Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 14

message: ::: Homeopathy is nothing more than a religion. Water has a memory? Then it will also "remember" all the urine, industrial waste etcetera dissolved in it when you drink it from the tap! Mr Biggins obviously does not understand scientific reason. Having a PhD in chemistry, i can ASSURE you that it CANNOT work. The absence of a molecule means that you have a pure solvent. In fact, a running joke in chemistry labs is that the compound could not be isolated, except perhaps in homeopathic quantities, meaning undetectable levels. And undetectable means quite a lot in chemistry these days: modern analytical methods are incredibly sophisticated. 
In fact, I'm offended by the fact that homeopathy is still around. It is quackery and should be immediately prohibited. on last remark: There are a number of things that science cannot yet explain, such as the detailed mechanisms of human thought. However, the things we do know, namely the laws of physics and chemistry, which are thankfully set in stone, dictate that it cannot work.Sikkema 08:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Improbable, inconclusive, and placebo are not science's way of trying to attack homeopathy.  They are statistical terms they are used correctly in the research because there is an objective point in which those terms are used. rmosler 10:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Placebos are indeed quite powerful. Science has evaluated homeopathy, and simple reason defeats many of homeopathy's claims. jtleeusc 2:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is evidence? 

message: Judging from the article on Pseudoscience and Falsifiability, for an assertion to be pseudoscience it must be phrased in such a way that it can never be disproven through empirical research. It is distinct from protoscience in that protoscience is at least plausible even if it hasn't been proven or disproven.
The arguments for making homeopathy a pseudoscience are:
* Metastudies of clinical trials and other studies offer unconvincing proof that homeopathy is efficacious
* The subjective nature of prescribing a remedy make falsifiability difficult
* The proposed physical mechanism involving infinitely small or no active ingredients in a dose has no basis in known laws of physics
The arguments against making homeopathy a pseudoscience are:
* The practice of proofing builds on empirical evidence
* Proposed explanations for how and why homeopathy works (or seems to work) are not the starting point for homeopathy but rather attempts to explain observed phenomena.
My observation is that homeopaths differ from, say, astrologists, in that they at least try to make their case through empirical observations. One could argue whether they succeed or who they convince, of course, but they're not eluding the truth or critical observation the way relatively undisputed pseudoscientists do. --Leifern 19:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  hm. I would say there can't be any empirical observations. Should these have been made, there would be overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work. PLacebo explains it all.Sikkema 23:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I think that in the end it would be better to merge homeopathy with religion. It is based upon beliefs. Sikkema 23:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The key is not falsifiability by itself but a general claim that one is engaging in science when one is not. And in fact, many homeopathic claims are phrased in ways that are unfalsifiable or the proponents refuse to engage in any tests that would falsify it (also note that the same is true for astrology, while some astrological claims are unfalsifiable, others are not and others are simply made without any cooperation with attempts to falsify them). In any event, what really matters is the presence of reliable sources calling it pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 20:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. The standard for categorization is higher because categories appear without annotation or qualification. In other words, it's not enough to have any reliable source make a claim. It MUST be non-controversial and self-evident. --Lee Hunter 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is non-controversial and self-evident to all but true believers. We have more than enough sources making this clear. JoshuaZ 20:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a guideline. And as an admin you should know that guidelines are there to give guidance and help resolve disputes. You can always ignore guidelines but you should be ready with a darn good explanation if people challenge you. So far, all I've heard is "oh it's only a guideline". Yes. Indeed. It is a guideline. So how do you justify trashing it? Furthermore, as I've pointed out it's not only the "true believers" who have objected to the imposition of POV cats on this article. Several people who are strongly opposed to homeopathy have also opposed the quackery category as have others, presumably neutral, who have arrived via RFC. It really is offensive that you keep trying to portray this as a struggle being fought by the "true believers" versus the rational thinkers. It's more like the people who want to use shrill, ambiguous POV categories versus the people who think the article is better without them. --Lee Hunter 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Lee, when we were discussing the merits of applying the Quackery category, and (although entirely disagreeing on the validity of homeopathy) we agreed that it should be removed, you said (archived in the last talk page) 'I would also have no problem with a "medical pseudoscience" category applied to homeopathy.' What changed??! Loxlie 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current version of the article is not in the Quack cat. Just so we are clear on what is being discussed here. --EthicsGradient 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Homeopathy seeks "precision and unassailable logic"? Jefffire 13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It must be the same precision and logic that Leifern uses to turn 600 signatures critical of Homeopathy into something supporting Homeopathy. I agree with him that the discussion has become surreal, though. --EthicsGradient 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My entire point was that if a petition expressing alarm about homeopathy only gets 600 signatures across the UK, then there can't be overwhelming and staunch opposition to it. But this is all about categorization - if categories such as pseudoscience mean anything at all, they should be based on criteria that are as objective as possible. --Leifern 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are making an assumption. See above. I am still waiting for 600 or more signatures supporting Homeopathy emanating from scientists. Rememeber, this is about what mainstream science thinks of Homeopathy. --EthicsGradient 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more an assumption than the person who presented this piece of news as conclusive evidence that homeopathy should be categorized one way or another. I am not nor have ever proposed that homeopathy be presented as something uncontroversial and uncontested. And this "mainstream science" is such a vague reference - there is no such thing as a monolithic "scientific establishment." --Leifern 15:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a quick search, done in a few minutes. I did not present it as a conclusive evidence, but as an example. There are more to be found - see for example http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.632/healthissue_detail.asp (already cited in the article). This is from a board of 350 physicians, scientists and policy advisors in the US, Again I ask you to produce something similar, i.e. certified scientists signing up as being positive to homeoapthy. Bear in mind that asking a chemist, biochemist or physicist whether homeoaphty is a worthwile theory to build research on is like asking them to accept that the earth is flat. I.e., one does not usually bother to poll them on this. --EthicsGradient 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sikkema 22:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Since we already have more citations and links to Randi than is reasonable (3), adding a fourth to a YouTube video would be simply bizarre since he's essentially saying the same thing in each case. If we're going this route we might as well rename the article to "Randi on Homeopathy".  --Lee Hunter 14:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps before we start an all-out edit war about what links should be included and which should be kept we could discuss general criteria for inclusion? If the Randi link is redundant, some of the advocating links should also go. --EthicsGradient 15:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any redundant links should be removed. It doesn't matter whether they're pro or con. I've worked on a number of controversial articles, and this is the first one I've seen that gives a single supportive or critical individual - ONE person and not even a person with any particular qualifications other than being a stage magician and debunker-for-hire -  FOUR separate citations. Of course, Randi should be given coverage. I totally agree that he is a prominent critic and his viewpoint should be represented. But it only needs to be represented once because he's always making exactly the same points each time. I can overlook the other instances, but the video is nothing but a regurgitation of the Avogadro formula, a bit of bragging about swallowing remedies and finishes off with a straightforward sales pitch for financial contributions to the James Randi Foundation (according to his web site you too can support Randi with a donation from 100 to 10,000 dollars!). At best, we're giving grossly undue weight to one person's opinion and at worst it's link spam and completely inappropriate. --Lee Hunter 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how offering a link to a http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2785985155605802136&q=James+Randi video can be considered redundant. There is no other link to such a video presentation anywhere else in the article, so where is the redundancy? This article already lacks a "criticism of the theory" section, which would be highly fitting for pseudo-scientific theory such as this. The only criticism offered in the article is in the form a few links at the bottom of the page. I attempted to change one of the links from this...
* A skeptic's view of homeopathy 
to this...
* A skeptic's view of homeopathy from the JREF (video presentation)
...and the change was reverted. Reverts such as this, along with the lack of a "criticism of the theory" section, seems like an attempt to suppress critical information of this theory by its supporters. The article is overwhelmingly positive of the theory, and I don't see how the extra link I added can be argued to tip the POV in favor of the negative. A theory such as this which scientifically implausible and which consistently fails  double blind tests deserves more criticism than which is presented here. Big Brother 1984 00:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I misread the edit. I assumed that you were trying to add a fourth Randi link. I still think the video itself is more like spam since it's just Randi repeating his debunking schtick (well-covered by the other Randi links) and then pitching for financial contributions. --Lee Hunter 01:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have answered none of BB1984's concerns.  We believe that the Randi video is an accessible summary of his views on homeopathy, which are supported by evidence-based medicine.  You are removing the link as part of an ongoing campaign to squelch criticism of homeopathy.  I am perplexed that you would attack Randi for soliciting financial contributions while maintaining links to commercial homeopathy sites that sell highly questionable medical products.  In the spirit of equanimity, concision, and presumed good faith I have removed the commercial links from the advocacy section, and deleted some "redundant" links as well.  I mean, how many different "historical" or "biographical" or "timeline" sites do we need to broadcast your point of view?  Cheers, Skinwalker 02:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just normal Wikipedia editing. You want to have four links to this one person who runs a business as a critic of homeopathy - and all of them saying the same thing. Is the Google video the most accessible version of his argument? Fine. Let's keep that one and get rid of some of the others. This is simply in keeping with the way all articles are edited. You can't keep adding more and more links to this one person who says exactly the same thing. At some point it becomes nothing more than spam. Regarding the links you removed, mostly I agree that they are not necessary. Links to individual clinics or dispensaries are link spam and should be removed. I've actually found a couple more in the advocacy section which shouldn't be there. But out of the links you removed, there is one site which provides a condensed history of homeopathy. It's non-commercial, well-annotated and I don't see it as redundant and I'd like to restore that one. --Lee Hunter 02:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I only count two Randi links in the critical section.  They do not all say the same thing.  Please add your historical link back; I don't object to one or two well-written histories.  While we're on the topic:  why is  in the critical link section?  I'm officially amused... afraid that one will have to be deleted under both of our standards.  Cheers, Skinwalker 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Because he's trained as a stage magician, but uses his knowledge of stage magic to identify frauds, who try to defraud people using stage magic. Can you show one verifiable report saying he's anything but ethical?. Adam Cuerden talk 06:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename as "Randi on Homeopathy"? 

