such it focuses on the practice and history of homeopathy. Why would you expect it to be foremost an exposé of homeopathy? David D. (Talk) 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  one sided article 

message: How do you edit the Topics box at the bottom of the article, where there are a number of errors?
e.g. Anthroposophy should be Anthroposophical Medicine, Toxicology isn't a therapy (probably means Homotoxicology) Jedermann 14:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics box query