Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 26

message: Under the section titled "Contemporary Prevalence" the following entry is incorrect:
"Homeopathy is not officially recognized by Federal Food and Drug Act in Canada..."
For many years homeopathy has been recognized by the Federal Government of Canada. This can be verified as the homeopathic medicines licensed during that time identified with a Drug Identification Number, or DIN, on the label. More recently a new directorate was created and in 2004 homeopathic medicines came under the regulatory authority of the Natural Health Products Directorate (still regulated under the Food and Drug Act). Homeopathic Medicines licenced under the new directorate wil be labelled with a DIN-HM, where the HM indicates homeopathic medicine.
Kindly go to the Natural Health Products Directorate webpage of the Health Canada website to confirm this information:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/index_e.html
Jennyd777 (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From , "Section 3(2) of the Food and Drugs Act prohibits the sale of drugs, including natural health products, that are labelled, or that are advertised to the general public, for the treatment, prevention or cure of the diseases, disorders, or abnormal physical states listed on Schedule A." There is a health act that recognizes homeopathic remedies (not homeopathy itself, probably a minor distinction here). The act prohibits advertisement of homeopathic remedies as being advertised as treating, preventing, or curing diseases listed on Schedule A. Perhaps the article should be updated. Antelan talk 02:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, maybe this actually isn't as relevant here as I had thought: No, the Natural Health Products Regulations are not aimed at regulating the practice of complementary and alternative health care practitioners or the practice of traditional Aboriginal medicine. Health care practitioners (for example, pharmacists, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioners, herbalists, naturopathic doctors, etc.) who compound products at the request of a patient are not included within the manufacturer definition.  Not sure of the context where this would come into play just yet. Antelan talk 02:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Entry 

message: There are 398 papers that fall under the "Reviews" tab at PubMed on the query "Homeopathy" (out of 3545 total papers). Below are a selection of interesting papers (that my institution can access) from the last couple of years, with money-quotes from abstract conclusions. I stopped after a couple dozen, travelling back to ~2002; this list isn't close to exhaustive, but it may prove useful for discussion & article building. Any responses should probably be made in a new section, or a subsection of this one, just for navigational clarity.
*
::There is currently little evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment of ADHD.
*
::...some homeopathically prepared remedies show promise for reducing infarct size and associated impairments...Individualized homeopathy may even play a helpful adjunctive role in treatment of sepsis. However, a great deal of systematic research effort lies ahead before most of the options discussed would meet mainstream medical standards for introduction into routine treatment regimens.
*
::...experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies. No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators. A general adoption of succussed controls, randomization and blinding would strengthen the evidence of future experiments.
*
::The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition.
*
::The [studies] were generally of low methodological quality...Homeopathic medicines, tested in HPTs, appear safe. The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports...
*
::The results suggest that, for several treatments, the risk-benefit profile is encouraging...For other therapies the evidence is weak or contradictory: homeopathy...
*
::Complex Homoeopathy...showed inconclusive results.
*
::effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe.
*
::On the basis of this review it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the efficacy or effectiveness of homeopathy for anxiety.
*
::Some positive results were described with homeopathy in good-quality trials in rhinitis, but a number of negative studies were also found. Therefore it is not possible to provide evidence-based recommendations for homeopathy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, and further trials are needed.
*
::Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care.
*
::There is [no] evidence for the pain-relieving efficacy of...homeopathy
*
::the evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in depression is limited due to lack of clinical trials of high quality
*
::The evidence related to...homeopathy...is not convincing enough to suggest effectiveness.
*
::Current evidence does not support a preventative effect of Oscillococcinum-like homeopathic medicines in influenza and influenza-like syndromes.
*
::There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma.
*
::There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction.
*
::To date, however, there is no convincing evidence for a therapeutic effect. There are only a few controlled trials, most of them with negative results. The few studies with positive results have not been reproduced.
*
::homeopathic medicine may play a useful role as an adjunctive and/or alternative therapy.
*
::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.
*
::It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice.
*
::Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
----
Regarding the physical details in homeopathy research: 
 is interesting in its hands-off analysis of the dispute within clinical medicine over the validity of homeopathy and its implications for pharmacists.
 is interesting in its exploration of the costs of alternative medicines compared to standard care.
 -- this review highlights alleged "publication bias" (though they also state within the text that the results could just as easily be explained by "submission bias"). It's a quick read, and worthy for putting some of the above studies in more context.
I'll leave the floor open (for now) for anyone to explore the use of these or other studies in the present article. — Scientizzle 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews and meta-analyses...get your secondary sources, folks! 

message: Jefffire made this edit] which was reverted by User:Orangemarlin on the grounds that there wasn't always even a placebo effect, which is no doubt true.  However, I don't think Jefffire's wording suggested that there was always a placebo effect; rather, I think it just said that there was sometimes a benefit, and that when there was a benefit, it could be ascribed to placebo.  As I understand it, this is entirely true, and I think Jefffire's edits should be restored.  Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Saying that there is no effect "beyond placebo" only admits the possibility of a placebo effect. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, two individuals whom I trust disagreed with my edit.  I'll flog myself at dawn.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jefffire]]'s edits ("...beyond placebo") 

message: Homeopaths contend that many studies and metalyses have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo even though the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not the best research tool to test homeopathy
A spokeswoman from the Society of Homoeopaths said: "Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo. 
"It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4183916.stm
:Cherry picking from one article is not a preferred sourcing technique. Please find additional sources that are more reliable than a few sentences from a BBC article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec X 2) I don't think it's in doubt that homeopaths contend this. The question is where in the article it should be incorporated (if anywhere) and how - I don't see the need for new sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which homeopaths contend...?  I believe that some homeopaths would be perfectly willing to accept a "reblinded" study.  (The homeopath chooses a treatment, and a randomizer decided whether to use that treatment or the same substance rediluted without an "active" ingredient.) — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair question: in this case, it's a spokesperson for the Society of Homeopaths.  But if there's doubt that this is a widespread contention among homeopaths, then by all means let's dig up some more sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats easy. I will take a look and let you know.--Area69 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Depends. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The wiki rules dont say it depends. By the way I would like an administrator to review my talkpage and comment on the users. This is a personal attack. --Area69 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded at your talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you seriously doubt that this is a contention widely made by homeopaths?  I think there's plenty of evidence to that effect.  Where it should go in the article and how it should be presented (based on WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, etc.) seems to me to be the real issue; not whether or not this is what homeopaths contend. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone writes an article about an X minority (homeopathy)  must include  its important views and then add scientific critisism. In the lead these views should be summurized. --Area69 (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopaths contend.... 

message: May be interesting to see if anything further comes from this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678814?dopt=Abstract -- Jayen466 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Materials science approach 

message: This text from the lead of the article appears to be original research.  The references don't support the statement. It should removed. I did and OM reverted. Anthon01 (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain.  I'm very curious as to your logic.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Find me the references that says "ethics." Anthon01 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Well ethics in homeopathy and alt med has been a very big story recently, with the SoH in the UK being involved, AIDs "cures", poor anti malarial advice, bad anthrax remedies during the fallout from the WTC attacks,  and the homeopathic regulators being either. What are your specific arguments against each of these refs? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:OR. Anthon01 (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you expand on your claims? Why is just WP:OR an answer? Pease give a detailed account of your problem. --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics 

message: Hi. Over on the Arsenicum album page there is almost an entire essay on how effective this remedy is, and how it's backed up by scientific evidence. There is also a call on the talk page for more editors to get involved. Maybe the information there might be useful here, and maybe we can make some good edits there. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsenicum album 

message: Of course there are:
All the metanalyses (besides the 2005)  one and the studies which are already in use in the article write about promising studies and results in homeopathy, more or less, theurapeutic effect over placebo. None of the metanalyses have used this term even the 2005 one. 
It is very easy to provide quotes. Should I do it?
I challenge everyone to name a topic which scientists keep studying and call for more research even thought they believe it is pseudoscience.Name one.Please. 
--Area69 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those show the individual researchers' opinion. We have that saying just the opposite. What we need is an authoritative source which represents the opinion of the scientific community. Think Academy of Science, for instance. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: TIM VICKERS, would you trust a creationsit to give an informed opinion about evolution? would you trust a crystal healer to give an informaed opinion about medical science? if not, then why would you turst an allopathic 'doctor' to give an informed opinion about homoeo pathic science? Smith Jones (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So you put homeopathy in a similar category as creationism and crystal healing? I think that argues for a pseudo-scientific classification quite strongly. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NO TI DON'T. i consider allopathy to be on the same level of creationism and crystal healing, a delusional moneygrubbing fraud. Smith Jones (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that it is not a science, but claims to be. That is why it is a pseudoscience. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and MY point is that only allopaths claims that homeopathic science is a psuedoscience. it makes as uch sense to trust them to give a fair and impratial viewpoint as it is to trust a creationist about evolution or basic biogloy or a scientologist about psychiatry. When you ahe a group that has dedicated so much of itself to seething, petulant hatred of another medical sdiscipline there is a tendency to trefuse to give them the bneefit of the doubt. Now, there are many honest allopaths out there who honestly believe that they are practicing is good for their patients, and if they're sources are verifiable then i have no problem ith using them on this article. my problem is when they are used for authoritariantive proof about something that they couldnt possibly have approached neutrally in thef first place. Smith Jones (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith Jones, you would be well advised to steer clear of this article if you cannot edit without flinging insults at other editors.  Baegis (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, it's only the scientists who consider homeopathy a pseudoscience.  Interesting.  Silly rabbit (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Let's start with saying that allopathy, and with that all practitioners of it, are part of a "delusional moneygrubbing fraud".  Then lets go with the "seething petulant hatred" part as a follow up.  There is at least one M.D that edits this article, and probably more that I don't know for sure.  I am quite sure they do not appreciate such insults.  After those attacks, AGF gets tossed out the window.  I am moving my warning to your talk page, if you wish to discuss them further.  Baegis (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Smith Jones may have a problem with typos, but he did not insult any other editors here. Arion 3x3 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Only their intelligence. •Jim62sch• 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that some of the participants here are doctors, his investing them with "seething, petulant hatred" and similar sweet words definitely qualifies as an insult. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that some of the participants are homeopaths, calling them "quacks" or "kooks" or such definitely qualifies as an insult as well then. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere on this talk page were any homeopaths attacked like Smith Jones attacked allopaths.  All discussion about quackery was related to sources.  And no actual homeopaths were called quacks by any other editors.  Baegis (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: i apologize of my words were misinterpreted by User:Baegis but i argue that refering to creationism and crystal therapy as a 'fraud' is not the same as refering to all doctors in the world as frauds and that my refernece to seething heatred was illadvised and that i was only reacting to the constant barrage of hate speech directed towards homeopaths here on this talk page. Smith Jones (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are ther any reliable sources that argue that homeopathy is not a pseudoscience? 

message: Due to an ongoing active edit war on the page, with two sides having many times added, removed, re-added, re-removed, etc. the infobox I have full protected the article page.
Please discuss on the talk page.
Thank you.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page full-protected for 24 hrs 

message: Of course there are:
All the metanalyses (besides the 2005)  one and the studies which are already in use in the article write about promising studies and results in homeopathy, more or less, theurapeutic effect over placebo. None of the metanalyses have used this term even the 2005 one. 
It is very easy to provide quotes. Should I do it?
I challenge everyone to name a topic which scientists keep studying and call for more research even thought they believe it is pseudoscience.Name one.Please. 
--Area69 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.  Baegis (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)I don't see any evidence that the scientific community, broadly speaking, does call for more research. As far as I'm able to ascertain, the scientific community considers the question closed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: read the sources in the article: and you will see them. I will help you if you want.--Area69 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You have been given several sources here. There are many more in the history of this page. I can get dozens more. And you still repetively ask for the same material over and over you have already seen. And I think this gets close to something that requires a block so you can contemplate your behavior. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources don't prove that the consensus of science believe homeopathy = Psci. You need an Science Academy stating it. Anthon01 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically, you are so demanding that there are only 11 groups in the entire world that can officially declare homeopathy a pseudoscience?  Are you freakin' kidding me?  Baegis (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are ther any reliable sources that argue that homeopathy is not a pseudoscience 2? 

message: For those of you who object so strenuously to scientific and allopathic medicine views, what do you actually think NPOV is? Can you explain your position to me? --Filll (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you think you know NPOV? 

message: 
Could somebody add  to the Dilution and succssion section?
:That is totally inappropriate! Arion 3x3 (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is totally appropriate.  TableMannersC·U·T 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  TableMannersC·U·T 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit protected 

message: This BBC Horizon (BBC TV series) video goes into detail on "dilution and succussion" and concludes "Science is confident: Homeopathy is impossible."  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3WnEo46h4A TableMannersC·U·T 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could also be  included. I agree. Its critism from reliable sources as well. Very easy to be found --Area69 (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Video's make bad sources.  It's not peer-reviewed.  It's not even reliable.  But I like what it says of course.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought that BBC was reliable according to Wiki Policy.--Area69 (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh no.  Read WP:SOURCES.  Peer reviewed and published is the highest level.  A BBC video, though better than say a video from the International Homeopathy Association and Online Store, isn't really reliable.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.--Area69 (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, not a video.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a transcript.  See:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml.  And a program summary.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml.  And other information.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathyqa.shtml.  This is more than just a video.  TableMannersC·U·T 07:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why dont you remove james randi's video then?--Area69 (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I only care about the lead.  Don't really care about much else on the article.  This article, if it stabilizes enough for a real GA or FA, will be cleaned up significantly.  The sources are often bad, except in the lead.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.--Area69 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that the video should be included with its critisism. --Area69 (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I agree that the program should be used as a source.  A compromise (per OM's suggestion):  the williams/horizon reference stays in.  The BBC web page describing the program is the main reference link.  A link to the program transcript at the BBC website is also provided in the reference.  Removed the quote from the reference as it is annoying, but kept it in the article.  I also removed the video link from the external links because:  1.  The Youtube title is not the program title.  2.  The youtube video is probably a copyright violation and 3. it is probably a violation of WP:EL if we are using the transcript as a reference.  If we can find a BBC video we could add it back into the external links if others disagree with this compromise.  The wording of actual quotation could use some improvement, I admit.  But I think the ABC and BBC sources are good per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Science article in the popular press  TableMannersC·U·T 07:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC program, Horizon, video source