Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SteveBaker (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 2 December 2014 (→Homeopathy and hormesis: Not remotely the case.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · 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.

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.

Important notice: 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.

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 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.

Homeopathy was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result September 14, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 8, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 13, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted October 19, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 25, 2007 Good article nominee Listed February 9, 2008 Peer review Reviewed March 2, 2009 Peer review Reviewed April 4, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 2, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Homeopathy (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views High‑importance [REDACTED] This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Citizendium Porting (inactive) This 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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Dana Ullman (2014-10-10). "Dysfunction at Misplaced Pages on Homeopathic Medicine". Huffington Post.

Template:Vital article

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

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, 65

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

SPA protection

This probably isn't specific to this article, but is there a way to stop SPAs from wasting so much time and energy? Looking through the archives for this talk page, I see that every few months a new SPA comes here and starts misusing NPOV the same way. I understand that newcomers should be welcomed, but I think the line has to be drawn much, much sooner. In my opinion the time that the much more experienced editors are essentially wasting on debating a SPA that will just be replaced in a few months could be used instead to improve the project, not to mention these editors start getting somewhat cranky when they have to repeat themselves over and over to each new account. This is only exacerbated when other experienced editors who agree with these SPAs come over to put their 2 cents in too. I'm not sure what could be done about this but I do think it's a huge time sink. Perhaps newcomers could be almost forced to read the archives and NPOV/MEDRS/UNDUE? I dunno. Cannolis (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the ArbCom discretionary sanctions on disruptive editing should be applied more rapidly and with great consistency in these cases. eg after one, clear, predetermined warning - a second violation is an instant 1 week block and a third violation a perma-block. We'd need to write that predetermined warning rather carefully to impress on new editors the importance of this and that they've just jumped into a furnace...but I think that could be done. SteveBaker (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it isn't specific to this article. Please focus discussion here on improvements to the article. Editor conduct discussion goes elsewhere.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, my apologies. SteveBaker (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• The real question is: what are the chances of anybody who turns up with the objective of "fixing" this article, becoming a productive and useful editor? Honestly, I think slim. Experience indicates that their commitment is to the cult of homeopathy, not to the project of creating a free repository of knowledge, but I don't think we should be too hasty. So the question I guess is, how hasty is too hasty? And I don't know the answer. Usually when new editors turn up here it's because of an outside comment, and I think it usually takes between one and two weeks to get bored with them. Is that too long? Guy (Help!) 17:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This is all pretentious. Steve Baker and all you did not even answer one of the questions posed specifically. For instance - why it is not appropriate per wiki policy the readers to be aware about the criticism of Shang study by Linde and all since it has appeared in a such reliable source --the Lancet ? Any particular reason? Your mandra is read this and that. Everybody can say that. You have to be specific, kind - not abusive - it is obvious that i m not vandal or have an agenda. Not only you. the majority of you behaves the same. When you see an more curious editor VQuakr to ask an intelligent question you start spamming the page with general quotes to obscure the real discussion- This is really disruptive editing. As a last note for now about my proposed edit "Other scientists say that the reviews are positive but not convincing. " since VQuakr asked me about it, Look at all the systematic reviews besides Shang ( heavily criticized ) and Ernst published in high impact journals and judge yourself if the support my proposed edit. Best. --TineIta (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not appropriate that Misplaced Pages readers are taken step by step through the cavilling of True Believers over Shang because those criticisms are covered in the literature and have been fully answered. To include the criticisms without including the response, which it seems is the final published word on the matter in the journal, is no more appropriate than including creationist critiques of Darwin's Origin of Species without noting evolutionary biologists' many rebuttals of those agenda-driven criticisms. Letters in The Lancet criticising Shang came from the likes of Harald Walach (duplicate response), Iris Bell and George Lewith, who unquestionably have a dog in the fight - their financial interests are directly harmed by articles pointing out that homeopathy is fraudulent. Shang and co-authors responded in full, identifying the rationale for their methodology. We are not here to pander to the "merchants of doubt", especially since it is increasingly evident that the accumulation of a small net positive evidence base is not only likely, but expected for an inert treatment. Inert treatments have more favourable impressions due to lack of effects (side or oherwise). Guy (Help!) 21:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality -Edit suggestion

VQuakr If you read these systematic reviews you will see that they support my suggestion : all are reputable journals. Shangs should also be included and Enrst but the the first one has been severely criticized in other reputable sources therefore cannot be regarded as the last word of research. Ernst always a lone voice also should be included but this is not technically a meta analysis. This is my suggestion.

Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience, by many scientists and some researchers state that its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos. Others researchers say that several systematic reviews show that there is some evidence that cannot be explained with the placebo effect but it is not convincing because of the low methodological quality of the trials. --TineIta (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic. --TineIta (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601

Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323 At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1825800

There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10853874 --TineIta (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

No. You still fail to understand how[REDACTED] works. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those are all out of date. They're overtaken by PMID 20402610 LeadSongDog come howl! 02:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And they are already discussed in the article. Nothing new here. Brunton (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Who is saying that they have been overtaken? One writer who - Enrst one author - who did not conduct his own meta analyses just reviewed the previous ones? --TineIta (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

All those sources have been discussed to death before. Please read the archive pages, you'll find the answer to your questions.--McSly (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be specific?--TineIta (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, all of the sources you mentioned, that's all of them, and to be extra clear, all of them, have been discussed to death before. Please read the archive pages, you'll find the answer to your questions. There is no need to waste our time answering your disruptive questions any more. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite. Plus three government level reviews and statements from NCCAM, NHS Choices etc., all unanimously finding no evidence beyond placebo. This is only remotely controversial to True Believers. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Besides the usual generic mantra about how disruptive I m - without making any specific comments on the specifics suggestions ------I cannot really find where the specific edit I suggested ---- supported by the above sources is. But since you think that NCCAM is reliable source - I could modify my edit -- using precisely what NCCAM states

You want specifics? Fine. You are cherry-picking studies that show positive results despite the documented fact that for a treatment like homeopathy with no prior plausibility, the chances of a positive result being a false positive are very much higher than for a reality-based treatment; you are doing this relentlessly, you have no productive contributions to Misplaced Pages whatsoever, you are a single purpose account and you are here solely to advocate against the scientific consensus view on one of the most comprehensively debunked forms of quackery on the planet. It is also highly likely by now that you have a conflict of interest (few people without a financial commitment to quackery bother to come to Misplaced Pages to try to bend us away from the reality-based view).

Your advocacy is disruptive because you refuse to accept no for an answer, you are here to "Right Great Wrongs" that are not actually wrongs at all, and in the end your problem is not actually with Misplaced Pages at all, but with the natural universe which has long since revealed to scientists that Hahnemann's ideas were simply wrong, just like those of pretty much every other medic of his time. His conclusion that like cures like is based on an error: it was refuted over a century ago, as was his contention that matter is infinitely divisible. That's refuted, not just put in doubt. Hahnemann's claims re cinchona and infinitesimals are not unproven, they are actively disproven. There is a limit to the number of times we are going to point out to you that no amount of clinical trials conducted by true believers and equally consistent with the null hypothesis, will ever override the absence of any remotely plausible mechanism. The usual response is that "science doesn't know everything"; this is true, but science now knows a vast amount more than it did in 1796, and pretty much every relevant finding since that date has gone against homeopathy. A memory of water, since experimentally measured as lasting hundredths of a picosecond, does not cut it and never will. Neither will three way entanglement of non-entangled non-quantum objects, à la Milgrom.

Basically, your choices are now converging on the following:

1. Get some credible evidence that like cures like and dilution increases potency, published in reliable journals
2. Shut up
3. Get banned

The third is the most likely, based on long past experience with others who have done precisely the same thing, especially since after more than 200 years nobody has come close to the first. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality -Edit suggestion 2

Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience, by many scientists and there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific condition. --TineIta (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarise the article. It isn't a place to parachute in quotations that aren't even included in the article. As it stands, the lede summarises the consensus reported in the article and sourced from peer reviewed papers. The source that you are proposing quoting does not disagree significantly with this consensus. And "by many scientists" effectively misrepresents the consensus. Most of this was discussed here only about six months ago, by the way. Brunton (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

No, because as pointed out above, every single reliable authority on pseudoscience that considered whether homeopathy is or is not pseudoscience, categorises it as pseudoscience. It would be capricious to portray as any realistic scientific uncertainty, the few fringe believers who are convinced that their pseudoscientific work is in fact valid.

By the same token, every singe high level review independent of the world of SCAM, finds no evidence that homeopathy is anything other than a placebo. There is not one single study published that convincingly refutes the null hypothesis, and there is no independently authenticated case where homeopathy can be objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever.

To give the views of believers parity with government-level reviews, would be entirely wrong according to our policies. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Last thing - I would not waste my time to reply to your generic mantra --but you seem to really believe that "every single reliable authority on pseudoscience regards Homeopathy as pseudoscience "----- you mean the sceptic organizations, In Europe Homeopathy is recognized "Homeopathy is recognised by law as a distinct medical therapy in Belgium (1999), Bulgaria (2005), Hungary (1997), Latvia (1997), Portugal (2003), Romania (1981), and Slovenia (2007). "

(How admirable is to block one from editing and then talk to her/him..especially in this style--- Your arguments are so ..strong the opponent cannot really argue with you. One can only "admire" your intellectual strength and honesty.)

Anyhow - I offered reliable sources above - feel free to ignore them - however --- if the editors here have decided that readers should not know about all the controversies about homeopathy's efficacy even if they appear in reputable journals --- does not look so good on wikipedia. Maybe this is correct thought ---the average reader is not so intelligent and curious to want to know the different opinions that appeared in reputable journals about homeopathy's efficacy. In that case - this is good for you ..."guys".. Who really needs real education ? --TineIta (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Why you do, obviously. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Another great argument. --TineIta (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I know. I'm good. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

And an accurate one. TineIta, you have been warned repeatedly. You must stop your misuse of Misplaced Pages to push your fringe POV. Since you refuse to heed the warnings, it's time for a topic ban or total block. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TineIta's user page now just says "RETIRED"...anyone want to place bets on how long it'll be before the next suspiciously similar SPA pops up here? SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

me. --TineIta (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

LANCB? I think he'll be back. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tinelta: you appear not to understand the difference between politics and science. Let me help you with that. Science says homeopathy is bullshit, politics defers to anyone who might be able to mobilise a vote. Several countries have official religions. They are not all the same - despite your belief that legal recognition confers validity, mutually incompatible state religions have exactly that. Politics is not and never has been a valid arbiter of fact. Guy (Help!) 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So do you think that this report is garbage since it came from a government,. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/science-technology/s-t-homeopathy-inquiry/ --TineIta (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That isn't from a government. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well kind of "The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious..blah blah" --TineIta (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Rather more relevant in this context is the comment in the previous paragraph to the one you quoted from, that "The Committee found a mismatch between the evidence and policy". As Guy pointed out, political recognition of homoeopathy says nothing about its efficacy, or whether it is a pseudoscience, because that isn't necessarily what politicians base their decisions on. The appropriate sources for that are scientists and philosophers of science, and when you look there you find statements that "Homeopathic remedies are “rubbish” and do not serve as anything more than placebos" , or that "homeopathy is a paradigmatic example of pseudoscience". Brunton (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So what is your point? How does all this relate to improving our article? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking me or Guy who started the discussion? I suggested that readers should be aware about the different views on homeopathy as long as they appear in reputable journals. It is up to the editors to decide whether they want readers to know all about it or not. But I should not be talking - I m retired, --TineIta (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But you haven't provided any adequate sources to show that there are scientific views that are significantly different from the consensus reported by the article. The three meta-analyses/systematic reviews that you have referred to are all already cited by the article; two of them report that the evidence is not good enough to draw a conclusion that homoeopathy works because of study quality issues (with the more recent stating explicitly that "Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative") and the authors of the third one have concluded, in a more recent peer-reviewed analysis, that it "at least overestimated" the effects of homoeopathy. While the abstract of the Annals of Internal Medicine narrative review that you cite does say that there are three systematic reviews that have "reported that its effects seem to be more than placebo", if you read the actual article it goes on to explain that various issues make it "impossible to draw definitive conclusions" from these results. And the letter to the editor you keep citing is not included because, as you have repeatedly been told, it is the peer-reviewed article, not the journal it appears in, that is the RS. The letter isn't cited by the article to rebut a peer-reviewed analysis because it isn't the sort of peer-reviewed source required by MEDRS, and, for example, the Lancet editorial titled "The end of homoeopathy" isn't cited either, for the same reason. In both cases it is the nature of the source, not what it says, that is determining whether it is included. And also, the letter doesn't support a conclusion that differs significantly from the consensus; the only general comment about the plausibility and efficacy of homoeopathy is that the authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". Brunton (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The meta analyses I cited do not concur with Shang who says it is all placebo. They ---the authors --- say inconclusive. Stating that they claim it is placebo because there is not definite conclusion that works is misinformation. When a group of well published researchers publicly objects to a such widely cited study ( Shangs ) saying that their conclusion is wrong ---an encyclopedia should let readers know. Of course it is not a review - but the british government is not a review either. And it is cited to support the sentence that H = placebo. Regarding the annals of internal medicine - I trust authors summary and I don't do original research to figure out if the authors summarized their article adequately. Kind of absurd, As I said - I don't want to keep arguing for the obvious --- I made a suggestion - if you think people should not know all the points of view as long as they are published in exceptional sources -- it is not so admirable. You have rationalized it in your mind --- because you want to believe all the reviews state basically the same H= placebo while the authors themselves publicly DISAGREE. This is beyond pathological skepticism as Ullman says. And this it is more really problematic than your bias or my bias regarding Homeopathy --- I do not care so much about it -- I have no professional or other relationship with homeopaths. --TineIta (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. The point here is that we have a consensus about what to do about this - and basically, nobody agrees with you because these sources don't meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines - and without that, we're not allowed to write about them, period. Continuing to push this POV in the face of consensus is highly disruptive. You've already been blocked once for doing exactly what you're continuing to do. Since you clearly haven't learned a thing from that slap on the wrist, another (much longer) block will likely be coming soon. What you're doing would be something you could probably get away with in other article - but this one is under ArbCom sanctions...and that means that we don't tolerate this behavior here. SteveBaker (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not contributed even one useful thing in this article. One source , one comment or even one reason why you disagree. Check your contributions. It all ranting and general threats to block editors. You should be blocked for disruption. I m talking because they ask me questions-- --TineIta (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You have single-handedly caused close to 60,000 bytes of useless debate to take place here because you won't listen when the consensus is against you. This crowds out the useful discussion I'd like to have about bringing the quality of this article back up to the state it deserves to be. It was once rated as a "Good Article" - and it deserves to regain that status. I'd very much like to discuss the real issues here, and attend to the matters that are really important in this article. But it's tough to do that with all of the disruption being caused by this extended tirade about an already-decided point that's well-covered by established Misplaced Pages guidelines.

(Oh, and by the way, I stand by my record. I wear my "Senior Editor II/Most Pluperfect Labutnum" badge with pride. I have made at least a half dozen edits to this article over the years and have in excess of 28,000 contributions to Misplaced Pages over a period of 5 years, I've had two of articles that I brought up from a stub winding up being featured on the front page - and over all that time, I've never once been sanctioned for ill-behavior of any kind. You have a single-purpose account, just ONE edit to your name (and that was immediately reverted) and you've already been blocked once for disruptive editing - so perhaps it's unwise to start hurling that kind of insult around.) SteveBaker (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope it is not all ranting like in homeopathy.--TineIta (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tinelta, what you misperceive as ranting is merely ever-firmer repetitions of the facts. Our article is accurate and neutral, you simply don't like it because it conflicts with your beliefs. We get this all the time with homeopathy, climate change, evolution and dozens of other topics where the scientific consensus shows deeply-held beliefs to be wrong.

You say that other meta analyses do not concur with Shang. The Shang study is fundamentally different from the others in that it compares outcomes in matched trials of homeopathy and real medicine. Other meta-analyses look at whether the trial outcome is positive, Shang looks at how the evidence compares, in similar trials for similar conditions, between homeopathy and medicine. The results are well known:

FINDINGS:

110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0.88 (95% CI 0.65-1.19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0.58 (0.39-0.85) for conventional medicine (six trials).

INTERPRETATION:

Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.

This is entirely consistent with the other meta-analyses. "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies" could be a paraphrase of the conclusions of Linde 1999, which is, of course, a re-analysis of Linde 1997 taking into account methodological quality.

The interpretation is: "This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." Linde 1997 said "the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" (emphasis added) but " insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" - this is actually saying that the weakness of the effect shows that it is largely due to placebo, and this is clear from the body. The 1999 conclusion says "we conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results".

Taken together, these two statements re the overall evidence, and the explicit fact that there is no single condition for which efficacy can be convincingly established, are not in any meaningful conflict with Shang, and subsequent studies further confirm this.

You also dispute that authorities on pseudoscience are reliable because you denigrate them as "skeptical" (as if that's a bad thing - skepticism is actually the default in the scientific method). That's a rather obvious escape hatch. Essentially, anybody who includes homeopathy in their discussion of pseudoscience is, by your definition, a skeptic and therefore conflicted. In reality most authors writing about the philosophy of science and the demarcation problem have very little interest in homeopathy, but still cite it as an example of pseudoscience. In The Unnatural Nature Of Science, Lewis Wolpert references Benveniste's water memory as an example of pathological science, a modern counterpart of Blondlot's N-rays. He has since spoken out about homeopathy. It is clear to anyone other than true believers that the study of the science came first and the conclusion came from the evidence, but homeopathists naturally assume that he started by looking for reasons to disbelieve. This is not only incorrect, it's also not a problem even if it were true: while homeopathists always set out to provide evidence in support of their beliefs, in science it is not only permissible to set out to test and challenge a claim, it's positively encouraged.

You need to remember that you are talking here with people who are not only fully familiar with Misplaced Pages policies, but also familiar with the subject matter and the cottage industry of homeopathy pseudoscience. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Another petition

The lunatic charlatans are at it again: Call to action to update Homeopathy at Misplaced Pages.

Great news for anyone who wants to practice patiently explaining to a legion of newbies, why the article's not going to change. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I often wonder why pseudo-science supporters are so incoherent. At that petition I see "...no action has been taken by the Misplaced Pages in this regard". The Misplaced Pages? Also, "We must come together in large number..." (no "s"), "The article is bias and unscientific" ("bias" is not an adjective, and it's homoeopathy that's unscientific), "homeopathy is the almost perfect medicine" (LOL), "Millions use homeopathy all the world", "I am a homoeophathic doctor and I saw and see so much success with homoeopathic medicin" (no, there was no "e" there.). Such illiterate people have no credibility with me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I like that Misplaced Pages:Lunatic charlatans article. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wale's response could be reused verbatim in that case. There is nothing else to discuss. Darkdadaah (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Our ability to reject such petitions is the reason why we're by far the most trusted source of information on the planet. Science does not progress through petitions, it's not a democratic process - so the number of people pressing for a change is simply not relevant here. Our ability to openly, publicly, reject such petitions makes us stronger in the eyes of those who matter...our readership. So bring it on...let's have petitions from the holocaust deniers, the flat earthers, the moon-landing deniers, the 9/11 conspiracists and the perpetual motion machine makers. Give us the opportunity to show the world that we're sticking to our science-based reporting of mainstream views and rejecting lunatic charlatans - no matter how many there are or what pressures they apply.

These people bemoan the fact that so many people read (and, presumably, believe) our articles - and ask that we change. They don't understand that the reason we're read and trusted by all of those people is precisely because we don't bow to petitions when mainstream science says that we're in the right. My response to those people is that this encyclopedia is built according to this set of rules - there are plenty of other encyclopedias, many with rules that would allow Homeopathists to express their ideas without mention of the prevailing mainstream science. For sure, you can go hog-wild on those platforms. The trouble is (and the reason Homeopathists aren't pursuing those outlets) that most people simply don't read those encyclopedias...and the reason for that is simply because Misplaced Pages's rules make us more trustworthy.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedians, when it comes to editing an article, we're supposed to act like we don't have an opinion on the validity of either side of a dispute or debate. That's why we have a neutrality policy. If you have strong feelings about the veracity of homeopathy and it's causing you to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND towards this topic and the editors who edit it, then do you really believe it's a good idea for you to be trying to influence the content of this article? Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is not about a dispute or a debate. It's about a pseudo-science. That is not an opinion. It's a fact. I do have an opinion on those editors trying to change the article to state that the topic IS scientific. While they may be editing in good faith, they are wrong, and we must be vigilant against their efforts. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No we're not. We're supposed to act like we accept the consensus view of the subject. We don't pretend to have an open mind on the age of the earth or evolution by natural selection, because it is a well established fact that the earth is billions of years old and life evolved by natural selection. We don't keep an open mind on whether the climate is changing due to human activity, because the dissenters from that view are motivated by blatant self-interest. For the same reason, we don't pretend to keep an open mind on a set of ideas founded on refuted doctrines and contradicted by the laws of thermodynamics, quantum physics and all established knowledge on chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and human anatomy. We treat homeopathy exactly as we treat humoural medicine, and for exactly the same reason. Guy (Help!) 00:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The really depressing thing is that the petition has over 12,000 supporters as of right now. That, and the fact that they don't link to any peer reviewed studies they just assert that "Much evidence proves the scientificity of homeopathy". I guess Jimbo will have to smack them down like he did in March. Jinkinson talk to me 01:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

They won't like that, and will probably say nasty things about him. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I m not here to advocate for homeopathy but for neutral representation of what reputable journals state. And among the researchers there is some disagreement- recorded in reputable journals. I would not say that wikipdedia should say that homeopathy works but to present all opinions about its efficacy as long as they appear in reputable journals. This is the minimum to ask - -Do not censor or edit out all these info - an encyclopedia should inform the readers not try to convince them that there is false consensus when the same authors who are cited here clearly state that there in NOT. --TineIta (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the refereed article in a reputable journal that says it works? HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedians, when it comes to editing an article like Flat Earth, we're supposed to act like we don't have an opinion on the validity of either side of a dispute or debate. That's why we have a neutrality policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The article is not about a dispute or a debate. It's about a pseudo-science. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a trick . Linde and all meta analyses say it is not placebo through not clear and conclusive but also criticize shang saying that their meta analyses state that there is some evidence that it might work for some conditions. Your responsibility is to inform the readers about this and not to edit out to give the false impression that they agree that it is placebo. This is dishonest. --TineIta (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"all meta analyses say it is not placebo" No, they don't. Brunton (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion, as a believer. In practice, a systematic review of the systematic reviews finds: "Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo." Which we accurately reflect in the article. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please note that our core policies forbid us to treat all opinions as equal, though there are some who would have us believe the opposite. Neutral doesn't mean "wishy washy". The key to our neutrality policy is that we present opinions weighted according to their representation in reliable sources.

We must be especially vigilant in matters such as pseudoscience like homeopathy, and in matters of science that are under politically motivated attack, such as evolution and climate science. Strongly motivated or misguided editors openly and repeatedly misstate policy to suit their fringe opinions. It is a common error to push for the inclusion of relatively poor studies to provide "balance" to an overwhelming scientific consensus. This should be resisted, though the external forces Misplaced Pages faces are often quite strong. --TS 08:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Prof. Cox stated this rather well:

The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!

— Brian Cox

Seems to cover it. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In the same vein, I've always been fond of Okrent's Law:

The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.

— Daniel Okrent

Okrent was the first Public Editor (essentially, 'ombudsman') of the New York Times. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I m sure he did not mean " edit out whatever reliable source you don't agree with to create a version of truth suitable to your beliefs." Or "keep the reader in the darkness by not informing about what all reliable sources state ---to make him believe that everybody agrees that the X method is useless " He is a good editor. --TineIta (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure quackery shills had developed that technique when he wrote the above, but in any case it's only a special case of the law. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't "edit out" reliable sources...if you have sources that meet our standards (WP:MEDRS, in this case) - then we can, and probably will, use them. The problem with your ongoing bullshit campaign is that your sources are not WP:MEDRS-compatible. So they aren't "reliable sources" in terms of this article and by rejecting them, we're not "editing them out". They simply don't meet the required standard for our encyclopedia...and that the end of the debate...except that it's not because you're still talking - despite claiming to be "RETIRED" and being punished for continuing to push this nonsense.

It's often felt (and said) that you have a right to free speech or a right to put your case here. But that's simply not true. Misplaced Pages isn't bound by those kinds of consideration. We have our own rules, and thats what we live by. Our readers are perfectly at liberty to look at those rules - they are widely publicized and freely available - and if they decide that they don't think that those rules are fair, they are perfectly at liberty to go to some other source for information. The fact is that they rather like our rules - and that's why we're the fifth most popular website in the entire world. SteveBaker (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What we could say

Where we say:

its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos

It would be more accurate to say:

homeopathy is not demonstrably effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo

This does address the concern that the bald statement is something of an over-simplification - not that I find it problematic, personally, but we have had an awful lot of querulous argumentation about that statement over the months. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds okay, and clearer for those who may come to the page without any understanding that homeopathy's extravagant claims are unsupported by fact. --TS 16:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well. If you want to be precise you should state who says what. Because the reviews I cited above do NOT say that - most of them are more positive but inconclusive / unconvincing. Given Linde objection to the Lancet about Shang's conclusion there is not consensus among -researchers --- they have clearly stated they dispute results and methodology. Readers should know about these facts. -- --TineIta (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting rather tired of pointing out to you that cherry picking the bits you like from published documents is not giving readers "facts". The text above is drawn from the sources already cited and is the conclusion of a systematic review of systematic reviews, so encompasses all relevant published findings that meet specified criteria of quality. Of course, your point might have slightly more weight if there was a single study in a reputable journal that conclusively demonstrated any remedy to be effective by any objective measure, or which conclusively showed homeopathy to be effective for any condition by any objective measure. No such study exists. No result has yet been published which convincingly refutes the null hypothesis. This is not a surprise to anybody who understands what hoemopathy actually is, and who has even the most tenuous grasp of concepts such as bioavailability. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are getting tired - take a break. To the point - I don't need a study stating that you say- they do exist but it is not our topic here. Why don't you want the readers to know that there is disagreement among researchers about homeopathy's efficacy? How is this justifiable per[REDACTED] policy? --TineIta (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Because its not like there are some researchers who say "It doesn't work" and some who say "it works". There are almost all who say "it doesn't work" and a very small number who say "there is a handful of trials that had an ambiguous result that might be slightly more than placebo, but we don't know for sure, it could also be errors in the studies, or the 95% confidence issue. ". When there are secondary studies that say "Yes, there is clear evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in situation X" we will say so. See this wonderfully illustrative example of WHY a small handful of positive results is expected for something where there is no real effect. https://xkcd.com/882/ Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is false . But it is not what I asked. Can you answer the question : Why don't you want the readers to know that there is a disagreement among researchers about homeopathy's efficacy? Which is clearly demonstrated in the Lancet from researchers whose work is extensively cited in the literature particularly in reputable sources and in wikipedia. --TineIta (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "a disagreement among researchers" is probably a good start for a rewrite. If by some freak of grammar our article has failed to clarify the magnitude of the evidence against homeopathy, we probably need to find much, much stronger language to express the facts. --TS 23:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

TinIta. Please point to the secondary study that says there is an unambiguous positive result greater than placebo for any ailment. News at 11 : 99 eye witnesses positively identified the suspect as the perp. One witness said he didn't see well enough to know for sure. You are asking the jury to say there is reasonable doubt. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You are not responding. The question was "Why don't you want the readers to know that there is a disagreement among researchers about homeopathy's efficacy?" you pretend you did not hear it. Try to give a reasonable good faith answer. --TineIta (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We can't imply that some researchers have concluded that homoeopathy has efficacy over placebo without MEDRS sources (i.e. systematic reviews or meta-analyses) that have concluded this. Brunton (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You dont have to imply anything --you just report their objections as you supposed to be doing. You are not allowed to censor this piece of information -- because you worry that the readers will believe the homeopathy works. According to the neutral point of view -- you have to report it. Of course if you want to write a propaganda type of article you could edit out ----anything you want ----no matter if it appears in reputable source. Is this admirable ? . I don't know.--TineIta (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For us to say that there is a disagreement, the disagreement must be reliably stated. The source I asked you for would be that reliable statement.00:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is reliably stated - They state it in the Lancet the best reliable source. Are you kidding me? --TineIta (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is the peer-reviewed article, not the journal it is published in, that is the reliable source. And the letter you have cited doesn't express a significant disagreement with the consensus reported by the article - it says that its authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." It doesn't support the statement you want to use it to support unless you indulge in quote-mining. Brunton (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree with Guy's suggestion, and we seem to have a certain degree of agreement, so I'm implementing it. If anyone feels strongly enough about it, feel free to revert and discuss further here. Brunton (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of sad to take some time away from Misplaced Pages and see that TineIta is still beating a dead horse on here. Have you even read WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV or any of the other links that have been provided for you TineIta. This has got to stop.--Daffydavid (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Tinelta, there is no disagreement between researchers. There is disagreement between believers and researchers, just as there is in the case of evolution. There is no serious body of scholarly research that shows homeopathic remedies at the potencies normally used to be anything other than inert. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Is not a kind of hypocrisy to say that ---when the same authors much cited in most reputable journal in the world and in wiikipedia for their work dispute in the Lancet that results and methodology of Shangs study? Unless you change the meaning of the words and "I disagree" really means " I basically agree. "--TineIta (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You keep repeating this mantra. You forget: science moves on. The fact that Linde 1997 was published in The Lancet is as relevant as the fact that my 1983 Volvo 365 GLT had an MOT certificate in 1997. It was scrapped in 2001. The 1997 finding shows no convincing evidence of effect for any condition but says the results are not completely consistent with placebo; the 1999 re-analysis says even this was overstated, and Ioannidis shows that an inert treatment would be expected to yield a small net positive evidence base, and also shows that when prior plausibility is low, the chances of a positive result being a false positive, are much higher. A 2002 systematic review of systematic reviews (which includes the Linde findings) concludes exactly as I proposed above and as is now in the article. There's no condition with convincing evidence of effect, and no remedy convincingly shown to perform beyond placebo. Twelve years later, nothing has changed. This article is controversial only to believers, scientifically, it is a straightforward statement of the facts as established by research and published in the peer-reviewed literature.

Do feel free to come back when homeopathy has developed credible proof that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis for cure, that dilution does indeed cure potency, that highly dilute remedies can be transferred to the body with objectively determinable bioavailability, and (rather importantly) when you have some results that actually refute the null hypothesis.

Please forgive us if we don't hold our breath. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Their methods largely reproduce those of our meta-analysis on the same topic published in The Lancet 8 years ago. We agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust." doesn't really read as disputing their results to me. Especially coupled with their statements in their own mentioned analysis "we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition" They do say that " Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic." but saying there should be more research is not the same as saying there is a debate on its effectiveness. The default assumption for all treatments is that it does not work, and it it is up to a trial to prove that it does. You have been given lots of WP:ROPE. You are at the end of it. You have already received a short term block, if you persist, its likely to result in much more severe sanctions. (Trust me, I exceeded my own rope and am now topic banned somewhere else). Gaijin42 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless you change the meaning of the words -- there is definite disagreement " they say 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. Maybe you dont want readers to know these details - it is better for them to know-----that they basically ...agree? This gross misinformation and misrepresentation of the sources only as a joke can be accepted but if everybody concurs that this is not misinformation why I should argue ? This is also correct.

They said Shang overstated the conclusion, not that the conclusion was wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Significant overstatement means it is correct? They also said " If homoeopathy (or allopathy) works for some conditions and not for others (a statement for which there is some evidence4), then interpretation of funnel plots and meta-regressions based on sample size is severely hampered." Come on you cannot justify it - Would you want as a reader to ignore these facts? Unless you wanted to read a propaganda article about homeopathy. --TineIta (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Worth reading: When further research is not warranted Science Based Medicine (October 2008). Clarifies the nature of the common "further research is warranted" motherhood statement.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope it does not advocate censorship of reliable sources to promote a point of view as it is done here. --TineIta (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is going absolutely nowhere, I suggest someone close it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

... and of course MOS:MED counsels us to avoid useless statements like "More research is needed". One problem is that lay readers can sometimes think such statements have an endorsing quality. Alexbrn 17:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No more research is needed until there's some reason to suppose homeopathy should work and some remotely plausible means by which it might work. The only function of "more research" is to endlessly prolong the inevitable. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

TineIta, We cover the positive results, in quite a bit of detail in the "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of efficacy" section. Thats not censorship. But we aren't going to change the overall summary of the topic to reflect the minority view, particularly when that minority view itself qualifies its statement with so many conditions and exceptions. This discussion has run its course. If you really insist on taking it further, open a neutrally worded and concise rfc that asks for support for a specific sourced change and see where it gets you (I predict exactly the same place you are now). But persisting in the current manner is disruptive and will lead to sanctions Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not say ---I m disruptive. Why are you discussing with me then ? It is sound absurd, Disruptive to what ???to misinformation? Of course - I see that there is consensus to keep the article in the this terrible and absurd state - feel free to ignore my suggestions. But do not tell me that the "minority view itself qualifies its statement with so many conditions and exceptions". You are deluding yourself. They are the most cited authors published in exceptional sources and[REDACTED] refuses to include their opinion on the last meta analyses which you use to support the lede statement it is all placebo. This is the fact. Think about it in private. I will stop here - unless you want to continue discussing . --TineIta (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus to keep this article in its current state which accurately reflects reliable sources, whether or not accurate. (My personal opinion is that it is accurate, but that is irrelevant.) In the event that the weight of scientific evidence were to support efficacy, we would include it in the article. But one study, or even one survey, does not override that evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I had no more to say but since you want to discuss it : this is original research - you are not supposed to read the Reliable sources and decide as an editor if homeopathy works on not. You suppose to report the findings and the objections to the findings as long as they appear in equally weighted reliable sources. It is not one review just reports positive but inconclusive - thats false. I showed you above, And you do not do that. You just report from the reliable sources only the researchers who believe that it is all placebo. Which is not neutral according to wikipedia. --TineIta (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)t

And we don't do that. We report th fact that the scientific consensus, and the best quality reviews, show homeopathy to be ineffective for any condition, consistent with the absence of evidence supporting its doctrines. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I m afraid you do- since you want to continue the conversation. If you didn't - the linde letter to the Lancet (objecting the findings of Shangs study and pointing out the 3 meta analyses showing- according to the authors-- that there is some evidence that homeopathy works for some conditions) would be cited and not censored along with its high quality supporting sources. --TineIta (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A letter to the editor is not a peer reviewed source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter. Is the evidence check a peer reviewed source which support the statement that it is all placebo ? No-- but it is pointing to peer review sources similarly to the Linde letter pointing to 3 meta analyses showing- according to the authors-- that there is some evidence that homeopathy works for some conditions and not for others. --TineIta (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It DOES matter. Letters to the editor count for nothing, yet you keep mentioning it. You seem to not understand our rules, and just keep wasting our time. Please stop. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the evidence check is an exception - right? - Listen ---do not participate in the conversation if you think you waste you time. They asked me questions I reply - They want to drop it - I m also OK with this. --TineIta (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you drop it now please? HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Telling other editors that they are "wasting our time" is extremely rude and contrary to WP's policies and guidelines on editor behavior. It discourages participation which directly contravenes what WP is about. I think if any of us feels that any of this is a wast of our time, including me, then we need to find something else to do with our precious time. So, please knock it off and try to act more like how Wikipedians are supposedly supposed to act. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Any editor who persists in making arguments which are against consensus is wasting our and his time. One persistent time-wasters (which, because of a mental state, cannot or will not enter coherent statements, even though his edits may very will be in good faith) has been indefinitely blocked. I see no reason why Tinelta and Cla68 should not join him if they persist in making arguments which have been discredited. (Yes, this is a threat. Although I obviously won't block either of you, I will suggest it if you persist in repeating discredited arguments.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are threatening us - we will have to stop then ---to present our "discredited arguments". No need to talk to any "uninvolved" admin . We see that blocking anyone who disagrees is an effective way to build a consensus.--TineIta (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in your use of the word "we". Does it mean you have been tag teaming? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot answer anymore after all these threats. --TineIta (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support a community block of Tinelta. They take the meaning of POV warrior timesink to a whole new level. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

When did it become acceptable to discuss editors on article talk pages? Misplaced Pages:CONDUCTDISPUTE says nothing that would indicate this is a good idea. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the policy doesn't say anything to indicate it's a bad idea, either. An uninvolved admin reading this could take it upon herself to block TineIta. But it's probably time for an WP:ANI discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not the policy, but The talk page guideline does. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The use of a plural invites speculation re shared accounts, off-wiki collusion or a concerted POV-push by a conflicted body. This should certainly be reviewed. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

An example of power of homeopathy

I find this Misplaced Pages page at this stage very critical of homeopathy. However I will give you one example of an noted and well known allopath doctor of India Dr Mahendra Lal Sarkar switching over to homeopathy. Dr Mahendra Lal Sarkar This gentleman was the physical of Ramakrishna Paramhamsa. If homeopathy is a pesudoscience then why do so many people visit homeopaths and get cured. Thousands of Homeopathic hospitals are there in India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshmallick27 (talk • contribs)

Public use of purported remedies is not indicative of the medical viability, efficacy or reliability of that substance said remedies. Mindmatrix 15:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, stating "...why do so many people visit homeopaths and get cured" without a shred of evidence is just an opinion, not a fact. Mindmatrix 15:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Truth is not determined by democracy. It doesn't matter how many people in India (or anywhere else for that matter) think that homeopathy works. Our standard for "Truth" is mainstream scientific publications that meet the WP:MEDRS standards. 25% of US adults believe in astrology. India has rolled astrology thinking into politics and use state money to research it. In Japan, there was such a huge belief that being born in certain years is bad luck that the birth rate dropped by 25% in one particularly inauspicious year. That doesn't make astrology true either.

This Misplaced Pages page is very critical of homeopathy because mainstream science says that it's a pile of steaming bullshit (although they say it more politely than that!) - the rules of our encyclopedia say that we follow the mainstream science viewpoint, no matter what. Homeopathy simply doesn't work - and when you look at how it's claimed to work, that's no surprise. A decent encyclopedia should have the courage to come out and say "IT DOESN'T WORK" as clearly as possible - and that's the stand we take.

Who knows why that doctor switched from modern medicine to homeopathy...maybe his patients demanded it...maybe he finds dispensing water and sugar pills cheaper than mainstream painkillers, beta-blockers and anti-bacterials - and he's decided to make a quick buck. Who knows? And as an encyclopedia - who cares?

"why do so many people visit homeopaths and get cured." - because most illnesses go away on their own without any treatment at all...and because the placebo effect means that for many conditions, simply pretending to provide treatment - even if it's just water or a sugar pill - is enough to cure a significant percentage of people. But why so many people use homeopathy is one of those crazy things - when people are prepared to ignore scientific evidence, they do a lot of very stupid things. One mission of our encyclopedia is to educate people - and that's just one of the reasons we follow the mainstream science perspective.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

One fairly obvious reason why Sarkar (he lived 1833–1904) could make the switch to homeopathy was that, at the time, homeopathy (doing nothing) was often safer than using the "heroic" methods they used at the time. They did some pretty dangerous things, and some of their drugs did more harm than good. Since most conditions presented to a physician are self-correcting, it's better to do nothing.

That was a very long time ago. We have learned a lot since then, and homeopathy still hasn't been able to prove it's anything better than a placebo which "works" fine on self-correcting conditions, but not at all for any serious illness. Heck, there still isn't any known method for proving the difference between two bottles of water, one which is succussed water, and the other succussed homeopathic water, and blinded studies also show that the homeopathic one has no more effect than the other. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy isn't even self-consistent. If putting a tiny drop of something into water, succussing and diluting repeatedly, adds potency - and if it actually worked by "imprinting" the water with some pattern - then every microscopic impurity in the water would have also imprint on it, and because it's already fairly dilute, would have far greater potency than the thing you're trying to imprint. You could argue that starting with the highest quality distilled water would fix that - but the claim is that homeopathy's "imprinting" works even when there are statistically zero molecules of the original substance present. Since even the purest water has come in contact with (for example) human sewage at some point in the past - it follows that *if* homeopathy worked, we'd be treating patients with an empowered human sewage, an empowered plastic dissolved from the container, and empowered versions of everything the water ever touched. You'd wind up with millions of other powerful homeopathics mixed together with the one we're trying to cure them with. So, even in their own terms - using their own crazy view of science - it's can't possibly work. I've yet to hear a homeopath explain that one away! SteveBaker (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The great Tim Minchin does a hilarious, but serious, job of dealing with this glitch in homeopathetic "logic" (yes, it's pathetic!):

• "If you show me that, say, homoeopathy works, then I will change my mind. I will spin on a fucking dime. I'll be embarrassed as hell, but I will run through the streets yelling, 'It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And while its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!' You show me that it works and how it works, and when I've recovered from the shock, I will take a compass and carve 'Fancy That' on the side of my cock." From "Storm", by Tim Minchin

Brangifer (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a way to get that into the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back the original question, there is no way whatsoever that we would use a Doctor who was a practicing homeopath in the 1800's (we can easily infer that on the fact that he died in 1904) as credible evidence to counter modern scientific studies.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, Storm is the source for "Minchin's Law" (by definition, alternative medicine either hasn't been proven to work or has been proven not to. The name for alternative medicine that's been proven to work is: medicine). We can't include it here of course, but it's amusing. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You ask "why do so many people visit homeopaths and get cured". As far as I can tell there is not one single independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything, ever. So actually the question is, if it's so marvellous, why is all the evidence, even after 200 years, still so weak and equivocal, and why has no study ever convincingly refuted the null hypothesis? Guy (Help!) 08:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone walks into a homeopathist's office, gets some treatment and then gets better - they will obviously claim that the homeopathist cured them - and then they are converts. The difficulty with that is that the other dozen people who did the exact same thing and DIDN'T get better are not listened to.

When you do proper science, instead of listening to random anecdotes from converts - you get a statistical measure of the percentage of people:

• ...who got better after seeing the homeopath,
• ...who got better after someone TOLD them they were getting homeopathic treatment (but instead were getting un-succussed water without the raw duck liver or whatever),
• ...who got better with no intervention of any kind,

This is called "a controlled experiment" (with the second and third groups of people being the "controls") - and doing this kind of trial is what separates the true scientists from the pseudoscientists. Pseudoscientists prefer anecdotes because it allows them to leverage the few people who got better by themselves (or because of the placebo effect) and use them to create stories about the effectiveness of their treatments. Controlled experiments merely expose them as charlatans, so they have to be done by mainstream medicine - and now that homeopathy is comprehensively busted - enthusiasm for continuing to do human trials is bound to fade...just as NASA doesn't attempt to disprove the Flat Earth theory.

In all of the studies that tried these kinds of controlled experiments, the results for these three groups show that the people who got homeopathy and the people who thought they were getting it, but didn't - recovered at about the same rate - which for some medical conditions was actually slightly better than just letting them recover by themselves.

This is the "placebo" effect - where, for a small percentage of people, merely suggesting to them that they are getting treated is enough to make them either get better faster - or at least tell the researchers that they are getting better faster.

It is likely that a large percentage of people who go to homeopathists do indeed "get cured"...most of them because their bodies are fighting off the disease, and they would have recovered without any treatment whatever - and a smaller number who got better (or at least think they did) because of the power of suggestion alone..."The Placebo Effect".

It's not true to say that people who visit homeopathists don't get better...certainly a lot of them do...but the key point here is that they don't get better because of the homeopathy - it's either because they recover on their own, or (more rarely) because of the placebo effect. The true evil of homeopathy is when it's used for conditions that the patient cannot recover from by themselves - and for which the placebo effect is negligable...in those cases, it can (and frequently does) kill people who could have been cured by mainstream medicine.

Homeopathy is still a gigantic scam, backed by pseudoscience of the worst kind - but enough people will get better after using it to convince them that it works...and that's why this nonsense is still being propagated.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Question: For the placebo effect to work, does the medication need to be packaged in bullshit? In other words, does it need a "pseudo-science" around it, for the recipient to believe, for it to work? Maybe in that small, silly way, Homeopathy serves a purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Very definitely not. Every medicine has a placebo component. Recent research asking how many doctors prescribed placebos caused some confusion in this respect: doctors counted antibiotics for viral illness as a placebo (which it is in this instance) even though it's an active medicine. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

But prescribing an antibiotic for a virus IS packaging it in bullshit. The doctor knows it won't work, so is, in effect, lying. I'm not defending homeopathy in the slightest. Just saying that in providing that essential dishonest packaging for a placebo, it serves a positive purpose. That doesn't excuse the damage it does when it takes people away from treatment that does work. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For the purposes of a study, its intent is to have no effect (or at least be a baseline effect). However, it does usually actually have an effect. The mechanism is usually either some kind of unconscious biofeedback control (which is itself pretty awesome, we need to figure out how to control it!), or just taking care of hypochondriac psychosomatic symptoms. Per Placebo "..prescribing placebos... usually relies on some degree of patient deception" However, there are some studies that have shown that placebos work, even when the patient is being told they are getting a placebo (some sort of Cargo cult effect?) http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/27/placebos-work-even-if-you-know-theyre-fake-but-how/ Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That article says "Those given the placebo were told that they would be taking “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes.”"...so they weren't told, "We're giving you pills that don't do anything". They were told that this treatment would help. So all this shows is that telling the patient that you are giving them something that'll help is what triggers the effect...not lying to them and telling them that they are getting some powerful anti-viral medication. That doesn't really surprise me - I think a lot of people basically zone-out when given complicated explanations of things and only listen to the bottom line. "The doctor said <blah><blah><blah>...and you'll get better."...and they do. SteveBaker (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a hugely difficult problem. For example, our local pharmacy carries a shelf full of homeopathic "treatments". They look just like real treatments - and they cost a similar amount. I'm fairly sure that a lot of people don't even see the tiny word homeopathic> on the packaging...let alone know what it actually means. But paying $8 for a tiny bottle of water is a total rip-off. Doctors might consider prescribing homeopathic remedies for viral diseases instead of antibiotics - which are actually a BAD thing to use as a placebo because of the whole drug-resistance thing. It would be better for them to prescribe a sugar pill - but they can't do that without violating ethical guidelines about lying to their patients. If they tell the patient they are giving them an antibiotic (without mentioning that it won't do anything) - then they are staying well within ethical bounds. Arguably then, it's worth paying the outrageous cost of homeopathics as a benign way of tricking naive patients without actually lying to them.

It's also been pointed out that true placebo pills are actually quite expensive - they are regulated like drugs, and have to meet similar purity standards...so it's possible that even at inflated prices, homeopathic treatments are cheaper than true placebos. Honestly, the sanest thing would be to take a pack of TicTac mints and put them in a brown plastic bottle...those are vastly cheaper than actual placebo pills. Maybe the doctor could adequately describe them as "dietary supplements".

But that's only dealing with a mainstream doctor who has decided that there is no treatment for this disease, so a placebo gives the patient the best chance of recovery. That's vastly different from a homeopathist who prescribes these useless treatments for very curable diseases - and thereby worsens the patient's outcome by preventing or delaying their access to the mainstream cure that they really need.

It's not the little bottles of water that are the problem here - it's the people and businesses who promote and prescribe them as cure-alls who are at fault. SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

To respond to HiLo48's question—yes, sort of. There are a number of ways to increase the perceived effectiveness of a placebo. The placebo effect is certainly stronger if a doctor (or fake doctor) appears to believe strongly in a treatment; the effect is stronger if the patient spends more time with the doctor (or fake doctor). It doesn't have to be pseudo-scientific bullshit for this effect to work; a doctor could prescribe a sugar pill and say – honestly – that a reasonable percentage of patients who received that intervention experienced a statistically-significant improvement in their condition.

Studies have shown that the placebo effect depends on the color of the pills used. It depends on the price of the treatment—more expensive placebos are actually more effective. What homeopaths have done is established a set of nonsensical rituals that result in reasonably potent placebo effects; the important part is that patients and their fake doctors share the belief in efficacy, not the underlying mythology. This 'works' as far as it goes, but since its practitioners are wedded to their particular dogma, there's no opportunity for improving the potency of their placebos further, nor to acknowledge that there are some conditions that really should be referred to real doctors (because not everything can be treated effectively with a placebo). Instead of messing about with banging bottles of very-minimally-dirty water around while blathering about similars, homeopaths could perform a real service to medicine if they were to help understand how doctors could make more effective use of placebo effects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Placebo#Expectancy and conditioning discusses the topic. The "new and improved" big red pills that "three out of four doctors recommend" supposedly do induce more effect than the "try these once a week and we'll see if it might give you some relief". LeadSongDog come howl! 21:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

One time I was visiting a doctor for a foot injury - I happened to have a streaming cold. The doctor did actually offer me an antibiotic. I said something like "I know this doesn't work on colds - are you trying to offer me a placebo?" and he sat back, looked a little stunned, and slowly and carefully said: "We sometimes prescribe antibiotic to help keep 'secondary invections' at bay and give your body the relief from bactierial infections so it's better able to fight off the cold virus"...then he thought for a bit and said..."Yeah - basically, a placebo. Sorry." ...draw your own conclusions! SteveBaker (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, red, yellow, and orange pills work better as stimulants, while blue and green work better as depressants. Everymorning talk to me 20:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh no. My Fluoxetine are yellow and green. Uppers and downers all in one ! What shud I do? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A pledge for make this article a GA (or why not FA?)

Hello. I'm a user from Misplaced Pages in spanish. I want you to know I've translated this article and furthermore congratulate you for all your arduous work. However I've been seeing you have lost a lot of time lately by discussing the same over and over again (usually against the same user), despite you have already reach a agreement with the community of active users of Misplaced Pages. We simply don't pay attention at argumentum ad nauseam when it have already refuted. My humble advise: let's focus in working to make this article (both in english and spanish) a GA, and why not a FA. The job is almost done (thank you all!), let's carry on! --Hiperfelix (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, the fact that it is hated by every homeopath on the planet means it's extremely hard to get it to GA because we seem to feel a need to constantly add their latest crank papers and their refutations as they come along to demand inclusion. I think it could do with being about 2/3 of the current length. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What about this : instead of listing every review with their conclusions, we should use the reviews as references in support of a synthetic summary of what works and what doesn't work. Darkdadaah (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be fair to the homeopaths. What has been shown to work is nothing, but there are some metastudies which show positive, but insignificant, results. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not grasping the meaning of "insignificant". It isn't that they show "positive, but insignificant, results". It is that they show insignificant evidence of positive results. If one flips a fair coin enough times, it will at some point show more heads than tails. That does not mean there is "positive, but insignificant" evidence for a pro-heads bias. It just means the experimenter either doesn't understand basic statistics or he does, but hopes the reader doesn't. You might have a look at Significance testing.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

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

69.168.34.239 (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC) " Homeopathy is considered a pseudoscience. Homeopathy is not effective for any condition, and no remedy has been proven to be more effective than placebo."

This is a totally inaccurate statements and needs to be deleted, ASAP.

As you'll see if you click on the little blue numbers after each of those statements in our article, we do have very strong evidence that those statements are, in fact, completely true. Misplaced Pages has standards for what we state as "The Truth" - and for articles about medical matters, such as this - that standard is WP:MEDRS - and there is no doubt that the references we've provided meet that standard. So, your suggestion that these are inaccurate statements is incorrect - and hence they most certainly should not be deleted. We've had VERY long, extremely complete discussions about this - and it's very clear that unless Misplaced Pages's core guiding principles were to change, that these 100% factual statements about homeopathy will remain in this article.

The fact is that homeopathy is a pseudoscience - and it doesn't work.

Perhaps, rather than coming to our article with pre-conceptions about it's subject, you'd be better off learning from the article - and perhaps checking out some of the exceedingly reliable reference material that we used in writing it. SteveBaker (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this true? Maybe, However, the statement that homeopathy is a pseudoscience conflicts with Cohrane's review conclusion for oscillo for instance-----which states -

"There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. There was no evidence of clinically important harms due to Oscillococcinum®. "

I think this is the best review available. --Tina2843627 (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Take a look through the archives of this talk page. That source and the overall tone of this article has been rehashed numerous times. Cannolis (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok I scanned the pages - I see that - just I cannot understand how a method is classified as a pseudoscience and ineffective when the best review according to the article points out that -- Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but', given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. " Ok have no time right now to analyse it more ----if there is something that can explain that - please drop a note in my talk page to take a look later. thanks--Tina2843627 (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is perfectly explained in the article. You just need to read it. --McSly (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The "pseudoscience" label relates to the fact that homeopathists make claims that are highly out of sync with mainstream science (that water has long term memory - that dilutions beyond the point of utter elimination of the active ingredient have an effect). They make these claims, but make absolutely zero effort to perform experiments to see how this claimed effect might work. If a mainstream scientist finds a result that he/she simply cannot explain, then this is a reason to urgently dive in and explore the ways in which it might come about. Homeopathists do not do that...not in the least degree. They simply assert boldly and loudly that it cures people - but make absolutely zero effort to explain why.

It you look up the word "pseudoscience" in any dictionary, you'll see that it refers to fields in which scientific claims are made - but the scientific method is not followed. Homeopathy claims memory effects in water - yet does not a single scientific experiment, hypothesis or any, even half-assed effort to show how this might be.

Makes scientific claims...check...doesn't follow the scientific method...check...ergo: Pseudoscience.

Furthermore, we have plenty of reliable sources that say it's a pseudoscience...and the matter was taken before the highest authority in Misplaced Pages ("ArbCom") who have ruled very specifically on this point.

So, it really doesn't matter whether Tina2843627 cares to go off and think about what that entirely poor statement means. Homeopathy is the very poster-child for pseudoscience. We've discussed this to death - it's decided - it's not going to change.

SteveBaker (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's classified as pseudoscience because that's how reliable sources classify it. And a systematic review that found that there is insufficient evidence to allow it to conclude that homoeopathy works does not alter the scientific consensus reported by the article. The fact that its results "do not rule out the possibility" of an effect is hardly surprising given that a trial or review is not designed to rule out the possibility of an effect. The two possible results are that a significant effect is found or that a significant effect is not found. This one failed to demonstrate an effect. Brunton (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

OK. I see that the point of your own research-- But they are the most reliable source you have here and what they say Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, conflicts with[REDACTED] definite categorization for Homeopathy as ineffective and pseudoscience. Maybe a little modification would help so the article would reflect what the best sources say and not to look as a skeptic blog. ( Nothing wrong with the skeptics blogs - just there are not encyclopedias. --Tina2843627 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't understand Tina, but the article does reflect what the best sources say, and does not need modification. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is another disconnect here - the label "pseudoscience" has nothing whatever to do with "effectiveness" - it's only a description of the procedures involved in generating things regarded as "truth" within the field in question.

For example:

• Some pseudosciences do seem to be valuable: Freudian Pschoanalysis is widely regarded as being useful - and also frequently cited as an example of pseudoscience. Freud and his followers don't follow the rules of scientific investigation - but that doesn't necessarily mean that the approach it takes doesn't work.
• Some failed/debunked ideas are not pseudosciences: The field of Cold Fusion research is a good example of that. The people who fervently believe that cold fusion is possible have indeed done a ton of proper experiments and written properly peer-reviewed papers, published in mainstream journals. It's generally believed that cold fusion doesn't work - but it's not a pseudoscience.
• Some things that mainstream science generally assumes to be false aren't pseudosciences for other reasons: Religions are not generally considered to be pseudosciences, because even though they do no solid experimentation - they don't generally make scientific claims.

Homeopathy (whether it actually works or not) is a pseudoscience because it makes scientific claims, but does not investigate them scientifically.

So the issue of whether homeopathy is or is not a pseudoscience is an entirely separate question from whether it actually cures diseases effectively. SteveBaker (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I think he cohrane review above it was a scientific investigation. --Tina2843627 (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a statistical test of efficacy - not a serious effort to find out how homeopathy works. If I was interested in studying homeopathy, I'd be stuffing homeopathic medicines into X-ray crystallography machines, doing spectrograms, looking for other properties of these supposed cures such a boiling and freezing points, density, electrical conductivity, pH...basically searching for any physically measurable property to reliably distinguish them from regular water. I'd be testing them on lab animals and bacterial cultures to see if there are reproducible effects that other experimenters could use to verify my findings. Homeopathists do literally NONE of those things. It's like they aren't even mildly curious about how these supposed treatments work and are quite happy to claim that some random ingredient cures some particular disease without doing ANY serious animal or human trials.

So homeopathists continue to spout the same nonsense that was told to them by others. Nobody in the community has lifted the slightest finger toward understanding what is supposedly going on. Even the relatively large companies with the funding to do these studies are happier just to sell their little bottles of water for $14 a pop rather than trying to do any scientific work whatever to explain what they think they are seeing.

So - it's a pseudoscience. Pure and simple. Doesn't matter whether it works or not. If you make scientific claims and you don't do the scientific research to back them up - you're a pseudoscientist. Not my opinion, that's the dictionary definition of the word. SteveBaker (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I might add that there is no particular shame to being a pseudoscientist - if you're completely happy making scientific claims without backing them up (eg, because you have 'faith' or because you believe that what you're saying is so obviously true that you don't need to do science to prove it) - then being a pseudoscientist is what you are, and you shouldn't have to apologize for that. Being described as a "pseudoscientist" is no more of a negative connotation than being called an "amateur" golfer - it's merely a description of what you do that helpfully tells people that you're not earning money while you're having fun playing golf...or, in this case, that your scientific claims are not things that you feel the need to prove with scientific rigor.

We use the term quite carefully here because our readers need to understand that Homeopathists do not feel that need for the scientific process...they are not scientists, yet they are not faith-healers either. They are pseudoscientists. They believe that there is science behind what they do, but don't feel it's necessary to prove it. Of course if homeopathists do feel that they should be providing evidence for the things that they claim (the 'memory effect' of water, for example) - then they need to get out there and do some hard-core science. And if they did that, then they wouldn't be called "pseudoscientists" anymore. SteveBaker (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

All true SteveBaker, but then if they did that they wouldn't be called homeopathists any more, or have a nice steady income stream from their victims. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions shakeup

Note to editors here that there is likely to be an upcoming shakeup in the discretionary sanctions applied to this page. DS will still be active via the pseudoscience/fringe cases, but will not be subject to its own individual sanction any longer. This has no practical effect, as sanctions are sanctions, but just want to make sure people are aware that if they see the old one go away, what is going on. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy and hormesis

I have identified two papers discussing how homeopathy might actually be a subset of hormesis and how it might be able to be "integrated into mainstream biomedical assessment and clinical practice." I think it is OK to add this to the article because Human & Experimental Toxicology is a respectable journal with a decent impact factor, but I want to get some feedback on whether there is consensus on adding information sourced to these papers first. Everymorning talk to me 22:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. We don't, per WP:MEDRS, base content on single primary-source articles. Where is the evidence that anyone but the authors consider these articles significant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought that, since they didn't describe original research or results, then they were, in a sense, review articles and therefore were compliant with MEDRS, but evidently this may not be the case. Everymorning talk to me 02:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are correct.These articles dont describe original research or results, then they are review articles and therefore are compliant with MEDRS. --Neb46545 (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Except that they are two different things, and shouldn't be conflated. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 03:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

They will not if one uses the sources as MEDRS dictates.--Neb46545 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd hardly call this a 'review' - having looked at it, I'd say that 'speculation' would be a better description. It cites nothing resembling a description of any specific treatment for anything. It also seems to be based on an assumption entirely contrary to current understanding of homoeopathic 'remedies' in that it states that they operate in the low-dose range. It has been amply demonstrated that to the contrary, homoeopathic 'remedies' repeatedly diluted in the normal manner contain no 'dose' whatsoever. And regardless of whether this speculation complied with WP:MEDRS or not, we still have no evidence that anyone but the authors take the suggestion that hormesis and homeopathy are in any meaningful sense connected seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Homeopathy+and+hormesis&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=SE55VP2sFMaBsQTDtIEQ&ved=0CB0QgQMwAA I think that there is evidence that "hormesis and homeopathy are in any meaningful sense connected seriously"--Neb46545 (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC),

Would not use, per WP:WEIGHT. I see no indication that this has been widely accepted (4 cites by google scholar, two self-cites, one self published book and one foreign language dissertation). The actual text appears to be nothing but speculation how it might work, and a "note" in one of the article stating "Some forms of homeopathy claim that clinical and biological effects occur when dilutions are made beyond Avogardro’s number. Clearly these are not hormetic effects..." basically seals the deal about how useless it is, as homeopathy generally requires high dilution past this level. Yobol (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Hormesis refers to low doses, homeopathy uses ZERO doses...none of the active ingredient left at all. The effect of serial dilutions is to leave (statistically) less than one molecule of the active ingredient left - ZERO amounts of it. Hormesis requires a significant amount of the substance to be present in order to trigger the reaction to it in the body without providing enough to do serious damage. If you look at the very top of our article on hormesis, there is a graph of stimulation/inhibition versus dose - and you'll note that the curve is below the line for very low doses...so even if homeopathy were to be applied in lesser dilutions where some of the active ingredient remains, hormesis would predict that it would have no effect. So, no....homeopathy isn't a "subset" - it's an entirely different thing and it's claims are actually contradictory to those of hormesis. So this is nonsense, and any suggestion otherwise is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and doesn't bear consideration without WP:MEDRS-grade sources to back it up...which you evidently don't have. SteveBaker (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• High-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press