message: According to the current Wikipedia article, 56% of Belgians are using homeopathy. Not only is this number much, much higher than the other countries that are mentioned (Denmark is not even a close second at 28%), but it is completely inconsistent with official Belgian health surveys. Please go to http://www.iph.fgov.be/sasweb/his/nl/index.htm for official Belgian health surveys of 1997 and 2001. Both raw and processed data are available. The 2001 survey shows alternative medicine use in the previous year to be 11%, of which 6% can be attributed to homeopathy. This number has risen from 8% alternative medicine use in the previous year in 1997, 45% of which is homeopathy. I assume that the number is misinterpreted, and that perhaps 56% of all Belgians using alternative medicine are using homeopathy, but not 56% of the entire population as the Wikipedia article states --134.58.253.130 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy in Belgium 

message: This could do with a subsection on the UK, given the recent controversial legal changes (which as I understand it made it legal to promote homeopathic remedies with a lower standard of testing than for conventional treatments). Anyone who knows about it care to write it? Ben Finn 14:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status

message: It's not really clear what the headings mean in the external links section. Does 'neutral' or 'critical' refer to the source or the content? For example, the BBC Horizon doc is a neutral source, but is critical of homeopathy. Famousdog 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links section 

message: :this article REPATEDLY bashes all forms of alternative medicine without cites its source.s for exmaple here:
"In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo"
homeopaty is a serious medical condition tat has proven to be far more powerufl than an ordianry placebo. i sugest that the editors look up the definitiosn of the word placedo before they look it and usei tas an attack ad on this major protoscience that is on the verge of become true medical fact. 
"In the United States, homeopathic remedies are, like all health-care products, regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. However, the FDA treats homeopathic remedies very differently than conventional medicines. Homeopathic products do not need FDA approval before sale; they do not have to be proven either safe or effective; they do not have to be labeled with an expiration date; and they do not have to undergo finished product testing to verify contents and strength. Unlike conventional drugs, homeopathic remedies do not have to identify their active ingredients on the grounds that they have few or no active ingredients. In the USA, only homeopathic medicines that claim to treat self-limiting conditions may be sold over the counter; homeopathic medicines that claim to treat a serious disease can be sold only by prescription."
this section usesing the word claims over and over and makes no sense and insults homeopathic professionals. i demand that this artcle be rewritten. Smith Jones 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but your assertion that Homeopathy is better than a placebo is patently false. All large-scale, well-conducted studies have shown no evidence of this. Only small scale or non-double blind studies have shown any evidence it was better than placebo - as might be expected, given random chance. Adam Cuerden talk 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not proven" isn't the same as "disproven".  See Pseudoskepticism#_note-9.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question here is where is the burden of proof? "Not Proven" implies that you may need to rethink your hypothesis. rmosler 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross NPOV violations 

message: I have cut the citation to the Website of Homeopathe International that was used as a citation for the following line: It is possible that the study of Freemasonry under the guidance of his Patron, the Grand Duke Ferdinand of Anhalt-Coethen influenced his thinking.Website of Homéopathe International,  I went to the site and it did not mention Grand Duke Ferdinand or Freemasonry at all.  Blueboar 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact tag that I placed for this has gone unanswered for a week now, so I am going to cut the statement itself.  If someone actually is trying to find a source for this statement, add it back once you find it.  thanks.  Blueboar 13:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Freemasonry 

message: Although I'm sure the majority of the scientific community is skeptical at best about homeopathy, the sources in the lead section do not appear to be adequate V RS's to support this statement:
:Scientists describe homeopathy as pseudoscience Homeopathy at UK-Skeptics and quackery.NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy National Council Against Health Fraud
I suggest we try and find some better ones, along the lines of those cited at List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design.  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 08:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better sources are always good.  The first citation you talk about (UK -skeptics) looks questionable according to WP:ATT - as it could be self-published (there is no indication as to who owns the page).  Blueboar 14:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; NCAHF is self-published also.  Not to say that such scientific skeptical org's don't have their place in the sun in WP, but I do think we an do better for attributing sci majority a/o sci consensus views.  Will start by searching online commentaries by various Academies of Sciences.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 17:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how's this?  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 10:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, I think you're probably right about "many", but we still need to reference this properly as has been done with ID-related topics, or else just let the facts speak for themselves.  Sorry to tread on any strong opinions, but since this is about science I'll just appeal to reason.  :-)  Suggest this instead.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 07:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better sourcing for scientific consensus

message: I've done some pruning - most of them were pretty clear cut: If a site's in German, it's not much good to the English wiki. Advertising of individual Homeopaths is right out. If there's half a dozen links to the same site, and a check of that site's front page for possible linking shows it full of misspellings and typos, this probably is link spam. So far, so easy.  However, I wasn't sure about http://www.giriweb.com/ - I just couldn't find any particular reason to direct people here. It doesn't seem to have much useful information.
I'll do another run-through later. Adam Cuerden talk 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Would there be support for merging Clinical homeopathy, Complex homeopathy, and possibly small sections of Classical homeopathy - though I must admit that last article seems rather odd - it seems to say that it's very hard to define, then makes some bizarre assertions about non-classical homeopathy. I... have rather a lot of doubts about that article. Adam Cuerden talk 17:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this change.  Clinical homeopathy, Complex homeopathy, and Classical homeopathy were created as POV forks some time ago to present homeopathic arguments without pesky scientific criticism.  Though I don't think there is much to merge - most of it repeats what is said in the main article.  Cheers, Skinwalker 18:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, once you cut the random praise of individual homeopaths  from Clinical homeopathy and Complex homeopathy, and the assertion that words are commonly used to describe Complex homeopathy which give exactly 1 ghit if narrowed to English-only (that page), there's no material of note left. Kill 'em with fire and AfD nomination. Adam Cuerden talk 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Unlike the Homy articles, these are probably fine - though the first is pretty awfully titled. However, they do seem to duplicate information that should be in this article. Would a merge or delete be appropriate? Also Homeopath, which is... a rather odd list.  Adam Cuerden talk 22:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to eliminate everything Homeopathy, just the article's splintered rather a lot into pieces that may be a bit too narrow in focus to support a full article without repeating huge amounts of information, so it's probably sensible to have a look at what's out there and evaluate. Hence why I'm asking opinions first before even adding tags. Adam Cuerden talk 08:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Psora-Homeopathic]], [[Veterinary homeopathy]], [[Isopathy]] 

message: I hate to be a bother again, but it does strike me that there must be a bit more criticism out there of the rejection of vaccination, which the current section ratherpussyfoots around. (and if they don't generally reject vaccination, we should say that.) Adam Cuerden talk 08:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy and vaccination  

message: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/one_more_reason_homeopathy_is_not_harmle.php —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy and Malaria 

message: I've proposed this for deletion as, frankly, it seems to be full of lies, though I doubt they're intentional ones. It talks at length about books being highly important in the modern day that nonetheless are almost unknown to Google. Adam Cuerden talk 11:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going too far.  Even astrology has lots of articles (and series boxes) that are retained simply for historical interest.  Same principle should apply here, even if there were no clinical or research interest in the topic today.  WP is not paper.  Appreciate the collaborative spirit of your asking, btw.  best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 18:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right-o. I'll stop at this point, though I do think that, at the least, the sub articles need a lot of improvement. Adam Cuerden talk 19:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Certainly agree re their needing improvement (would tend to favor merging over too much deleting or pruning unless stuff is flagrantly noncompliant; better perhaps to leave some sort of scaffolding that others might add to later).  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Homeopathic repertory]] 

message: [Moved to Archive, this page is not a venue for attacking editors, and the discussion does not appear to be about improving this article.  Guettarda 16:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to note that the Vithoulkas article has again been nominated for deletion. Apparently having your books translated into twenty languages, 100,000 hits on Google, hundreds of citations in books from mainstream publishers by other authors and in journal articles, winning international acclaim and awards, sold out speaking tours around the world, etc etc is no longer enough to establish notability. I'm just about done with Wikipedia. It was fun while it lasted. --Lee Hunter 00:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of finding independant, non-trivial, reliable sources. He has independant sources that are trivial, and non-trivial sources that aren't independant. That's the problem, ye see.  Adam Cuerden talk 00:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but that's just such a steaming pile, I can't let it pass. There are hundreds of books that reference Vithoulkas. You're trying to say that every last one of them is trivial or not independent? Your single, solitary mind-boggling criteria for establishing whether a book is trivial or independent is whether it mentions Vithoulkas. If it mentions Vithoulkas it must be trivial or it must not be independent. That's pretty, uh, stunning I must say. Life's too short to continue these stupid and endless arguments. It's all yours Adam. Go ahead and delete it. --Lee Hunter 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop. Don't make personal attacks. Discuss George Vithoulkas on the relevant article talk page, or at its AfD. Not here. MastCell Talk 02:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's be clear: I'm happy to accept homeopathy books as a reference, but one sentence on the particular subject in question makes it a trivial source for information on that subject. That's the problem with Lee's books, and why JzG's AfD'll probably succeed. Adam Cuerden talk 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George Vithoulkas]] 

message: I've removed one section that was basically tracking membership in one British Homeopathic orginisation and claiming its rise followed the rise of Homeopathy in Britain, despite it starting in 1950. Particularly odd as it was supposedly a section on the whole world. The section on "Popularity of Homeopathy" had cites from over a decade ago being used to talk about Homeopathy's current growth rates - I've not deleted that - maybe it should be - but I rewrote the sentence to make it clear exactly when that growth was mentioned. The section on the NCCAM was cherrypicking a bit, added the rest in. Admittedly, you could probably get more positive statements from the NHS reference than are in there, but all the positive statements are prefixed with "Homeopaths claim that..." "According to homeopaths...." and such like, so... well, they seem to be trying to distance themselves from the homeopathic claims, while reporting them - it's a "Health Encyclopedia" entry, ye see... I'm not sure. Add in more if you think it justified, but... Adam Cuerden talk 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: I think these would be useful in a criticism section. They seem good reliable sources. (Not, of course the one linked, but all the ones he quotes from. Ignore the few bad jokes.) Any objections, or things that should be taken into consideration when doing so? Adam Cuerden talk 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I've reverted a newly-made assertion here:  It's very easy with a simple google search to find information on the product having to be withdrawn. If it's so easy to find the official decision banning it, why wouldn't a review be easily found? Adam Cuerden talk 04:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: I saw a tag to merge Vet homeopathy to this one.  I think that it probably deserves its own article.  It has its own players, associations, etc.  Interestingly enough, in the US, you have to be a Vet to do it, unlike the human version.  The article could be improved, and should be expanded, but I don't think it should be merged.  Abridged talk 21:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if a merge was not wanted then why dis someone aon regquest it by putting the a "merge this article" tag on the article!?? Smith Jones 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some people would like  a merge and some would not.  I personally think a sep article is imdicated for the reasons above.  The artuicle needs work, however (forgive typos; cut my finger cooking) Abridged talk 20:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vet homeopathy merge 

message: However, other investigators failed to find any effect from these ultra-dilute solutions and suggested that methodological problems accounted for the positive results.[103]
This quote is simply incorrect. First: It is one group/publication (not "other investigators"). Second" the investigators fail to find a large effect, not "any" effect. Third: Guggisberg et al. do not jump at the conclusion that "methodological problems account for the positive results", but rather list a series of possible reasons for the different results, including the fact that they tested only one donor, whereas inter-individual differences were suspected to affect results. The cocnlusion of the article is Additional studies using strictly controlled
experimental conditions, several blood donors and an improved methodology are needed to elucidate the open questions.. 
As it is a very heated topic, I don't want to change that sentence myself, but rather invite the editor who put it there, to re-read the article in full and possibly change it accrodingly. 
To carify one thing: I'm a professional scientist, and one of the thing I detest most is people paying lip service to the scientific method and failing at it in one of its majoir tenets, namely that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A case in point is the "repetition" of Madeleine Ennis's experiment done by the BBC Show Horizon with the approval and partecipation of James Randi. Dr. Ennis comments about the show, along with a list of methodological differences, explain the problem: "I never agreed to approve his protocol i.e. assess if the study design was adequate to assess the expected differences" E-mail from Professor Ennis. Science is done above all with intellectual honesty and any person seeking an answer, rather than a confirmation of his own ideas, should have cried foul in this case. Disciple of the Eighth Day 14:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This point is well made, but has been conveniently ignored. I've tagged the section as a reminder. Berberis 05:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature on basophile stimulation 

message: So, let me get this straight... Homeopathy is giving people things that make healthy people sick in a diluted form with the belief that it will make people well? I get that homeopathy deals a lot with heavily diluted substances, but the definition is so poorly worded (IMO) that it's hard to be certain that it's saying what it's really saying. The sentence: "is a controversial method of alternative medicine that attempts to treat 'like with like.'" does not really appear to be saying anything useful. What does "treating like with like" really mean? "Homeopathy attempts to treat the sick with extremely diluted agents that, in undiluted doses, produce similar symptoms in the healthy." Take, for example, food poisoning. Does homeopathy suggest that you could cure someone of food poisoning by giving them diluted poisoned food? RobertM525 05:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, except that it's diluted to the point that there are no actual molecules of the original substance left (didn't you read the article?).  Now you see why reputable scientists consider it to be utter nonsense.  Maybe it could have been plausible when little was known about chemistry and biology, but it's been shown to be idiocy for so long that it's amazing people still follow it.  KarlM 06:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defined? 

message: Under mentioned data is for your observations.
This talk page have been misused by the so called intelligent editors, which can be seen by the Archive of this page.
 
*Archive-1, have 18 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-2, have 21 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-3, have 28 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-4, have 40 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-5, have 44 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-6, have 57 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-7, have 31 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-8, have 35 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-9, have 29 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-10, have 32 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-11, have 40 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-12, have 15 printed pages of A4 size.
*Archive-13, have 47 printed pages of A4 size.
The current talk pages have 25 printed pages material of A4 size paper. Total 464 [ Four Hundred Sixty Four] pages approximately have been used in the discussion. What is it? Is Homoeopathy is so controversial subject that such a big discussion cannot solve by anyone? Is it not a shameful condition for all, those who have participated in the discussion? Approximately 500 pages have been used for discussion without any conclusion. The learned editors perhaps avoided to consult the other encyclopedias on the subject matters. Only One percent editors are seen to be serious about the subject matters. Rest of the editors either chatting on this page or spreading unnecessary controversy, which have no mean to the subject. The chatting can be seen with the timings of the editors. If anybody go and see the UTC timings of the editors, it looks like they are chatting on this page without any serious intentions.
Is there any limit for discussion without any conclusion and results or we should see the cock fighting of the participants in this Homoeopathic battle field. 
What is it and why it is being allowed in this page? User:debbe, 18 April 2007,01:35 PM IST
:One limit is that the talk page is for discussion of the article, not the subject.  Probably somewhere in those archives there's material that crossed that line.  My guess, though, is that most of the discussion has been related to the article.
:You ask, "Is Homoeopathy is so controversial subject that such a big discussion cannot solve by anyone?"  My answer is that, yes, it's controversial, and it's unlikely that discussion on a Wikipedia talk page will persuade all the pro-homeopaths or all the skeptics.  Even if everyone here were persuaded of one point of view or the other, the article, to comply with the WP:NPOV policy, would still have to include a fair presentation of all significant opinions on the subject.  Much of that archived discussion is about how to apply the NPOV policy to specific paragraphs, or sometimes specific sentences.  That's how collaborative editing on Wikipedia works. JamesMLane t c 16:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention Wikipedia Administrators 

message: I have renewed the page about homeopathy on Polish Wikipedia. I placed the following subjects: history, basic laws en rules in homeopathy, the sources of homeopathic medicines, production, the official labelling, the forms of homeopathic medicines, dosage, the way of taking, storage, mechanism of working according to famous homeopaths (Vithoulkas, Scholten), homeopathic provings, classical and clinical homeopathy, homeopathic consultation, homeopathy and regular medication. I would like to participate and contribute to the Homeopathy Article on EN-Wikipedia. Greetings. LidiaFourdraine. --86.90.199.26 11:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about homeopathy

message: Is there a current discussion or can I remove the tag? Arbustoo 21:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see above, there was a lengthy debate on whether to categorize homeopathy as a pseudoscience or not.  It seems to have died down.  As it stands now, I believe the tag is there because the article is included in Category:Pseudoscience.  There were some vague grumblings about an RFC that never materialized.  I support the removal of the tag, but others may not.  Cheers, Skinwalker 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag

message: I recently removed the :Category:Pseudoscience tag from the article, not because I think homeopathy isn't pseudoscience but because the article already includes :Category:Alternative medicine and :Category:Homeopathy which are both sub-categories of :Category:Pseudoscience and there is no reason to list in both the parent and two different sub-categories.  This was reverted on the grounds that the category is controversial, which I find puzzling.  Inclusion in a category does not imply that the category applies as a "label" to the topic.  It simply means that there is a notable association between the topic and pseudoscience, which I think in this case nobody could reasonably deny.  It is not the place of Wikipedia to pass judgment on the merits of this association, but merely to note it.
For example, the category of pseudoscience also includes noted skeptic Michael Shermer as well as a variety of logical fallacies and other topics frequently associated with pseudoscience.  Homeopathy is undeniably associated with pseudoscience, because it is accused of being pseudoscience by a good number of people.  That accusation (suitably referenced) is enough — there is no need to "prove" that homeopathy is pseudoscience.  However, all that said, there is also no reason to include this article in both the pseudoscience category and the sub-categories.  It clutters up the category page (which has a primary purpose of aiding navigation, not applying labels) and doesn't help anyone.  If you feel that this article needs to more prominently assert that homeopathy is pseudoscience, then that should be done in the text of the article (with appropriate references, as always) and not with the category system.  --Sapphic 23:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I would like to say something about the so-much-disputed word controversial: it should never be placed in the beginning of the article since it serves as a primary definition of the word 'Homeopathy'. Homeopathy is a subset of alternative medicine practices - this sheuld be the definition in the introduction. This is the definition of the word Homeopathy, the one you could find in a dictionary. Here is a definition from a real dictionary 
:::a system of medicine in which a disease is treated by giving extremely small amounts of a substance that causes the disease
::I think that such a definition should be given in the introduction. And whether it's controversial or not - that should be said in other paragraphs. Johny1407 18:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the amount of history of homeopathy that involves conflict with science and the like means we cannot ignore it.Geni 20:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This kind of answers literally kills my hopes for Wikipedia. I was warned about these sorts of situations, and that's why before now I have ever only fixed little bits as an anonymous user. Quite frankly, I have stopped doing that now. Geni, you are arguing with logic. You are saying "Oh well, it "deserves" to get a negative bias". Forgetting that this is an encyclopedia that is supposed to present the facts staying neutral, whereas you _know_ that the introduction is completely biased, and that word "controversial" defines Homeopathy in a not-so-honorable way. Here, there is no argument to be made at all, a part from the fact that this article is PARTIAL and NOT NEUTRAL. I will stop trying to convince you otherwise, but I will consistently point out that this article is partial. Tony Mobily 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral does not equate to avoidance of negatives, in fact the citing of negatives is required by NPOV.  •Jim62sch• 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial

message: This article is written like it aims to opose homeopathy and everything here is written against it. ; I would like a dispute to be started about the neutrality of this article and a label to be placed  in the beginning of the original article which points out that the neutrality of this article is disputed Johny1407 18:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Johny, articles are always open to discussion.  What specifically do you find violates NPOV? Pdelongchamp 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The introduction, as a start. The rest of the article is "fixable", but since people here seem to stubbornly revert any modification that hints neutrality and impartiality, I suggest Johny1407 not to waste his time here.Tony Mobily 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I suggest you look at NPOV, and .  •Jim62sch• 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfairly Against Homeopathy

message: Probably shouldn't go in if its sourced to just his website, but secondary sources have reported this several times, its a noteworthy addition I believe. Tmtoulouse 18:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's amusing yes, but not so notable or pertinent, to counterbalance the fact that it's also troll bait. Anyone interested in randi's views on homeopathy can find out for themselves at his website. ornis 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as "Scientific testing of homeopathic treatment" (the name of the section) goes, this stunt has about the same quality as does someone who takes the pills and immediately falls asleep. And another thing, why did you (Tmtoulouse) revert the wikilinks to Scientific skepticism, James Randi, and the James Randi Educational Foundation? It looks like a knee jerk (redirected to Patellar reflex). --Art Carlson 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: James Randi and the box of sleeping pills

message: In this edit, Frenchmango cited a recent in vitro study that found a positive effect of homeopathic preparations. I have reverted this beacuse it does not seem to be notable. Having been published in May, 2007, there has been no time for response from the scientific community. In particular, the results have not been independently replicated. Appearing in the Journal of Alternative and Complementay Medicine, it will be dismissed by many scientists as coming from a biased source. No on-line source is cited, and the information given is insufficient to judge the quality of the study (double blind? statistical significance? number of samples?) The conclusion is weak ("suggested"). In short, there appears to be no reason to single this publication out from the hundreds or thousands of other studies that have been published. --Art Carlson 11:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a questionable revert. Unless we are prepared to say that anything or anyone that advocates "alternative" medicine (whatever that is) lacks credibility, we should avoid characterizing one journal or another as "biased." Better that the journal is properly cited, and that we point out that the results haven't been replicated. Otherwise, we open ourselves to the often-cited criticism that "allopathic medicine" is biased, funded by the pharmaceutical industry, etc. --Leifern 13:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was only one contributing factor for the revert. I also did not characterize this journal as biased, but said that many would perceive it that way. The idea is, since we can't provide an exhaustive review of the evidence, we should either look for sources that both sides of the debate consider to be unbiased and reliable, or we should look for sources from the pro side that would appear most convincing to the con side (and vice versa). A single study with a positive conclusion from a mainline journal will convince more people on the fence than a whole slew of articles from homeopathic journals. --Art Carlson 13:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cytokine Expression 

message: It may be that this is one of those articles where you need to be already immersed in the subject to understand, but I read this article and still can't figure out what the hell the reasoning behind homeopathy is. Why exactly do you need smaller doses for the sick, using medicine that made the healthy ill? Am I understanding any of this correctly?KrytenKoro 08:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasoning? These days I'd suggest it has more to do with faith and confirmation bias, then reason. When it originated, it had the advantage, that it was much less likely to kill you then some of the standard medical practices of the day, added to which the workings of the body where only just beginning to be understood. Homeopaths, will likely tell you that there's some kind of spirit essence/energy or some such rubbish at work, but frankly I think it's just another scam, and a profitable one at that, particularly when you consider the fact that only a few grams of the active ingredient can be used to make millions of doses of magic water.. in some they don't even bother with those few grams, or water for that matter, did you read the bit about "paper remedies"? ornis 09:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hair of the dog? Seriously I think I used to know but forgot. It's hard to remember things that don't really make sense. But you're right, if there is a rationale, it should be included, and if it is purely empirical, than that should be pointed out, too. --Art Carlson 10:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same rationale that leads to herbal "medicine", organic food (someone please show me an inorganic cow), magnetic bracelets and the rest of the "natural living" crap.  •Jim62sch• 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: From speaking with homeopaths, the body is supposed to "receive" the leftover "essence" in the remedy and then react along the lines of: "oh, is that what's wrong with me?  Ok, I'll fix that" and then the body fixes itself on it's own.  It's pretty odd but understandable considering it was devised about 200 years ago when blood letting was a common medical practice.  I once asked a homeopath the reasoning behind ingesting the remedy.  Why isn't it a lotion or a suppository?  His response was that it actually didn't need to be ingested and he reluctantly told me that technically you could just hold the remedy or meditate to it.  ...yikes... Pdelongchamp 20:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing?