Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 24

message: BTW please do not delete my comments
agreed with orangemarlin.  
'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. 
thanks.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete it but moved it the section above where it has the correct context. David D. (Talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry I did not see it.--70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted comment 

message: I thought WP:Be_bold was a policy that applied to all pages, but apparently people who want to push quackery and suppress a factually correct article on the homoeopathy fraud get to create their own rules for this page only, like "don't make any edits whatsoever without posting them on the talk page to be pilloried by people who believe in magic first." Did I miss the announcement of this rule change? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as you see here it is not a  factually correct article. Please read the  sources first and comment. best  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind registering a username? It's tough to keep track of your contributions when your IP changes so frequently. Thanks, Antelan talk 04:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: will do later.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.22 (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Let me know when you get around to it and I'll work with you on making the changes you've suggested above. Antelan talk 05:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Any examples of what you talking about? Given most pro homeopathic changes to the article are reverted within hours if not minutes I'm not sure what you have seen to give you this opinion.  David D. (Talk) 11:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The only edit Randy Blackamoor ever made to this article was , calling homeopathy a fraud in the lead sentence. The definition of fraud involves deliberate deception. As wrong as I believe homeopathy to be, I am also convinced that almost all of its supporters sincerely believe it to be true. An edit like that certainly requires discussion on the talk page under the rules of Wikipedia. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting edit history. David D. (Talk) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Almost? David D. (Talk) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this page have its own rules now? 

message: We have had the assertion on this page that "the article should be 99% against homeopathy" and that is absolutely wrong. It should be 100% neutral, presenting both sides of the controversy without bias. I gave an example of 3 specific studies that indicated results that could not be attributed to placebo effects. The response that I received was that the results of the studies were not as I stated. Yet I copied and pasted directly from the abstracts of those studies. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you do not understand the rules of WP are not a good sign. Please review WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. And according to WP policy, the article can be 99% anti homeopathy. So try to learn first. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it would simplify things if we steer clear of cherry picking on both sides by removing the existing references to specific clinical trial results and focus on accurately describing the meta-analyses.--Trystan (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's basically the point behind Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. There are more than a few studies, some of them of apparently high quality in reputable journals, reporting a positive effect of homeopathy. But it is not our job here to summarize the hundreds of individual studies, i.e. the primary sources. The ideal in Wikipedia is to use secondary sources, in this case meta-analyses. There are only a handful of these, so we should endeaver to fairly present their conclusions. We probably shouldn't discuss any individual studies at all (though that is not an absolute rule). The point about being 100% neutral is one I also made above. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you apply this rule then all the negative studies showing negative they should be removed.I think that they should be included though.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  100% Neutrality 

message: Some premises I think we should agree on:
* Homeopathy is a controversial subject, and the article should give the reader a good introduction to the controversy. This includes a bit of writing for the enemy on both/all sides of the issue.
* It should be clear that dominant view in the medical mainstream community ranges from skeptical to rejectionist. But we have to be careful not project on them all outright hostility.
* Proposed explanations for the way homeopathy work defy known and established laws of physics, and it's therefore safe to say that such explanations ring implausible.
* There are not many golden standard clinical trials available. This is partly due to the protocol for indicating homeopathic remedies; and partly due to the fact that such trials are difficult to finance unless there's intellectual property at stake.
* Those trials that have been completed fall short of a golden standard but show mixed results.
* Several meta studies have been conducted; the most recent ones suggest that a) more study is needed, and b) findings suggest that the effects of homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable for a placebo effect.
* Homeopathic practitioners defend their positions by arguing that...
* Skeptics, on the other hand, argue that...
--Leifern (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that those sounds good on the whole.  The only qualifications I would add are that any discussion about the quality of clinical trials, their findings, or the reasons for the lack of them should be dealt with by reference to the meta-analyses that have been done.  Trying to synthesize conclusions about the research field ventures into original research, and is beyond our capacity here anyway.--Trystan (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some proposed principles and premises to get out of the impasse 

message: So let's recap some of the suggestions and everyone say which one they support. Feel free to support more than one. Let's just add supports and no opposes. If I am missing a version which you would like to add, please do so. This is not a vote, but merely a straw poll to see which versions we should be focusing our energies on. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * support Naturezak (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * support Art Carlson (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * support Unprovoked (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * support Peter morrell 12:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * support Art Carlson (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * support Peter morrell 12:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * support Arion 3x3 (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * support Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: * support Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have another suggestion for phrasing, please add it above. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The second sentence of the article states "[Homeopathy] is a system of medicine that has been in widespread use for the last 200 years, the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories."  which is exactly the idea being cited.--Trystan (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The authors of the study addressed those criticisms in an addendum/letter to the editor. They provided the information as soon as it was asked for and claimed it was an unintentional mistake to leave it out Unprovoked (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What is an imprint? Naturezak (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical term for spirit-like essence. :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical term in what field? And how are you defining "spirit"? Naturezak (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: I'm not sure why incompatibility with pharmaceutics would be at all relevant. Such a compatibility is not claimed, after all. The first half of the statement seems sufficient. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have another suggestion for phrasing, please add it above. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The second sentence of the article states "[Homeopathy] is a system of medicine that has been in widespread use for the last 200 years, the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge and theories."  which is exactly the idea being cited.--Trystan (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The authors of the study addressed those criticisms in an addendum/letter to the editor. They provided the information as soon as it was asked for and claimed it was an unintentional mistake to leave it out Unprovoked (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What is an imprint? Naturezak (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical term for spirit-like essence. :) Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A technical term in what field? And how are you defining "spirit"? Naturezak (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 1.“In proportion to the prominence of each” doesn’t mean or even imply that the supporter’s views ( of the described subject for example, homeopathy ) should not be fully and accurately stated (using notable sources) This could be  equal to censoship and could make the article incomplete. The example of the flat earth does not apply here. 
This is an article on Homeopathy not on  Medicine of which homeopathy could ( or not ) be a branch.The analogue is different.
In an article on Homeopathy the editors must state homeopaths views and then criticize them.Obvious.  The editors could use even more space to include the skeptical view but they should not exclude homeopathic views (the way  they do now)  using the excuse that the article should have a skeptical tone. Nobody can seriously  argue that  views recorded in notable major sources should be excluded in order to give to the article a skeptical tone ( which is by definition  violates the NPOV). 
Arguing all the time that homeopathic views recorded on notable sources  should be excluded in an article on Homeopathy weakens and discredits the skeptical view which is needed in order to make the article balanced, complete. and finally interesting.  Sceptics have many good points -so work on fully  presenting  and even expanding them in the article. Nobody will disagree with with this.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.146.241  (talk • contribs) 
''
2. I thought Art Carlson's comment was helpful in clarifying Wiki policies: Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. 
"great detail" for the subject of the article. "appropriate reference" for the majority view--74.73.146.241 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including Homeoapathic views in the homeopathy article ? + wiki policy 

message: Since you want to change Wikipedia policy, as near as I can determine, you are clearly on the wrong talk page.--Filll (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Readers maybe interested in this new article published today in the UK  showing the UK government's plans to regulate Alt med. It also contains some interesting current data about alt med in the UK. Peter morrell 08:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having some trouble figuring out what is meant by "proper qualification" and "best practice" in the case of homeopathy. Who decides this and on what basis? As we have seen in our discussions here, it has proven difficult/impossible to prove that any form of homeopathy has any effect at all, so how is anybody supposed to decide with any objectivity at all what constitutes "improper practice"? Call me cynical, but it sounds like homeopaths are trying to use sexual assaults by some of their number to create a framework that makes it easier to sell their beliefs as being scientific. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Times article 

message: I'm new to homeopathy and haven't done all my research yet. But the main article is clearly bias and should be re-written objectively. Another thing to think about is that there's lots of money in the phramaceutical industry, so whether homeopathic methods work or not they are going to try to supress it. Half of the negative comments on here are probably from people affiated with the pharm industry.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.145.185 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to back up any of this rubbish with any references or proof? This is the kind of comment that isn't helpful. Can people stick to suggesting improvements. I agree it's biased, mostly in favour of homeopathy right now. Damn now I'm sinking to the level of these trolls .... Sorry everyone. Can we delete this unhelpful comment and it's parent please? That would go some way to improving things 90.197.168.195 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Very interesting. Could you please tell us which statements are biased and how you (clearly) recognize that they are (despite being new to the subject)? Also, unless you some have concrete evidence that a particular editor has a conflict of interest, please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. (@90.197.168.195: I know it can be hard, but please do not bite the newcomers.) --Art Carlson (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you plan to stick around for awhile, why not register an account? Antelan talk 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello again, sorry about that above I got a bit overheated. Ah well, I might have a glass of water pills to calm down! (That was just a joke, no offence intended) 90.197.168.195 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please, this article is a classic drug company hit piece. it provides ONLY negative infomatiaon regarding thei subject and anyattempt at proving the effectivneess of homeopathy is crushed and suppressed. wikipedpias and the main-stream meedia treatment of parapsychology and alterntive scientific research is practilically Stalinist in the amoutn of thought control and bias that pervades its coverage. Smith Jones (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I forget, does Godwin's Law have a Stalin clause? Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: no it doesn't, and my comparison is valid. stalin Used mass propaganda such as the parpasycology related articles on wikipedia to brainswash Russans citiznens into beleiving whatever he told them. he controlled all the media and crushed any attempt at dissident views with overwhelming force.this is the same behavior that is being used against me and the people working to improve articles cuh as Uri Geller and Kevin trudeau. i myself was recently just run out of the Sylvia Browne criticisms talk pag eby a barage of insults, threats, and edit warring designed to subjugate my opinion and prevent me form disagreeing with the mainstream establishment. that in and of itself is the very epitome of totalitariainsm. Smith Jones (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Giving predominant weight to the mainstream is Wikipedia policy. Antelan talk 05:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're implicitly accusing all of us who have shaped the article in its present form of working for Big Pharma. That's just plain rude, and it violates a half-dozen or so Wikipedia policies. If you continue in this vein things are apt not to end well. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i am no arccuisng you of anything i am simply poiting out that a majroity of the soruces on ther ientenrt are baised in favor of drug companies and the feds. it has not hing to do with anything anyone here has done and everyhhthing to do with the way they indriectly influecne wikipedia into promoting the vigorously biased ans alndsated assaults on reason or freedom of speech. Smith Jones (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Antelan talk 17:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias - Please ignore this