Misplaced Pages

Talk:Homeopathy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:34, 20 April 2008 editShoemaker's Holiday (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,613 edits →So let's evaluate the sources (sigh)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:54, 16 November 2024 edit undoMcSly (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers32,269 editsm Reverted edit by 2409:4080:8E1D:4AAB:0:0:6A0A:9811 (talk) to last version by TryptofishTag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Talk header}}
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
{{ArbComPseudoscience}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|counter = 34
{{Trolling}}
|algo = old(5d)
{{controversial}}
|archive = Talk:Homeopathy/Archive %(counter)d
{{British English Oxford spelling}}
}}
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
{{skiptotoc}}
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|action1date=03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
|-
|action1link=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 12#GA review
|{{anchor|Please read before starting}}'''Please read before starting'''
|action1result=failed
First of all, welcome to Misplaced Pages's homeopathy article. This article represents the work of many contributors and much negotiation to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic.
|action1oldid=75658304


|action2=GAN
] to Misplaced Pages and this article may find that it's easy to commit a '']''. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid ].
|action2date=2007-09-27, 18:14:57
|action2link=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 17#GA Review
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=160740951


|action3=GAR
A common objection made by newly arriving editors is that this article presents homeopathy from a non-neutral point of view, and that the extensive criticism of homeopathy violates Misplaced Pages's '''Neutral Point of View''' policy (]). The sections of the ] that apply directly to this article are:
|action3date=02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
*''']'''
|action3link=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 18#Delisted GA
*''']'''
|action3result=delisted
*''']'''
|action3oldid=162931498
*'''].'''
&''']
The contributors to the article continually strive to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the ] guidelines.


|action4=GAR
These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (]) and Cite Your Sources (]).
|action4date=13 October 2007 (UTC)
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Archive 30#Homeopathy
|action4result=delisted
|action4oldid=164347209


|action5=PR
Some common points of argument are addressed at Misplaced Pages's ''']'''.
|action5date=2007-10-19, 10:37:35
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive1
|action5oldid=165560903


|action6=GAN
Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Misplaced Pages's policy No Personal Attacks (]) and to abide by consensus (]).
|action6date=2007-10-25, 19:38
|action6link=Talk:Homeopathy/GA1
|action6result=listed
|action6oldid=167006517


|action7=PR
This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the ''article itself'' and '''not''' the inherent worth of homeopathy. See ]. If you wish to discuss or debate the ''validity'' of homeopathy or promote homeopathy please do so at or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Misplaced Pages article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.
|action7date=22:12, 9 February 2008
|-
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2
|}
|action7result=reviewed
{{oldpeerreview|archive=2}}
|action7oldid=190198296
{{Template:Homeopathy/Warning}}
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
| action1 = GAN | action1date = 03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | action1link = Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 12#GA review | action1result = failed | action1oldid = 75658304
| action2 = GAN | action2date = 2007-09-27, 18:14:57 | action2link = Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 17#GA Review | action2result = listed | action2oldid = 160740951
| action3 = GAR | action3date = 02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC) | action3link = Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 18#Delisted GA | Talk:Homeopathy/Archive19 | action3result = delisted | action3oldid = 162931498
| action4 = GAR | action4date = 13 October 2007 (UTC) | action4link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Archive 30#Homeopathy | action4result = delisted | action4oldid = 164347209
| action5 = PR | action5date = 2007-10-19, 10:37:35 | action5link = Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive1 | action5oldid = 165560903
| action6 = GAN | action6date = 2007-10-25, 19:38 | action6link = Talk:Homeopathy#GA_review | action6result = listed | action6oldid = 167006517
| currentstatus = GA
| topic = natsci
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Rational Skepticism|class=GA|importance=High|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Homeopathy|class=GA|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=GA|nested=yes}}
{{WPMED|class=GA|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}


|action8=PR
== Dilution Table ==
|action8date=03:54, 2 March 2009
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive3
|action8result=reviewed
|action8oldid=274175149


|action9=FAC
I added what I think is a table in the discussion about dilutions. It visually summarizes the textual content within that section. In general, I think the homeopathic notation system is quite confusing and I think a chart more quickly demonstrates what the notation means in terms of volume ratios.
|action9date=19:39, 4 April 2009
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Homeopathy/archive1
|action9result=not promoted
|action9oldid=281664452


|action10=GAR
I don't know if including the reference to the EPA's allowed concentration of arsenic in drinking water is going to be considered NPOV, however, it is simply a statement of fact that the EPA allows drinking water to contain 10 parts per billion of arsenic in drinking water. In the context of homeopathy, which is all about using dilutions to safely administer substances that are deadly at higher concentrations, I think it is a worthwhile comparison to make. ] (]) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
|action10date=02:30, 2 November 2012
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Homeopathy/2
|action10result=delisted
|action10oldid=520910103


|action11=GAN
== Notice of MfD ==
|action11date=07:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
|action11link=Talk:Homeopathy/GA2
|action11result=failed
|action11oldid=959644982


|action12=GAN
]. This was spammed everywhere by a banned user, evidently, and was formerly included at the top of the References section of this talk pages for reasons unknown - but time will tell, and sufferers like the divine Miranda... Sorry, I played Lucky in an amateur production of ] once. Anyway, it serves no purpose, and exists on quite a number of User talk pages anyway. ] (]) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
|action12date=13:16, 29 Oct 2020 (UTC)
|action12link=Talk:Homeopathy/GA3
|action12result=listed
|action12oldid=985955563


| topic = natsci
You have not explained very clearly what is going on or why. Perhaps you can do that? What on earth is this all about and why delete a simple inoffensive list of articles? What purpose does that possibly serve the encyclopedia? ] 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
|currentstatus=GA

}}
]. The Arbcom have specifically stated that they want to expand the scope of this case to Homeopathy pages and the article probation in general. ] (]) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
:Forgive my ignorance but even having read the pages in Misplaced Pages about these dispute management systems I still don't really understand what it means to have had an Aribtration opened. What are interested parties supposed to do? What are we trying to achieve? What are the Arbitrator's meant to be deciding? Sorry to be a pain, but while I have an interest in the subject of the arbitration I have almost no understanding of the arbitration process itself. ] (]) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
::You know, when you put it like that, it's awfully hard to explain =) ] (]) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Homeopathy}}

{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
:When I was looking into DanaUllman for the probation thing, I saw this list was prominently linked at the bottom of this page, in the references section. A list of purely positive studies from fairly obscure journals could not be used (per ]) as a reference here, and it being spammed about by a now-banned user probably makes it all the worse. I don't mean to be intemperate about this (although after dealing with Ullman for a while I may be occasionally), but, in any case, now that the perma-link is gone, it's kinda hard to see any reason to keep it, and the biased nature of the list means that it's rather questionable, in the presence of better sources like metaanalyses that have rigourous inclusion criteria. I suppose it doesn't matter much, but I'd be really worried if there was any evidence that a biased list such as this was being used to win an argument, and it's hard to see other uses. ] (]) 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV. Its contents should be treated with extreme caution, and any material taken from it must be carefully verified.}}
:There's probably a lot more that could be said on the presence of positive primary studies. Linde published a lot of papers on general problems with homeopathic studies as a whole, and does a decent job of showing why there is a debate. But a list like that is no use in writing a neutral, mainstream article. ] (]) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
}}

{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
== Homeopathy is and isn't implausible ==
{{Press

|author = ]
Friends, there is a RS referenced in this article in the 2nd paragraph, "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible. And yet, at another place in this article, it says, "Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed." If we are going to make an effort to have this article maintain a NPOV, I believe that we also need to provide this quote, and we should reference it to the same source. This is an obvious one. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
|title = Ivermectin booster Dr. Tess Lawrie goes all-in for homeopathy for COVID and long COVID
:There's a difference between "extremely dilute" and a 30C Homeopathic dilution, specifically, one actually has an active ingredient. Doing something with zero active ingredient still goes against everything we know about science. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 06:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
|date = March 6, 2023
::I would suggest that the second sentence is unsourced and should be deleted. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 07:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
|org = ]
:::It seems clear that the paper we are citing is actually relatively sympathetic towards the "water memory" hypothesis. But then, given how much has been published about the subject it seems a bit strange to source a claim in the lede to the American Journal of '''Pharmaceutical Education'''. So we should get rid of the quoted "is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge" bit and stop citing the paper. I am not sure if that's what you mean, but if you do I agree. --] (]) 09:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
|url = https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-booster-dr-tess-lawrie-goes-all-in-for-homeopathy-for-covid-and-long-covid/
::::Let's face it — homeopathy ''is'' scientfiically implausible. ''Pharmaceutical Education'' isn't a great source, but it's not likely a paper in a serious medical journal is going to say that. &mdash; ] ] 12:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
|lang =
:::::The implausibility bit has two other references (currently 14 and 15). We are talking about numer 16, which is the reference for "is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge". --] (]) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
|quote = Lawrie, as is the case with most quacks, is not happy with Misplaced Pages. Indeed, she starts out by looking at Misplaced Pages: "Let’s start with the lies and misinformation about homeopathy. Here's how the internet's propaganda factory Misplaced Pages currently defines it:"
::::::It seems in line with the thrust of other references, though, if slightly stronger stated. E.g. "The preparation of remedies involves serial dilution, commonly to the extent that no molecules of the original substance remain, and vigorous shaking between dilutions (potentisation). During this process information is thought to be transferred from the diluted substance to the solvent,6 which in the light of current knowledge seems implausible" (Shang). ] (]) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
|archiveurl = <!-- URL of an archived copy of the page, if the original URL becomes unavailable. -->

|archivedate = <!-- do not wikilink -->
'''Pharmaceutical Education''' is a good source - no one can seriously argue it is not a reliable source -you cannot decide that a source is not good only because it states something positive for homeopathy.--] (]) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
|accessdate = March 13, 2023
:::::::::It is not a good source in this case. There are so many sources on this particular topic, some of them excellent, that there is no valid reason to choose an article in an educational journal, especially if one of the authors seems to be a recent graduate. It's like using the Leeds Roundhay Weekly as a source on the Queen's income. It was cherry picking, to source a negative statement about homeopathy to it, and that shouldn't be done. And it shouldn't be used to cherry pick a positive statement either. --] (]) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Well, yes, one could argue that we could use this as the ''third'' reference for the first half of the sentence, i.e. the implausibility part. But I don't think it makes sense to use a paper for this purpose in which theauthors also mention lots of possible explanation for a water memory effect in a sympathetic way. Especially not when we already have two others. Or do they have similar problems? (I haven't looked.) --] (]) 16:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry, are you still talking about the Shang metaanalysis that I was quoting, or did you misread that as being from the Pharmaceutical education source? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::::I am still talking about the ''Pharmaceutical Education'' source with which Dana started this thread. Are you sure you are in the right thread? It looks to me as if you have changed the topic completely without making it clear that this was your intention. --] (]) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Ah, I see now. There was another change of topic which happened with OrangeMarlin's cryptical "second sentence" remark above, or when I tried to make sense of that. Perhaps I got that wrong? --] (]) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's a little confusing, aye. There's half-a-dozen separate topics under this same header. ] (]) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also found this quote in a higher-quality journal:

"Homeopathy has, in its 200 year history, remained a subject that is controversial, to say the least. It is based on the assumption that “like can be treated with like” and that serial dilutions render a remedy not weaker but stronger. Both of these assumptions are contrary to what we today know about the laws of nature. There are, of course, many therapies of which we currently do not understand how they work. But homeopathy is different: we do understand that it cannot work, unless we re-write whole chapters in basic textbooks of science."

-Exploring Homeopathy, Edzard Ernst, Preventive Medicine Volume 45, Issue 4, October 2007, Pages 280-281 {{doi|10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.06.008}}

] (]) 13:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC
)
::: .........well. If you are going to use that you should also state that homeopathy is controversial in the article. Then you should remove the category pseudoscience since this is again the wikirules. Besides that It is a peer review paper?--] (]) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


I just remembered seeing a reference a couple months back to plausibility in the print version of ''US News & World Report'', a tertiary source beyond reproach (in the appropriate contexts). Sure enough, the online version is available, (see paragraph 6). This is probably about as canonical an example as we can get of a good tertiary source as it is summarizes alternative medicine secondary sources (albeit unnamed); it only would be nicer if the mention was a more focused on homeopathy instead of all alternative medicine. I would suggest not taking the language verbatim as when out of the context of the comparisons of different practices it takes on unneutral connotations ("woo-woo"), but the underlying message is fine. ] (]) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

:I would be reluctant about quoting the media in such matters. ] (]) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
::It's useful for making general observations, if backed with other references. ] (]) 15:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I have a compromise proposal. I suggest the following: Homeopathy is scientifically implausible and based on "the theory of which is diametrically opposed to modern pharmaceutical knowledge," and yet, similar sources assert, “Basic science research appears to suggest that the use of extremely dilute solutions may not be as implausible as has been claimed.” Please note I added a couple of words to the quote at the first part of the sentence because the authors did not say that homeopathy was diametrically oppose to... but saying that its theories are. Does this work? ]<sup>]</sup> 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::::<s>Sorry, in which paper does that new quote appear? Saying "16b" is really unhelpful. ] (]) 09:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)</s> Never mind, I see. Per ], that's a tiny minority view in science, and as it purports to assess science, we should leave it out. There are better sources with better quotes, for instance, the Preventive Medicine one, which is by Edzard Ernst, a respected authority. ] (]) 09:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the quote above from Preventive Medicine ("But homeopathy is different: we do understand that it cannot work, unless we re-write whole chapters in basic textbooks of science.") supports the contested claim in the article about defying fundamental principles. ] (]) 06:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

: We have already made reference to the Pharmacy Education article, and there is consensus that it is RS and notable, but to date, we have not incorporated its more balanced presentation. Are we or are we not interested in providing NPOV information?
There is absolutely no need for Ernst's strident statement. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:Why not? ] (])

::There is no need to quote Ernst's statement, but it can be used as one supporting RS for the "fundamental principles" sentence. ] (]) 17:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:: Ernst's statement should not be used because it is obviously wrong. He says baldly that "it cannot work". It clearly can work via such mechanisms as the ]. His language is sloppy and so it is not a good source. It is a matter of basic science which has been demonstrated by experiment that apparently inert medicines with no active ingredient nevertheless have a distinct healing effect. People who say that this action contradicts scientific principles are talking nonsense. ] (]) 18:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Didn't you already have this discussion at ]? --] (]) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::: Not exactly - I don't recall Ernst coming up before. The basic issue which needs to be grasped here is that, so far as I know, science doesn't have an especially good theory as to why the placebo effect works. According to our article on the subject, ''A considerable body of work has attempted to elucidate the 'mechanism' of the placebo effect - but without much success.''. So, if science relies upon this mysterious effect in determining the results of clinical trials, we are in no position to cast aspersions upon homeopathy which works in a somewhat similar way. Both homeopathy and allopathy have gaps or mysteries in their workings and science has yet to get to the bottom of them. ] (]) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Well, Peter Morell talks about him on the thread I linked, and ] on December 2007 --] (]) 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

::.
::.
::. - general review, quite positive but notes implausibility and fact that it contradicts "contemporary rational basis of medicine".
:: - notes that "there is no plausible mode of action for these highly diluted remedies" ] (]) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanx Tim. The article, "A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," is particularly NPOV and was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Because it seems that we have a strong enough anti-homeopathy statement near the top of the article that suggests that homeopathy is implausible and runs counter modern pharmaceutical knowledge, I suggest that we add in a quote from this article's abstract: "Some data—both from randomized, controlled trials and laboratory research—show effects from homeopathic remedies that contradict the contemporary rational basis of medicine. 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." I can provide the references to each of the meta-analyses for these four conditions from major conventional medical journals. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
::OK, we've solved the "implausibility" problem. We can just say "Homeopathy is scientifically implausible" with this as a reference (or added to some of the other references for this statement). As the the rest of this review, that sentence about meta-analyses doesn't reflect the current state of knowledge, since the 2005 Shang review represents the state-of-the-art in the analyses of homeopathy. Including dated material is not a good idea, so I wouldn't agree with the suggestion to quote that sentence. ] (]) 01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:Just because Shang wrote his analysis of homeopathic studies does '''not''' automatically invalidate them or make them any less significant. I do not agree with giving Shang such an inordinate amount of power to invalidate significant research findings. ] (]) 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There might be a better wording to the effect that some positive studies of homeopathic efficacy '''do exist''', but that they are old rather than recent; they are regarded by many as methodologically flawed; they involve small statistically insginificant groups; and there remains the bald fact that trials of homeopathy have been in general a big disappointment. This combines with the lack of a scientific mechanism to create the situation where this article does indeed read like a 'hatchet job' and 'an attack piece' BECAUSE that is a correct evaluation of the status of homeopathy in the world as seen by the average person. The many people who have good experiences with homeopathic treatment and thus a strong personal conviction that it works (including Dana) clearly do not outnumber the majority of people who remain sceptical about it. I think this is a more balanced assessment. However, I do think the article should mention the positive studies en passant at some point with a clutch of refs added of the best. That would be a fairer situation than leaving the article entirely as 'an attack piece,' which it currently undoubtedly is. If so, we need to agree on a slight rewording and which refs to use. thanks ] 05:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::* I don't agree that the average opinion of homeopathy is that it is bunk. My impression is that it is still seen as fairly respectable in countries such as the UK. Hostility seems to come from the hard-science types who are a minority. It is like religion - mocked by rationalists but still commanding widespread support. ] (]) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:*Comment to ”Colonel Warden” above: I think you make an unfair misinterpretation of the statement from Ernst that homeopathy “cannot work” when you make references to placebo. Homeopaths themselves claim that it works regardless of the placebo effect and the focus of this entire debate is whether homeopathy actually works in the way the homeopaths claim. No one has disputed that placebo exists and can have an impact on studies of homeopathy. ] (]) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:::* My general position to be sceptical of all sorts of medicine. Presenting some sorts of medicine uncritically while presenting others in an overly critical way does not seem NPOV. They all have their problems - both practical and theoretical - and we should be wary of vested interests on all sides. ] (]) 08:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:*Comment to DanaUllman above: If Dana gives a correct description of the article “A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," (Annals of Internal Medicine) I think it should be included without disclaimers. I base that on the title of the article and the reputation of the academic journal. ] (]) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

:*General Comment: I don’t at all buy the arguments that articles should be rejected just because they are old (in particular if “old” means 2003). The average quality for acceptance in academic journals was not significantly lower in the 1980s than today. Well designed peer reviewed studies are not invalidated by time, only slowly superseded by the growing body of other studies. ] (]) 06:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Two points. Ernst is in no sense ''a respected figure.'' He is reviled by most folks in CAM as a persistently scathing commentator about CAM, a so-called professor of a subject he seeks to invalidate with everything he publishes. In this way, he has made himself into a joke in the academic world. Regarding older studies, nor do I think they are necessarily worse than recent ones, but some of the older studies were not constructed using genuine homeopathic principles or they had small numbers, or they were seen to be flawed in some way or other. That is what many people think. It is not especially my view but it is the predominant view among researchers. Hopefully better studies will come along. ] 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:Ernst is unpopular among certain people because he is researching the effectiveness of CAM using rigorous methods and the results are unpalatable to them. Elsewhere he seems to be respected. Even within CAM, he appears to be enough of "a respected figure" to be on the editorial board of ''Homeopathy'', for example. ] (]) 07:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Quick note: Dana's descriptions of studies have been discovered to be highly misleading in the past, both as to hyping/disparaging notability based on whether he likes the conclusions, and very selective quoting. Hence Ullman's review of A Critical Overview of Homeopathy should probably be ignored until other, more trustworthy editors have looked at it. ] (]) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dana and arion. The 2005 meta analyses should be included but they cannot invalidate significant research findings. Besides that the 2005 meta analyses have been critisized in mainstream notable journals and press and this critisism should appear in the lead in proportion to its appearence in reliable sources. ( All these exist in references already cited in the article.I will provide them upon request. )--] (]) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, but what are these "significant research findings" you're referring to? If you're suggesting, as it sounds like you are, that single studies are more significant than metaanalyses, and that criticism in alt-med journals and letters from homeopaths should be counted higher simply because it's more numerous, even though there's no studies to back them up, then you fail at understanding reliability in terms of science. ] (]) 10:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If I might quote something I said above: "There's probably a lot more that could be said on the presence of positive primary studies. Linde published a lot of papers on general problems with homeopathic studies as a whole, and does a decent job of showing why there is a debate." We can discuss positive studies, explain why they aren't generally accepted in science, and so on. This doesn't mean yo get to reject a meta-analysis in ] because you dislike it, nor that you get to claim that multiple very poor-quality individual studies should be given equal weight with respected, high-quality metaanalyses. ] (]) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

:It is more than tad ironic (major chutzpah, in fact) that Shoemaker questions the accuracy of my descriptions of studies when he erroneously refers to the 2005 Lancet review of research as a "meta-analysis." Even the authors of that paper do not refer to it as such. Despite the RS nature of the Lancet, they lost a lot of credibility in publishing that paper, as was evidenced by the many harsh criticisms that this "review" got. That review began with 110 homeopathic and a "matching" 110 conventional medical studies, and then found 21 "high quality" homeopathic studies but only 9 similarly high quality medical studies, and yet, they never revealed what these studies showed. Instead, they chose to assess only the largest studies in this group, 8 homeopathic and 6 conventional. One homeopathic study was a "weight-loss" study! They ignored two large studies testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu. They ignored the meta-analysis of 3 childhood diarrhea studies as well as one of these studies that was published in PEDIATRICS (was it not RS enough for them?). They ignored ALL four of the Reilly allergy studies. Their review didn't even analyse external validity because 6 of the 8 homeopathic studies didn't have it. It is interesting to note that the authors of the Lancet report didn't even reveal which studies that they included in their review until critics demanded that they do such. What type of high quality medical journal would provide (hide) such a "black box" of data? ]<sup>]</sup> 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

::Question to Shoemaker's Holiday (or others). Is DanaUllman getting the facts right here? Above you claimed that DanaUllman should be dismissed because he misrepresent the content and conclusions of academic studies. ] (]) 07:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Since DanaUllman concedes he was wrong in his accusation against me below, I don't think there's any point further discussing something that attacks ] as conspiring against them, and other ridiculous claims. ] (]) 10:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Upon more precise review of this article, Shang (2005) referred to his work as a comparative study of homeopathic and conventional medical research. Only once in this article did he refer to the word "meta-analysis" in reference to his comparison, though due to the broad definition of the word ("A procedure for statistically combining the results of many different studies"), I will concede that one could refer to this review by Shang as a meta-analysis, though my above criticisms of this review of research still remains. The following quote from this article will be of interest to all: "Simulation studies have shown that detection of bias is difficult when meta-analyses are based on a small number of trials. For example, for the eight trials of homoeopathic remedies in acute infections of the upper respiratory tract that were included in our sample, the pooled effect indicated a substantial beneficial effect (odds ratio 0·36 and there was neither convincing evidence of funnel-plot asymmetry nor evidence that the effect differed between the trial classified as of higher reported quality and the remaining trials. Such sensitivity analyses might suggest that there is robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works. However, the biases that are prevalent in these publications, as shown by our study, might promote the conclusion that the results cannot be trusted." It is interesting that Shang refers to the results of 8 homeopathic studies on acute infections of the upper respiratory tract as "robust," and yet, he claims that 8 studies is too few to obtain unbiased results, while at the same time, they final analysis compared 8 homeopathic trials and 6 conventional ones. You cannot have it both ways. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

* Since we are citing Whorton in support of the idea that homeopathy is contraty to mainstream medical principles, it seems reasonable to cite his balanced view that the matter is not fully explained and so that it would be prudent to allow that these principles are incomplete. I have added a sentence to this effect with a substantial supporting quote in the citation. ] (]) 10:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

== Undiscussed edits ==

I reverted a few undiscussed edits made in the night simply because they had not been proposed & discussed here first. The tradition we have grown used to with this article is '''to suggest and gain a consensus here first, before''' making any big or controversial changes to the article itself. Maybe we can now discuss the changes suggested. ] 06:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And another undiscussed edit (well a unilateral deletion actually): ''Proponents of homeopathy, including ], maintain that water has a ] beyond the presence of individual molecules of the dissolved substance,<ref>, The Guardian, ], ]</ref> but this is unsupported by experimental evidence.'' Can we use this or is it no use? It is factually accurate but maybe needs a better source. It could have been left in and tagged, of course. ] 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:Eh, I edit water memory, and the whole Rustrum Roy angle, and using such a borderline source when so many better sources exist, notably a large number of ] articles, both contemporary to Benveniste and retrospective, plus claiming ''all'' proponents of homeopathy support the view... it just seemed to have too much bad writing to keep in. As I said in the edit summary, I have no objection to mentioning the concept, I just think this is completely the wrong way to do so. I'd actually rather have more content on it, say, a short paragraph, which gives enough space to set out and explain things coherently and with a little context, and doesn't come out of nowhere, since it's self-contained. ] (]) 10:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is plain enough: you made an undiscussed edit without seeking any consensus first. The longstanding approach used here is to seek consensus first, which tends to avoid edit wars and personal attacks. That's all really. ] 11:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with Peter. Roy's work is notable. Also, it is not accurate to say that his work is "unsupported by experimental evidence." The following is taken from an abstract of his July 2007 publication, and this article dealt with experimental data, not simply theoretical issues. "Preliminary data obtained using Raman and Ultra-Violet–Visible (UV–VIS) spectroscopy illustrate the ability to distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another and to differentiate, within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies. Materials science concepts and experimental tools offer a new approach to contemporary science, for making significant advances in the basic science studies of homeopathic medicines." Even Roy's theoretical work is notable. This article from the New Scientist notes that Roy is not alone with finding some quantum effects of water that may explain homeopathy . ]<sup>]</sup> 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::The Rao ''et al.'' paper in ''Homeopathy'' was fairly comprehensively shredded by a letter in the January 2008 issue of the same journal ] (]) 15:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The belief in "water memory" is an important part of the pantheon of homeopathy's adherance, but we can certainly do a lot better than this semi-coherant ramble. In particular, he claims that since graphic and diamond have the same chemical make-up, that this is "proof" of homepathy is toe-curlingly stupid. If nothing else it is PoV to associate the subject with such a bad advocate. ] (]) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
:I'm afraid I have to agree. Admittedly, I'm not feeling that well today, or I'd have tried to fix it instead of just removing it, but it will take a ''lot'' of work to get it to acceptable quality. ] (]) 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

== References to more meta-analyses ==
On April 1st, I posted the below recommended additions to this article, and we had some good discussion here. The material was archived before things were finalized. ] promised to recommend some compromise ideas. I'm open...

This article is missing reference to many meta-analyses in highly respected medical journals. In this light, I am recommending the following addition to this article. You will note that I have integrated some critique of some of these meta-analyses. It is strange that this article ignores the impressive and high quality work of Reilly, the Cochrane review of clinical trials on Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu, and the 3 studies on childhood diarrhea by Jacobs and team. The first sentence below is taken directly from the article here, though I have added my recommendations for what should be said next. DanaUllmanTalk 03:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies. However, various meta-analysis have found a greater effect from a homeopathic medicine than a placebo and several meta-analyses evaluating the homeopathic treatment of specific diseases has also found positive results.
A review of 67 in vitro studies was conducted, three-fourths of which have been replicated with positive results by independent investigators. The researchers of this review concluded, “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.” However, they also acknowledge, “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.” ]<sup>]</sup> 00:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

:I believe that this suggested wording would help bring this article into a better quality NPOV presentation. ] (]) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

::We really can't mention Linde 1997 and Linde 1999 without including the statement from the 1999 paper that the 1997 paper "at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments". Perhaps the authors' comment in a letter published in ''The Lancet'' that the 1997 study "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven" is also relevant here. ] (]) 07:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::The comment about "conventional medical research" is a nice ''tu quoque'', perhaps, but not really relevant here as the article is about homoeopathy, not conventional medicine. ] (]) 12:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your thoughts here. I did give reference to Linde's 1999 article above, though I'm open to adding your above quote (please note, however, that some editors here have claimed that Linde "retracted" his meta-analysis, which is not true; in fact, he never said that the significance was lost, just reduced. My additional point was that Linde noted in the 1st sentence of his article (!) that evaluations of high quality research consistently find less significant effects. As such, the info about ALL clinical research is important here. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::::They certainly seemed to think that the already tentative conclusions of the 1997 paper were weakened. ] (]) 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Talk about SELECTIVE QUOTING! The very sentence ''before'' the one quoted by Brunton in the authors' comment in a letter published in ''The Lancet'' is this:

: "''The Lancet should be embarrassed by the Editorial that accompanied the study. The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data.''" ] (]) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:: Yes, and the letter starts off with Linde saying that he agrees Homeopathy is highly implausible. Do either of these random quotes matter? Brunton was talking about studies by Linde, not the Lancet editorial. Are Linde's opinions on a Lancet editorial that isn't under discussion at this time really so very highly relevant that you can make a bad-faith, all-quotes accusation of selective quoting? Brunton's quote was relevant to the discussion at hand. Yours were not. Learn the damn difference. ] (]) 22:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will ignore your uncivil language and repeat that my point is valid. This is a case of selective quoting. The letter '''clearly''' stated: "''The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for … further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data.''" ] (]) 22:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:We're talking about the Linde ''et al.'' papers here, not Shang or the associated editorial. ] (]) 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. But the ''wrong impression'' that was created by your quote was that the letter in ''The Lancet'' was critical of homeopathy. What the letter also stated was:

: "''Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement.''" ] (]) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
::That's not what we're talking about here. The letter stated that the very paper that we are discussing here, and which it is proposed to include in the article as supportive of homoeopathy, "has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". I hope we're not going to get into another pointless argument about the definition of "retract", by the way. ] (]) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

:::In an effort to be encyclopedic, perhaps we can include Brunton's addition and Arion's addition. Brunton felt that his addition from Linde's letter to the Lancet was notable, and if we can agree that it is, then, we must also agree that the sentence just before it is also notable. The other choice is to not add either of these additions because if you notice that I have already made reference to Linde acknowledging a reduced significance from the higher quality trials. Consensus is difficult, but I hope that we're getting closer. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I was pointing out that the letter was '''not''' presenting an anti-homeopathy position as Brunton's selected quote might have led one to believe. The letter was complaining that the study should not be used to say homeopathy is "proven" (by the way, I have not seen such a claim). However, he was also stating: "''The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that “homoeopathy has no benefit” and that “the time has passed for further investment in research” is not backed at all by the data.''" In other words, he was saying that homeopathy has also not been disproven.

His position is close to mine. My position regarding research on homeopathy is:

(1) Homeopathy has not been disproven by research

(2) Homeopathy has not been proven by research

(3) Homeopathic research has produced mixed results

The Misplaced Pages article should reflect the "mixed results" status of the research, instead of leading the reader to think that homeopathy has been disproven by "science". ] (]) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
:The problem with including the comments that Arion suggests anywhere in the article is that they are criticisms not of the Shang paper but of the accompanying editorial, which isn't mentioned in the article as far as I can see. While the letter itself certainly doesn't appear to be particularly supportive of homoeopathy, given that is says, "we agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust", we are not discussing the Shang paper here, or the plausibility of homoeopathy, but the 1997 Linde paper and the weight that it should be given. ] (]) 06:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

::In due respect, Brunton, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot want to quote from Linde's letter to fit your needs/desires and then say that other quotes from the same letter don't have a place. In another discussion here, some editors asserted that Linde had "retracted" his previous meta-analysis, which is not only not true, but clearly, he has asserted that data show that results from homeopathic medicines are better than that of a placebo. Arion and I are trying to work for a compromise that acknowledges mixed results, and yet, at present, only the negative studies are highlighted. This has to change, that is, if we wish to strive for accuracy, NPOV encyclopedic knowledge. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
:::You've already ] complaining about me using ONE WORD, and ignoring all documented criticism of you in favour of that. Do you now plan on using that to dismiss all criticism ''by everyone else'' as well? ] (]) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the value of editors criticizing of editors, instead of discussing how to improve the actual article for which the discussion page is intended. I have clearly shown that the letter was making a ''clear statement'' that homeopathy has not been disproven, yet that very fact continues to be ignored. The actual quotes were provided.

My comment had been regarding the point that the letter to ''The Lancet'' that was quoted was presented as if it was negative about homeopathy, but it actually was complaining about the tendency for either side of the homeopathic research question to consider their side to have proven their position.
| author2 = Syeda ShahBano Ijaz
The letter's MAIN point was that homeopathic research had NOT DISPROVEN homeopathy - but you would never have known that from that isolated quote that Brunton presented. ] (]) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
| title2 = How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Misplaced Pages’s Credibility
:It is not generally required that you quote parts of a letter irrelevant to the specific subject being discussed simply because someone else likes the views expressed in them. That is a basic necessity for productive discussion, otherwise we may as well just quote every study in full every time we mention one. Provided that the point made is not refuted by discussion in the rest of the article, allowing some latitude for quotes is necessary. And finally, you ''liking'' the point does not make it the ''main'' point of the letter, which covers quite a number of subjects. ] (]) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
| org2 = ]

| url2 = https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/
Your ''not liking'' the point does not automatically mean that it is not the ''main'' point of the letter. If someone has a mind-set that homeopathy is "obviously impossible" and all scientific research will bear out that belief - then facts might easily be overlooked. Remember, scientific inquiry cannot simply be structured to confirm one's own beliefs. That is not how discovery and advancemnent of knowledge has progressed on this world. ] (]) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
| date2 = 29 May 2023

| quote2 = Take the example of the Misplaced Pages page on homeopathy: from 2001-2006, the lead on the page described homeopathy as a “controversial system of alternative medicine.” From 2006-2013, the content changed to mentioning that homeopathy has been “regarded as pseudoscience” and sharing that there is a “lack of convincing scientific evidence confirming its efficacy.” By 2015, this description had stabilized to “homeopathy is a pseudoscience.”
The atmosphere here has become extremely unpleasant and hostile of late; poisonous might be a better word. Can somebody please summarise the key issue and then suggest a way forward so folks can work more harmoniously towards improving the article? Or has that objective now become eclipsed as a side-issue to all the endless squabbling? ] 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
| archiveurl2 =
:I'll e-mail you with my thoughts. ] (]) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
| archivedate2 =
::For what it's worth, ] is clearly wrong that the letter '''claims''' that homeopathy is NOT DISPROVEN, because it is a scientific impossibility to DISPROVE that something has an effect. &mdash; ] ] 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
| accessdate2 = 30 May 2023
* For clarity, read what was actually written: "''The conclusion that physicians should tell their patients that 'homoeopathy has no benefit' and that 'the time has passed for further investment in research' is not backed at all by the data.''"
}}
* I read that as clearly stating that homeopathy cannot be described as having "''no benefit''" because that conclusion "''is not backed at all by the data.''". That means that it has not been proven to be of no benefit.
{{User:MiszaBot/config
* Our article needs to more clearly describe the current state of research into homeopathy, instead of leading the reader to falsely believe that homeopathy has been proven to be of no benefit. ] (]) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
::With all respect, you're quotemining one letter and building castles in the air on the foundation of what some words might be twisted to say. Science doesn't deal in proof. Linde is an old-fashioned scientist. That's probably all he means. ] (]) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 200K
There was no "twisting" and the quotations were direct quotations. No one can seriously tell me that they do not understand the meaning of those words. Now lets get on with improving this article. ] (]) 19:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
|counter = 65
:You're missing the point. If we're going to include the criticism of the ''Lancet'' editorial, we need to reference the editorial's comments in the article, otherwise we run the risk of giving the entirely misleading impression that those words are criticisms of the Shang paper. ] (]) 10:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Much more to the point, it has been widely agreed some days back what this article '''principally''' requires: some RS cites to show that there do exist in this world positive studies of homeopathy. The article is presenly brimful with negative studies and fair enough they need to be there, but positive ones do exist and what Arion and Dana have primarily been trying to point to, as far as I can see, is that '''to balance things up a little,''' we need to decide on and include some of those refs. Instead of endlessly bitching about which studies and who said what, or making personal attacks on other editors, or creating a very hostile atmosphere here, we would be better employed by '''working together''' to find and use the studies we need. Is that a fair summary of the current impasse? ] 11:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
|algo = old(30d)
:Unfortunately that is not possible. Positive studies of homeopathy do not survive the simple winnowing process of holding them to normal standards of quality. To admit positive studies for homeopathy you have to lower the bar so far that the studies become intrinsically worthless. That is homeopathy's problem not the problem of this article. Indeed the fact that this is the situation is of encyclopaedic note in itself and is adequately reflected in the meta-analyses where the consensus is that homeopathic pills have no intrinsic medical worth. Studies can be of high-quality <i>or</i> positive for homeopathy. Not both. What you perceive to be a lack of balance results from the fact that homeopathy is wrong and being wrong is not a balanced position. Why can you not accept that this is a done deal? Homeopathy cannot produce effects that survive examination under properly controlled conditions and the literature fairly reflects this. It's a done deal. Time to move on. The fact that homeopathy doesn't work doesn't make it any less valid to for inclusion in an encyclopaedia as a cultural phenomenon, but we need to move on from the idea that the pills have any medical effect. ] (]) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:Homeopathy/Archive %(counter)d

}}
You have just read a succinct summary of the problem with the homeopathy article(s). The problem is not Dana Ullman. The problem is just this kind of biased statement by one of the editors who are determined not to allow any research that is positive to homeopathy. The readers of Misplaced Pages are not interested in the personal opinions (or in this case mind-sets) of editors. The readers want a factually accurate and NPOV article on homeopathy. As Peter Morrell put it, here is "''what this article '''principally''' requires: some RS cites to show that there do exist in this world positive studies of homeopathy.''" ] (]) 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive index |mask=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no
== New Arbcom case ==
}}

__TOC__
] ] (]) 01:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

==Nature of Belief in Homeopathy==
I have not been around for a while, but I'd like some quotations considered for inclusion in the section on "General Philosophy" , either directly or as sources to which reference can be made.

Peter Morrell previously strongly objected to any similarity with religion being highlighted and said <i>"Yes, Kent was a highly religious man, so what? You can keep pushing this wild POV but there really is no more religion and belief in homeopathy than there is in science today. Is there a section on religion in the science article or the medicine article? According to you, there should be. That's precisely how daft your idea is. If you continue in this vein then you might even be banned. This article is under probation and prejudicial & vastly uninformed time-wasters like you are on a short leash or did you forget this? If a pro-homeo person were doing what you are doing here they would have been banned 24 hours ago."</i>

but the following quotations make that similarity clear and accepted and they happen to have been written by Peter Morrell himself.<i> "Modern homeopathy dwells in a nebulous and metaphysical realm into which few allopaths would fear to tread." "homoeopathy is very much a `belief-system' containing many philosophical elements and ideas.""there are clear and undeniable parallels between homoeopathy and religion.""Both are systems of belief.""The power structures of a religion usually revolve around a central figure - eg the founder ""In the case of the founder of hom, Hahnemann, he is widely revered as the creator of hom, and frequently as the ultimate authority for settling disputes.".</i> I will say that I asked Peter for an internet source for his article on "Homeopathy and Religion" but he did not oblige, but I found them myself in the end. I had thought it might be a jumping off point to finding other material to be offered for inclusion here, but since it turns out to include exactly the kind of material I had in mind for inclusion as part of this topic I see no need to look further at this point.

I also think that the ideas of JG Frazer should then be included.<i>"Charms based on the Law of Similarity may be called Homoeopathic or Imitative Magic" The magical thinking of homeopathic medicine involves this form of thinking. </i>

Might I ask that we reconsider the options in the article for describing the nature of the homeopathic belief system. Merely saying it is a form of vitalism is too narrow.] (]) 15:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)



Homeopathy is NOT a religion, never has been and never will be so your point is entirely off-topic. It therefore merits no further comment. ] 11:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::It is clear that you are not going to apologise for your previous invective against me. Sticks and stones etc, I have no wish to respond in kind and so have concentrated on the issues. Please see below. ] (]) 16:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


:That said, at least H. Walach, writing for the British Homeopathic Journal ] . specifically said (!) that it was magic. An earlier version (mentioned in the BHJ paper) appears in full at .

Peter Fisher discusses it reasonably favourably as an explanation of Homeopathy in {{doi:10.1016/j.homp.2004.07.005}}. ] (]) 15:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That some homeopaths subscribe to a spiritual paradigm does not make homeopathy a religion either.

A religion is defined thus:
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Homeopathy does not fit this definition. Vaguely it partially fits point 3. Science, however, conforms to points 2 and 4; therefore science is more of a religion than homeopathy! How utterly amazing. ] 15:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
::Actually, it conforms to all four, but Peter, this is getting simply bizarre. You are complaining that homeopathy cannot be likened to a religion, yet there are many ways in which this case can be reasonably made, but the first place I looked was at things you yourself have written. If you wish to cite appropriate WP:RS sources that counter this perfectly sensible suggestion then they could be considered to add as a counterweight. Maybe you find it embarrassing to have it described as religion, I cannot help that and I have sources to back me up. You might want to find something that describes homeopathy as functioning well within a rational scientific paradigm, which makes it amenable to the normal processes of experimental investigation. Many homeopathic sources say something rather different from that, but if you want to cite relevant rationalist homeopathic literature then please feel free to do so.] (]) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
:::At some risk to the limits of Fair Use here are some more quotations from one of the sources I have already cited.

<i>"the deeper aspects of homoeopathy are, like religion, contrary to the materialistic principles that 'Scientists' would have us believe regulate material existence."

"The doctrine of the vital force fits so closely the facts of homoeopathy that it is remarkable that science has never shown much interest in the subject. One reason may be that all Vitalist theories about life come very close indeed to the spiritual, and science is never prepared to get tangled up with subjective truths. This is where religion comes in."

"In conclusion, what we can say about homoeopathy and religion is that there are some definite connections between them. They agree very broadly about the nature of man and of life, they support each other logically and they complement one another."

"In my view homoeopathy is a spiritual technique, a spiritual discipline, that heals sickness by addressing that in each of us - vital force and spirit - from which the body, was created and by which it is maintained. In this sense therefore homoeopathy is far more than a system of medicine. When practised properly it holds out to humanity a means of self-understanding, self discovery and self-help as important and as valid as any religion on earth."

"There are many who feel that their personal religious faith and beliefs - if any - are quite separate from their practice of homoeopathy and that they occupy quite separate parts of their life. Fine. That is so for them. But quite a majority of homoeopaths have endeavoured to formulate more advanced philosophies for homoeopathy, based upon a conceptual framework, derived - at least in part - from a religion. "

"In general terms one might be tempted to conclude that homoeopathy as a philosophy fits in most easily with various polytheistic religions like Hinduism and Paganism - including Druidism - and with the Oriental religious philosophies like Zen, Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism."

"What is a religion?

While leaving aside the question of what a religion is, and its function, we can say what it contains. All religions contain a number of discernible elements. Some of these are fairly obvious. Others less obvious. They include:

spiritual element,
philosophical element,
emotional element,
belief and trust element,
personal salvation element,
world or humanity salvation element,
mythologiocal, fantastic or poetic element,
orthodox, traditional element,
power structures and hierarchies,
Homoeopathy also contains most of these elements. It certainly includes elements 2-5, some would also include 1 and 6. Homoeopathy has certainly had its share of 7, 8 and 9. It will be necessary therefore, to consider each of these in further detail in their own right in order to show their relation to homoeopathy."</i>

I think that's enough to make my point. It should not have been necessary to belabour this point quite so leadenly, but Peter Morrell seems to have a major problem with having this issue raised and considered for inclusion. If anyone wants to read the rest they can follow the link I gave.

I really think that we need to move on from a basis that the philosophical basis of homeopathy needs to include a reference to its religious aspects as well as the magical ideas and vitalism. I don't think that it can be rationally said that these are not relevant or important.

And, by the way Peter Morrell, if someone was writing a general piece about the philosophy of science it would be perfectly reasonable to allude to its religious context especially in past centuries. It was a particularly feeble strawman you raised, but to explore science's historical and philosophical links with religion here really would be off-topic, but unless you have only a very narrow reading of the history of science they should be obvious. ] (]) 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


DRAFT SECTION FOLLOWS


<b>==General philosophy==
Homeopathy's metaphysical character sets it apart from conventional medicine, indeed the language of magic has been invoked to describe its actions both by homeopaths and those skeptical of it but it also has much in common with major religious belief systems .

It is a ] philosophy in that it regards diseases and sickness to be caused by disturbances in a hypothetical ] or ] in humans and that these disturbances manifest themselves as unique symptoms. Homeopathy contends that the vital force has the ability to react and adapt to internal and external causes, which homeopaths refer to as the "law of susceptibility". The law of susceptibility states that a negative state of mind can attract hypothetical disease entities called "miasms" to invade the body and produce symptoms of diseases.<ref name="homhist1"/> However, Hahnemann rejected the notion of a disease as a separate thing or invading entity<ref>{{cite web|url=http://julianwinston.com/archives/articles/winston_organon_outline.php |title=Outline of the Organon |accessdate=2007-08-04 |last=Winston |first=Julian }}</ref> and insisted that it was always part of the "living whole".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html |title=Organon Of Medicine |accessdate=2007-08-04 |last=Hahnemann |first=Samuel }}</ref></b>

I think this is appropriately modest, NPOV and easily referenced to verifiable sources. I am not very interested in hearing from Peter whether he still thinks homeopathy is a religion or whether he has changed his mind and wishes to distance himself from his previously published position on the subject. The point is that a clear NPOV statement can and should be made in the article that highlights these aspects of homeopathic philosophy for the general reader of Misplaced Pages. I am however interested to see whether anyone else has more or better ideas or other source materials that they would like to have cited. Might I suggest that if they do then they should copy my draft section and copy it into their own response with appropriate edits and we can see whether we can shape this up. This is not rocket science and boils down to a single sentence so I don't see much need for this to be a lengthy or contentious process.

] (]) 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

::I wouldn't call that "appropriately modest". I would call it "unnecessarily inflammatory". --] (]) 01:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, come now. You can argue it's wrong, or not notable enough to be in the article be in the article, but it's not inflammatory to suggest a statement of views that are decidely out there and somewhat widely held. ] (]) 01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::::The problem is that essentially I agree with the opinion and suspect that it is notable. But that's no way to express this. This is supposed to be an article ''about'' homeopathy, not propaganda ''for'' or ''against'' it. --] (]) 01:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think that your resentment of parallels being drawn between homeopathy and religion says rather more about your attitude to religion than it does about the parallels. Why should you find it offensive and equate it to anti-homeopathy propaganda that these parallels are drawn. Homeopaths themselves have been very happy to accept these parallels. Please try to move on from this position. The parallels have been highlighted in a valid way. Do you have something useful to contribute?] (]) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some suggestions would help, then? Just saying it's inflammatory doesn't really help improve it, or make it obvious how to fix the problem. ] (]) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:I am afraid this won't be easy to fix. Since I am not more of a native speaker at 3 am then at other times it's probably not a good idea for me to try doing it now, but perhaps I have some time to think about it tomorrow. The point is really that this kind of thing must be expressed much more diplomatically. Perhaps you understand the problem if I write something parallel about religion:

:"Metaphysical principles such as ] set Catholicism apart from other Christian confessions. Catholics contend that prayers directed to the Virgin Mary are passed on to God by her, a belief that has been compared to "magical thinking" by some Protestant theologians. Because of the important role of saints, Catholicism also has much in common with polytheism."

:Formulations like this are SPOV, but not NPOV. We can say such things, but we must be more diplomatic. The second paragraph seems to be much better, by the way. --] (]) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::p.s. I think an exploration of the page to which I have linked and the further pages to which it leads rather support my approach and suggest that a Catholic Wikipedian would not react in a hostile manner to your suggestion, except to say that it is far too brief and warrants expansion over several pages as has been done for the pages about Catholic doctrine. I don't think a Catholic would feel threatened by such material, indeed such matters lie at the core of theological debate. What is it about homeopaths and homeopathy that makes them so touchy on this subject? Ah well, to discuss this further really would take us off-topic, but can we accept the principle that the reasonableness and relevance of what I am suggesting has been settled? ] (]) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

::Please try to pay closer attention. The second paragraph is the one that is currently in the main article I have changed only its first word. But the second paragraph only deals with vitalism, which is only part of the philosophical picture. ] (]) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I thought that there was a de-facto agreement on treating religion articles different than other articles since they are based on faith and not on science, and there was not point in putting into doubt the scientific basis of them. Since homeopathy claims to be based on hard science and be scientifically measurable, it should not receive that treatment. Btw, here we are not trying to be diplomatic, and religion articles are not written that way for the sake of diplomacy, or else we would have removed all ] drawings. --] (]) 04:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

::As Peter Morrell pointed out, connecting homeopathy with religion or magic is wrong. In fact I would go further and say that it is absurd, and an insult to all the health professionals utilizing homeopathy successfully. As Hans Adler put so well, "This is supposed to be an article ''about'' homeopathy, not propaganda ''for'' or ''against'' it." ] (]) 02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Arion, have you actually read the links I provided? Please answer that specific question with a short and simple answer. ] (]) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::Arion, you have been back since I posted the question above, please answer it, if you would be so kind. ] (]) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::So why does Walach propose and Fisher support a magical interpretation? It does seem a notable point of view. ] (]) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not notable, and it's an absurd fantasy. Ask any homeopath. Ask any of the millions of homeopathic consumers. Ask any homeopathic researcher. ] (]) 03:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:Except, of course, Walach and Peter Fisher? =P ] (]) 05:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:You seem to have spoken to fewer homeopaths than me and read less of their literature. This religious or quasi-religious viewpoint is standard. True, it may not feature much in the mindset of the average consumer who buys a homeopathic remedy based in part on the usual mistaken similarity with herbalism, but nor do I expect that consumer to understand the pharmacology of COX inhibitors when they buy ibuprofen. That does not have any bearing on the fact that the philosophical basis of homeopathy is metaphysical, magical or religious in its character, which I have established by reference to good source materials. As I have suggested to Hans you cannot reasonably challenge the notability or relevance of these ideas. What you can do is help to flesh out their presentation with further citations if you wish to. ] (]) 08:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::Put Homeopathy + Philosophy into Google and this is the first link you find . Here the authors wish to distance themselves from the idea of religion in homeopathy, presumably out of a defensive reflex similar to that which has been evident on this page, but in so doing they explicitly remind us of how frequently that link is made, <i>"A study of any field of alternative medicine such as homeopathy is likely to take the student into a whole host of derivative concepts ranging from ancient religious rituals to quantum physics."</i> and the desire to bring in the "spiritual" is very strong in many sources, <i>"In spiritual healing as well as in genuine, classical homeopathy, it is not so much that man will rise to the level of spiritual realm, as much as Spirit, the transcendent Supramental Realm, will reveal itself amidst our experience as healing."</i>. Or <i>"it is not possible to explain any healing effect of homeopathic therapy without entering the spiritual or supernatural realm."</i> . Now that link does have something interesting to say specifically about homeopathy and Christianity as an individual religion, <i>Homeopathy has no scientific basis and is totally dependent on a spiritual understanding of man and diseases. Healing effect of homeopathy is unthinkable without the use of spiritual or psychic power. Homeopathy is a way to spiritual power and healing that passes by Jesus Christ and this has no support in the Bible. Samuel Hahnemann's attitude towards Jesus is clearly stated in one of his biographies: "He resisted the dreamer Jesus from Nazareth, who did not lead the selected ones to the right way of wisdom" (1). He also said about Jesus that "he carried the darkness of this world and gave offence to the friends of ethereal wisdom""</i>. Having established the general similarities homeopathy has with religion if one of its advocates would like to incorporate that apparent distancing of it from Christianity specifically then that would be reasonable. This also sits rather well with what Peter Morrell says in the essay that I have linked to, <i>"In general terms one might be tempted to conclude that homoeopathy as a philosophy fits in most easily with various polytheistic religions like Hinduism and Paganism - including Druidism - and with the Oriental religious philosophies like Zen, Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism."</i>
p.s. To those who seem to have a problem with the whole area of metaphysics and homeopathy being highlighted publicly in this article, might I point out that the contrasts and overlaps between science and metaphysical ideas are described in Misplaced Pages, see here and here . The references are necessarily more oblique than is appropriate for the case of homeopathy, but that this because scientific textbooks do not routinely give over their opening chapters to spiritual speculation whereas homeopathic textbooks most definitely do. ] (]) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


:As was suggested previously, I think there is no reason not to collect a large volume of this material and make a separate daughter article on ]. There are people who think it is the work of the devil, there are people who think it is consonant with Christianity and all manner of other beliefs. It does not belong in this main article and there is not room.--] (]) 11:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::I may have missed that suggestion, but if you look at the draft, all I am adding is a single sentence, the rest of the draft is already in the Article. The paragraph that is currently in the Article just needs minor rebalancing and providing with context and that is the small aim I am trying to achieve. As I pointed out previously and, in contradiction to what has been claimed previously, the main general articles on <i>science</i> even make some space for these aspects and it is much more central to homeopathy than it is to those articles. ] (]) 11:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

===Can we solve this on our own?===
Some of the latest contributions of {{User|OffTheFence}} are outright bizarre. While I am still not at the point where I would say this user's behaviour must be intentionally unconstructive, I think it is safe to say that it is similar to that of a sophisticated troll and might best be treated as such. Rather than run to ANI and ask for another topic ban, I suggest that we try to solve this challenge on our own, as a community building exercise.

I propose that we all just follow the ] strategy and stop reacting to this user. Of course this only works if we all agree that that's the right way to proceed. If any of the regular contributors to this article doesn't agree, just leave a short note here and I will withdraw this proposal. --] (]) 10:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:Hans Adler, in what way have my contributions been bizarre? Some have been semi-ironic, or partly humorous, but none have been erroneous and all have been underpinned by a serious desire to address the substantive issues. I have cited the public and widely held beliefs of homeopaths about homeopathy. (Their widely held nature makes them WP:NOTABLE, by the way] (]) 10:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)) What is your problem with that? I would prefer that you deal with the issues rather engage in snide ad hominem. However, I take no offence and would happily consider any contribution you might wish to make. Might I also point out that half the time there is whingeing on these pages about people making un-discussed edits then the other half people like you complain about opening up topics so that they may be discussed. If you can refute the validity of the ideas that I have presented then please do so. If you abdicate from the discussion then that is your choice.] (]) 10:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::Might I also point out that just because you may want to airbrush over a topic that for some reason you are not comfortable with does not make that topic ineligible for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. ] (]) 11:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:p.s. Hans, I ask you the same question as I asked Arion, have you read any of the links I provided? If you have not then please refrain from comment until you have done so. If you have then please explain the basis on which you claim my suggestions are bizarre. ] (]) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems obvious that Enric Naval does not agree. I withdraw my proposal.

:Thank you. Let's move on.] (]) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to explain how exactly OffTheFence's responses to my objections were bizarre. People can read the above discussion and draw their own conclusions . I have read some of the links provided by OffTheFence, and they did not corroborate his views in any way. I am not going to waste my time on the others.

Fact is that this kind of tendentiousness has no place in an encyclopaedia. I checked the homeopathy articles in Britannica (2001 CD edition) and in Encarta. They are shorter than this one, so the fact that they don't mention this topic doesn't say much. But even though they cover the criticism of homeopathy, in comparison to this article they sound like advertising for homeopathy. I am convinced that that's because they were written by experts who know what NPOV means, not by a committe of people pushing opposite POVs. --] (]) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::A "proper" encyclopaedia should not tolerate the inclusion of homeopathy from an "in universe" perspective . However, the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages means that it must include editors who are "in universe" but will not accept that fact. From an NPOV perspective, giving due regard to WP:WEIGHT, homeopathy is a comfortable fiction, a busted flush, but here we are discussing it as if it is a viable medical therapy. It's a funny old world. All I can do is act within the rules and try to make Misplaced Pages's account of homeopathy reflect reality where possible. ] (]) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:Meh, I dunno about OffTheFence's comments, I've looked at them and I can't see the tendentiousness or troll behaviour on them. At most, too long arguments and too much quoting on one of the comments.

:About other encyclopedias' NPOV, I doubt that they follow exactly the same NPOV policy as outlined on ], and we don't know how their ] and ] equivalents are worded and applied, and their entries are probably written by only one person and not by a group of persons with different opinions, so I wouldn't attempt to compare their style. Also, wikipedia is supposed to be ''better'' that those, dammit :D --] (]) 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::I agree that these diffs aren't very clear. In any case he did not react to my point but instead speculated about my attitude towards religions – but so vaguely that I haven't got the faintest idea whether he is for or against religions and whether he suspects me of being for or against them. It's nearly impossible to defend against such a fuzzy attack, so I stepped aside and tried something else.
::You earlier mentioned a special exception for religion articles. I don't think there is anything special about the topic. Such exceptions exist for a reason, and this reason typically applies to religion articles, and it typically doesn't apply to Pokemon articles. I am absolutely convinced that if this reason applies to Jehovah's Witnesses, then it applies to homeopathy as well. --] (]) 13:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, discussion about OffTheFence comments are going a bit off-topic from improving the article, so I'll refrain from discussing them. I can continue talking about them on your talk page if you want.
:::The reason is that religion is faith-based and not science-based. ] claims to be based on faith. ] is also based on faith and treated accordingly, but its self-help system ] is claimed to be based on science and gets this sort of sections: ].

:::Now, if you are saying that homeopathy is based on faith, then we should start stripping all claims and studies saying that homeopathy is scientifically proved :P --] (]) 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::: It involves ] and ], fundamental violations of logic, and ignorance of basic scientific knowledge. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 15:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::All of this was part of medicine at the time when Hannemann laid out the foundations of homeopathy, with blood extractions, the virus theory not still developed, much of the scientific knowledge that today is taken for granted still not discovered, non-profesionalization of the medic profession, etc. A valid criticism would be, for example, to say that the science has changed a lot since that time, and that some homeopathy practicers are still using the original outdated concept which includes all those concepts (properly sourced, of course :P) --] (]) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::: Precisely. Some people are stagnant or seek stagnant sources, and thus never learn. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

===redirecting discussion to draft section===
So, we have a draft section that is sourced by the statements of two notable homeopaths, namely:
*Dr Peter Fisher (homeopath), Clinical Director, Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital
*Harald Walach, (University of Freiburg, Dept. of Environmental Medicine) from a paper on Homeopathy journal when it had a different name
And also from texts by:
*Sir ] (1854–1941), from the book "The Golden Bough" (1922)
*]
And it also cites texts from Samuel Hahnemann.

I have yet to see any comment saying that the draft is incorrect, unacurate, misrepresentative of its sources, or any specific example of where the wording would be ]. Notability of sources is established. The relevance of a statement made by notable homeopaths about the basis of homeopathy should be clear too.

The following is of arguments that are not sufficient to block an addition that breaks no policies. This is starting to look like just wallstoning of inclusion of *any* criticism:
*Saying that it's "inflammatory"
*trying to draw parallelisms to religious articles where the topic is based on faith and not science, instead of drawing parallelisms to similar sections on articles that are science based like ]
* civil accusations of sophisticated trolling not backed by diffs
*claims that an article "about" a topic can't include propaganda against the topic, but we are talking of commentaries by relevant sources on the field about the basis of the topic itself.

So, provide some valid reason citing specific text that is not acceptable so it can be changed before inclusion, backed with exact policy and part of the policy that the text is breaking, or stop complaining about it and let other editors improve the article. --] (]) 11:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:The irony is that I don't even think it is criticism. Many homeopaths are proud of the spiritual metaphysical aspect of what they do. That is why I have found the reactions to this topic so strange. ] (]) 11:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::"many heomopaths" are not all and its perfetly possible that some or even most reputable homeopaths would not like to have theri scientific resarch be dismissed as not only being incorrect but magical as well. ] (]) 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::::p.s. What you say is interesting and probably beyond the scope of a brief encyclopaedia entry. I cannot tell you why some homeopaths seek validation via experimental methods while others deny the applicability of these methods. However, what is germane here is that the majority view supported by their main textbooks is that homeopathy is founded in a spiritual, non-materialist view of the world and this underlies their frequent excuses about the difficulty they have of garnering experimental support for the efficacy of their remedies. But, to discuss this further, we end up engaging in a meta-discussion somewhat remote from the proposed modification of the article. ] (]) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::That is true. What might be relevant would be something from some rationalist wing of homeopathy to balance the spiritualist wing, though, frankly, you are going to struggle to find anything. Because they are fundamentally dependant on content-fre solvent or sugar having biological effects, they have to move outside mainstream science at a fairly early stage. More precisely, what they say might appear rational, bu on closer inspection it is not and it will be difficult to source a fully rational source from the literature, but please feel free to make the effort. ] (]) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The statement "''Many homeopaths are proud of the spiritual metaphysical aspect of what they do.''" is simply untrue. You can not provide a source for it - because there is none. As a physician who has interacted with homeopaths for decades, I have yet to find one that thinks or speaks the way that you want to falsely characterize them. ] (]) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::You are a physician? ] (]) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:I am surprised if you are physician that you could come to that conclusion. I came to it very quickly when I met homeopaths in my professional capacity, though I might not have if I only took a very superficial approach to the issue. Call it OR if you want, but this is a talk page and obvious deductions from the available evidence form part of what we may sensibly discuss on this page. I would not attempt to insert into the main Article a statement that the majority of homeopaths are proud of its spiritual aspects without a reliable source even though it is a valid deduction and also, probably, true. Please try to distinguish in your mind discussion <i>about</I> an encyclopaedic entry and the content of the entry <i>itself</i>. I thought I had supplied enough sources to illustrate my point. Perhaps you need more, but then we risk Hans calling my behaviour bizarre again if I produce a load of citations and quote from them. Go and read any standard homeopathic text. If you can find a viewpoint that contradicts the position I am describing then get back to me, but until then I'm afraid your assertion is unsubstantiated and unverifiable. It is also untrue. Do you really need to be led by the hand to sources of homeopaths declaring their activities to be on the spiritual level and inaccessible to science? Once again I must infer that your knowledge of the homeopathic literature is so shallow as to disqualify you form comment here. ] (]) 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My extensive library of homeopathic literature backs up my statement. The insistance on inserting nonsense about magic and religion being relevant to homeopathy is not correct - and a not so veiled attempt to discredit homeopathy. ] (]) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

:Which statement? Most homeopathic books I have read deal fairly heavily with spirit, vital force, non-material effects etc. It may be that either your or my reading of the literature has been the more representative. I'd like you to cite a single standard homeopathic textbook that does not deal with the spiritual aspects. As I am writing this, I have in front of me George Vithoulkas' book "The Science of Homeopathy" and even by page 8 we are already encountering material such as "The flesh and the spirit are two phases of your actuality in space and time". As I say, this is a book that actually uses "Science" in its title! In any case, how is this relevant to the proposed draft section? ] (]) 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::By the way, Arion, you have still made no attempt to refute or challenge the citations I provided, which does not leave you at liberty to describe my proposed alterations as nonsense. You may wish to engage in a meta-discussion, I do not. I am trying to create an encyclopaedia entry here. Please try to concentrate on the task at hand. ] (]) 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement that there is an aspect to the individual that is a biological organism (flesh) and an aspect that is consciousness (called "spirit" by some) is a statement that a good percentage of non-homeopathic medical practitioners would probably also agree with. Your belief that this supports discrediting homeopathy by associating it with magic or religion is not a logical conclusion, in my estimation. ] (]) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:An association with religion discredits homeopathy?!! Wow. That's quite an assertion. I cannot see why you would make that inference. I am not proposing that such an inference should be part of the article. Why are you? <i>Why does associating homeopathy with religion discredit it?</i> Again we risk travelling down the road of meta-discussion, but this seems to matter to you so please explain why it does. I am sure that many religiously-inclined believers in homeopathy would be interested to hear what you have to say. I am a scientist and I have no problem with considering the associations between science and religion or medicine and religion. What is your problem here? ] (]) 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

===So let's evaluate the sources (sigh)===
(1) ''Homeopathy's metaphysical character sets it apart from conventional medicine, ''
::The opinion of one non-notable homeopath, in a relatively recent (2002) online(?) journal(?) that doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed.

(2) ''indeed the language of magic ''
::A section from Sir James George Frazer (1922), "The Golden Bough – A Study in Magic and Religion". Seriously outdated; uses the word "homoeopathic magic" for a kind of magic, that is only vaguely related to homeopathy and includes the use of voodoo puppets. (Example from the following section: "If homoeopathic or imitative magic, working by means of images, has commonly been practised for the spiteful purpose of putting obnoxious people out of the world, it has also, though far more rarely, been employed with the benevolent intention of helping others into it.")

(3) ''has been invoked to describe its actions both by homeopaths ''
::A paper from 1999 by ''one'' homeopath who later published something called "weak quantum theory" which he hopes can explain efficacy of homeopathy.

(4) ''and those skeptical of it ''
::A 2001 article from the Skeptical Inquirer, written by an anthropologist.

(5) ''but it also has much in common with major religious belief systems .''
::This article is from 1982. Author and journal are the same as for the first reference.

* (1) and (5): The references are obviously way too weak and have been chosen in spite of the obvious danger of provoking the author (who, after all, is a regular editor here, and has been for 2 years).
* (2) "The language of magic" does not need a reference; perhaps a wiki link to make clear what is meant. Using an old book about "homeopathic" voodoo is inflammatory.
* (3) It's completely unclear whether this author's opinion is even notable in homeopathy circles (as opposed to skeptics' circles where innovative ridiculous ideas by homeopaths are always welcome). The abstract contains the sentence: "I will turn to explain how the scientifically obscene word 'magic' can be understood in an inoffensive way." This explains the problem: "magic" is an obscene word, and the entire paragraph seems to have been put together in order to insult. The only relevant things for homeopathy and magic that I found using Google were on anti-pseudoscience sites or due to Walach.
* (4) I see no problems with that.

OffTheFence, I have ''once'' jumped through your hoops now. The result was exactly what could be expected. I will not do this again. Nor, I expect, will anybody else. --] (]) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:OK. Some substantive input, at last. Bear in mind, Hans that we are dealing with material that is not the same as published experimental work so the assessment of WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE are rather different. The equation with religion was well-argued to a point where it becomes self-evident in the piece and has been widely republished around the internet, so it is definitely notable. JG Frazer is notable and the applicability of the word homeopathic was deliberately chosen at the time and referenced subsequently. Walach's invocation of the word "magic" is most definitely notable, has been widely promulgated and forms the basis of something fancifully called the non-local interpretation of homeopathy which has led to Lionel Milgrom's extensive forays into the area, which have, in turn, been widely cited. I'm afraid you can't claim that to be non-notable when the UK's best known homeopath discusses it in an editorial in the UK's leading homeopathic journal. So, your complaints that the material does not qualify are refuted. Why would you want this material to be excluded? ] (]) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::p.s. Hans this would be less tiresome if you bothered to look at the material more closely. I cited the first part of Peter Morrell's essay from a source that was not hidden behind a paywall, but if you want its original citation from the British Medical Journal, then I am happy to oblige, . Hans, please stop assuming that I am stupid and do not have a firm grasp of the homeopathic literature. Indeed, of the editors here, barring Dana, I probably have a better knowledge of the primary literature than most, have access to an archive of several hundred research papers and have spent several years examining it. Thank you. ] (]) 21:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I am not taking you for stupid, far from it. I am taking you for unconstructive, and that in a very sophisticated way that is hard to deal with. --] (]) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Maybe I'm just being over-sensitive, and I have no idea whether to take that as a compliment, but choose to do so. Do you now accept that the BMJ reference makes Morrell's comments notable and RS? Do you withdraw your challenge to the other citations? ] (]) 21:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::The problem as I see it with this section is not that it isn't a view a few people have of homeopathy, but that it doesn't appear very notable view, so might not merit much or any discussion in the main article on this subject. Which source do you think establishes that this is a reasonably prominent position, OTF? ] (]) 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
:::Now, that's a fair point. It is the self-evident nature of the argument presented in Morrell's published article and the wide use of the non-locality idea and "magic" in more recent years that substantiate my overall position. You'll kind of have to take my word for the fact that this is widespread (or Google's word if you search on these terms), but I can see a case for making the sentence I have proposed subordinate to the opening sentence rather than being the lead paragraph of that section. We have, as usual the problem of expert opinion counting for little at Misplaced Pages. I am an "expert" in the homeopathic literature, but that needs to be grounded to verifiable citations here. I think I have done that. ] (]) 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I think this suggestion might be a little over-long and detailed, but some mention of it would, in my opinion, be justified. We could also mention Milgrom's bizarre supposedly-quantum-mechanical expansions of it - I THINK he references Walach in them. ] (]) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

== Notes & references ==

<!-- how is this in accordance with ]? Placing references in a collapsed box means you can't click on the numbers, which defeats the whole purpose of having a section like this? Won't it work as the first section instead? -->


== Mathematically impossible statement ==
<!-- I'm not sure who left this note, but on my computer it works just fine, assuming you open the collapsed list...Also, {{reflist}} only works if it's below the citations, not above, so placing it at the top won't work. -- Scientizzle -->


The article contains this statement:
<!-- Actually, {{reflist}} works fine at the top, at least as of a few weeks ago. It looks better at the bottom, though. -- Arthur Rubin -->
"A 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum, would require 10^320 universes worth of molecules to contain just one original molecule in the final substance."
This does not make any sense. For one, the volume of diluent would have to be (literally) astronomically large. For two, I'm pretty sure no known scientific process achieves this level of purity. If homeopaths in fact claim to achieve this level of purity, I suppose that's just another false claim: but I don't think it should be treated as a fact. ] (]) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:It's supposed to be earth atmoshpheres not "universes", I think.<span id="Usedtobecool:1722222132127:TalkFTTCLNHomeopathy" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;''']'''&nbsp;] 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)</span>
::No, it's universes. The math is supposed to show how aburd homeopaths' claims are. Of course, homeopaths do not do the diluting all at once: take one "duck liver molecule" (whatever that may be) and 10^320 universes of water. They do it step by step, and in summary it amounts to that. --] (]) 04:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::That's precisely the point, though: no human can perform a dilution "step by step" that achieves anything even remotely resembling 1 molecule in 1 galaxy's worth, much less 1 universe's worth. This 10^320 universes must come from bad math or some mistake somewhere. If the idea is to discredit homeopathy, it would be best not to do so with logically impossible math / physics. ] (]) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Demonstrating that something is mathematically impossible seems to me to be a darned good way to discredit it. ] (]) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::The ''maths'' itself is correct - a 200C dilution is genuinely that small a resulting number of molecules. And it's actually not that difficult to dilute something to that level - it's only a 1:100 dilution performed 200 times. If you were diluting in bigger amounts of solvent you could do it very quickly. ] 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::If this is all ], it doesn’t need to be included, mathematically sound or not. It’s like refuting creationism with the ]— you don’t need to prove something with no basis in science, that clearly is incompatible with science on a macroscopic scale (it doesn’t work) is ''also'' incompatible with science on a microscopic scale. That should be obvious. ] (]) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::It cites a source. ] (]) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It still seems like kind of a strange statement to include for the same reason I already described. Does this help the reader understand the topic or just double down on the fact that homeopathy obviously has no basis in science in a weird, overly technical way? ] (]) 16:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I made this edit, to make clearer to readers that it isn't OR: . --] (]) 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024 ==
:<font color=red>'''This should be the last section. If you notice a ''new section'' below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thankyou'''</font>
{{collapse top|Collapse AI blather}}
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
{{edit semi-protected|Homeopathy|answered=yes}}
|-
This critique of homeopathy focuses on the system's funding, pseudo-scientific aspects, and the flaws in its purported benefits, rather than providing an objective overview of the system itself. It targets and undermines the supporters of homeopathy, leading me to question Misplaced Pages's reliability. For instance, some people assert that vaccines are scientifically proven to be beneficial, while others, presenting genuine cases of side effects, argue against them. If I were to present only one-sided arguments on Misplaced Pages, how would the extensive research in this field be valued? My concern is that Misplaced Pages should not provide a platform for biased views to propagate. The sheer number of references does not necessarily validate the claims, as opposing viewpoints are often supported by numerous sources as well. If Misplaced Pages lacks the ethical standards to prevent the publication of content without considering the writer's bias or without an editorial board to set boundaries, readers like me may lose trust in the platform.
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | <big><center>'''References & Notes'''</center></big>
{{collapse bottom}}
|-
] (]) 09:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
|
:{{notdone}} Please use this template for precise editing requests on matters where consensus has been achieved. ] (]) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
|}

Latest revision as of 11:54, 16 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Homeopathy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

Some common points of argument are addressed in the FAQ below, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Misplaced Pages's encyclopedia article about Homeopathy.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the article? (Yes.) A1: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy must be included in the article. The articles on Misplaced Pages include information from all significant points of view. This is summarized in the policy pages which can be accessed from the Neutral point of view policy. This article strives to conform to Misplaced Pages policies, which dictate that a substantial fraction of articles in fringe areas be devoted to mainstream views of those topics. Q2: Should material critical of homeopathy be in the lead? (Yes.) A2: Yes. Material critical of homeopathy belongs in the lead section. The lead must contain a summary of all the material in the article, including the critical material. This is described further in the Lead section guideline. Q3: Is the negative material in the article NPOV? (Yes.) A3: Yes. Including negative material is part of achieving a neutral article. A neutral point of view does not necessarily equate to a sympathetic point of view. Neutrality is achieved by including all points of view – both positive and negative – in rough proportion to their prominence. Q4: Does Misplaced Pages consider homeopathy a fringe theory? (Yes.) A4: Yes. Homeopathy is described as a fringe medical system in sources reliable to make the distinction. This is defined by the Fringe theories guideline, which explains: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.

Since the collective weight of peer-reviewed studies does not support the efficacy of homeopathy, it departs significantly enough from the mainstream view of science to be considered a fringe theory.

References

  1. Jonas, WB; Ives, JA (February 2008). "Should we explore the clinical utility of hormesis". Human & Experimental Toxicology. 27 (2): 123–127. PMID 18480136.
Q5: Should studies that show that homeopathy does not work go into the article? (Yes.) A5: Yes. Studies that show that homeopathy does not work are part of a full treatment of the topic and should go into the article. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. Non-experts have suggested that all the studies that show homeopathy does not work are faulty studies and are biased, but this has not been borne out by the mainstream scientific community. Q6: Should another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" be created? (No.) A6: No. Another article called "Criticism of homeopathy" should not be created. This is called a "POV fork" and is discouraged. Q7: Should alleged proof that homeopathy works be included in the article? (No.) A7: No. Alleged proof that homeopathy works should not be included in the article. That is because no such proof has come from reliable sources. If you have found a reliable source, such as an academic study, that you think should be included, you can propose it for inclusion on the article’s talk page. Note that we do not have room for all material, both positive and negative. We try to sample some of each and report them according to their prominence. Note also that it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to convince those people who do not believe homeopathy works, nor to dissuade those who believe that it does work, but to accurately describe how many believe and how many do not believe and why. Q8: Should all references to material critical of homeopathy be put in a single section in the article? (No.) A8: No. Sources critical of homeopathy should be integrated normally in the course of presenting the topic and its reception, not shunted into a single criticism section. Such segregation is generally frowned upon as poor writing style on Misplaced Pages. Q9: Should the article mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism? (No.) A9: No. The article should not mention that homeopathy might work by some as-yet undiscovered mechanism. Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research or speculation. Q10: Is the article with its negative material biased? (No.) A10: No. The article with its negative material is not biased. The article must include both positive and negative views according to the policies of Misplaced Pages. Q11: Should the article characterize homeopathy as a blatant fraud and quackery? (No.) A11: No. Inflammatory language does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia; it should only be done if essential to explain a specific point of view and must be supported from a reliable source. Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral and reflect information found in reliable sources. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a consumer guide, so while scientific sources commonly characterise homeopathy as nonsense, fraud, pseudoscience and quackery - and the article should (and does) report this consensus - ultimately the reader should be allowed to draw his/her own conclusions.
Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
Good articleHomeopathy has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 14, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 27, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 13, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 19, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 25, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 9, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
March 2, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 2, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 11, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
October 29, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHomeopathy (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconAlternative views High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCitizendium Porting (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Homeopathy.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Mathematically impossible statement

The article contains this statement: "A 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum, would require 10^320 universes worth of molecules to contain just one original molecule in the final substance." This does not make any sense. For one, the volume of diluent would have to be (literally) astronomically large. For two, I'm pretty sure no known scientific process achieves this level of purity. If homeopaths in fact claim to achieve this level of purity, I suppose that's just another false claim: but I don't think it should be treated as a fact. Andrewbrink (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's supposed to be earth atmoshpheres not "universes", I think. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
No, it's universes. The math is supposed to show how aburd homeopaths' claims are. Of course, homeopaths do not do the diluting all at once: take one "duck liver molecule" (whatever that may be) and 10^320 universes of water. They do it step by step, and in summary it amounts to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
That's precisely the point, though: no human can perform a dilution "step by step" that achieves anything even remotely resembling 1 molecule in 1 galaxy's worth, much less 1 universe's worth. This 10^320 universes must come from bad math or some mistake somewhere. If the idea is to discredit homeopathy, it would be best not to do so with logically impossible math / physics. Andrewbrink (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Demonstrating that something is mathematically impossible seems to me to be a darned good way to discredit it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The maths itself is correct - a 200C dilution is genuinely that small a resulting number of molecules. And it's actually not that difficult to dilute something to that level - it's only a 1:100 dilution performed 200 times. If you were diluting in bigger amounts of solvent you could do it very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
If this is all WP:OR, it doesn’t need to be included, mathematically sound or not. It’s like refuting creationism with the law of conservation of mass— you don’t need to prove something with no basis in science, that clearly is incompatible with science on a macroscopic scale (it doesn’t work) is also incompatible with science on a microscopic scale. That should be obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
It cites a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
It still seems like kind of a strange statement to include for the same reason I already described. Does this help the reader understand the topic or just double down on the fact that homeopathy obviously has no basis in science in a weird, overly technical way? Dronebogus (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I made this edit, to make clearer to readers that it isn't OR: . --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

Collapse AI blather
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This critique of homeopathy focuses on the system's funding, pseudo-scientific aspects, and the flaws in its purported benefits, rather than providing an objective overview of the system itself. It targets and undermines the supporters of homeopathy, leading me to question Misplaced Pages's reliability. For instance, some people assert that vaccines are scientifically proven to be beneficial, while others, presenting genuine cases of side effects, argue against them. If I were to present only one-sided arguments on Misplaced Pages, how would the extensive research in this field be valued? My concern is that Misplaced Pages should not provide a platform for biased views to propagate. The sheer number of references does not necessarily validate the claims, as opposing viewpoints are often supported by numerous sources as well. If Misplaced Pages lacks the ethical standards to prevent the publication of content without considering the writer's bias or without an editorial board to set boundaries, readers like me may lose trust in the platform.

118.148.126.228 (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please use this template for precise editing requests on matters where consensus has been achieved. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: