Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13

APPROVED Version 1.1

Discussion for Version 1.1 stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break.

The Approval includes two copyedits [1] Hayford Peirce 19:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add yet another archive and get things to show up properly in the header here. Could someone do so? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginning with semi-lower-case editorial...

As a first step, I'm going to all footnotes that contain other than bibliographic material or definitions, and either moving the substantive text into the main article, or, in some cases, linking to a subarticle.

While it may be reasonable, in a printed book or journal, to have bottom-of-the-page notes, in this format, the content of the notes will not be seen unless the reader clicks on them. How many readers do that? In effect, the text is being hidden. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A balanced blog post on the subject

can be found here. --Daniel Mietchen 09:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a comment, as did Paul. Truly delightful, however, is

Personally, I would really like to see a homeopathic treatment for dehydration. You'd have to have a compound that causes dehydration, but what would you dilute it in? you can't dilute it in water or saline, because those will rehydrate, and in homeopathy, you have to CAUSE dehydration to cure it...but you can't having anything that CAUSES dehydration because it would have to be diluted to the point where none of the dehydrating agent remains...

It should be noted that some camping supply stores, in the same aisle as freeze-dried foods, offer cans of "dehydrated water". Ethical staff makes sure that new users understand the purpose of same. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Howard, you gave the wrong link for Sympathetic magic. It's http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Sympathetic_magic And make sure the period at the end does not get connected to the link. Chris Day 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a reasonable way to look at it, which is unusual for a blog. D. Matt Innis 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Put it into the External Links. --Daniel Mietchen 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ramanand's changes

First, the word " most biased medical " is argumentative, does not fit the language of the lede, and is clearly advocacy.

The statement supporting homeopathy in the lede, even if the references were solid, belongs, stylistically, in a later section on the mechanisms of homeopathy. One reference is, as far as I can tell, from a Brazilian university with a site in, presumably, Portuguese, which I do not read. We generally don't use non-English references, especially when they are not clearly from peer-reviewed journals or otherwise reviewed sources.

The other reference is from Khuda-Bukhsh, whom, I believe, has been in the memory of water controversy, is a review of possible molecular mechanisms of action. On first glance, it's an interesting paper, but does not talk at all about efficacy — just how homeopathic remedies may work, if they work. It doesn't belong in the lede, although it's not unreasonable to use it as a reference in a later section.

Neither addition works where it is. The first is advocacy and non-neutral. --Howard C. Berkowitz 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of "biased" is definitely adversarial. Chris Day 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the rebuttal (it works, and we know how), I am loath to see this article head down the direction of he says, she says tit for tat. Chris Day 21:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is full of oxymorons, containng both viewpoints, so I don't see anything wrong with what I've inserted, unless the critics' statement is also removed (about what scientists feel). I'm fine if the word biased is removed, if it seems adversarial. The Portuguese and French is only in the references section and shouldn't be a problem.—Ramanand Jhingade 10:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ramanand, the general CZ, policy, especially in the Charter, is that articles don't equally present all views. They present the preponderance of the expert views, and, in this case, the experts are in health sciences; there isn't a unifying discipline among healing arts. Not all healing arts support homeopathy.

Everyone needs to Neutrally present all views. D. Matt Innis 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The foreign language citations have been a problem in many other articles, not just here.

I think you mean contradictions or rather or challenges, not oxymorons. An oxymoron would be a "heroically large dose of a homeopathic simillum." An oxymoron is a contradiction in terms.

Sorry, I'm in favor of removing both additions. You will need to face the reality that the article will not be as pro-homeopathy as you want, just as others wish it weren't here at all. It's a compromise. --Howard C. Berkowitz 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I applaud, encourage and appreciate collaborative efforts to work toward improvements, but I think this lead still needs significant work to add any substantial improvement to the approved version's lead. D. Matt Innis 02:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to wish all of you a Happy (belated) New Year. The presently approved article's Lead isn't 'neutal' at the moment. It should either explain homeopathy plainly or if y'all want criticism in the Lead, it should contain both viewpoints. Where's Dana, by the way, in Germany again?—Ramanand Jhingade 09:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you, too! Please let me know where you think the present Approved version lead (as opposed to the draft lead) is lacking and I'll be glad to take a look. Dana approved the current lead, too, but I'm sure he'd take a look if we asked him. D. Matt Innis 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd posted a whole lot of links to homeopathic articles, late last year, but did not have the time to add it in the article. I was expecting someone here to do it, but no one did (not even Dana)! I already wrote what I wanted above, "It should either explain homeopathy plainly (without criticism in the very 1st sentence) or if y'all want criticism in the Lead, it should contain both viewpoints."—Ramanand Jhingade 08:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We certainly can't add every link ever written to this article. This is the overview article in an encyclopedia type format and summarizes homeopathy pretty well, I think. Again, don't confuse the lead in the Draft with the lead in the main Homeopathy article. I agree the lead in the draft needs more work and is not an improvement in its current form. D. Matt Innis 12:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, bibliographic links not directly related to the text belong on the bibliography page, preferably in articles. Also, in other articles, there is some selectivity. In some cases, reviews are more appropriate than small primary studies. In other cases, peer review and responsible publications are appropriate. In yet other cases, there is more leeway on publications but the reason needs to be explained.

It's not necessarily reasonable to assume someone else will edit and add articles with which they aren't familiar, or with which they might disagree.

What principles of homeopathy are in not in the lead? It should go without saying that homeopathists believe what they are doing, or the article wouldn't be here at all. Having a small number of dissenting comments from people who question hematology simply establish it isn't universally accepted, and the details and pros and cons should be in the article, but later. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: provided references from Ramanand, this must be the list and I do remember it, but it's mostly primary research. They could be used for a more detailed article to support a specific claim where reviews aren't available, but to cite them here would result in too much detail for the general nature of this article. Primary research doesn't belong in a bibliography either. I'm not sure that we have a subpage that would be appropriate for primary research, though it's an interesting idea for some other project, or way in the future for this one. Otherwise, I'd think it would be a problem with CZ:Maintainability. There are other sites that do list all the research for each particular subject. D. Matt Innis 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is one page (Homeopathy/Trials) that exists with a tabulated summary of some of the voluminous primary literature. I agree maintainability is an issue. I bet there are hundreds of articles like this and the main problem is reducing it to the most important articles in the field. If that could be done well it might make a good catalog. Chris Day 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, I made some time to read the entire (presently) approved article. I don't see any sentence saying there is evidence for homeopathy (the feg pdf document I've inserted in the present draft is accepted by 'mainstream' scientists as well). I object to the term 'placebo' in the lead (Edzard Ernst is known to be a ridiculed homeopathic baiter in the U.K.). I also object to the term 'fraud' in the Overview section

They also are interested in whether positive results against expectation sometimes reflect manipulation of data or perhaps even fraud.

. Like you said, can we edit the (presently) approved article?—Ramanand Jhingade 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

David (Ellis), can you please tell me what objections you have to the feg pdf document?—Ramanand Jhingade 17:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Placebo in the lead is perfectly appropriate; conventional medicine routinely accepts the placebo effect as a component of therapies.

Fraud is mentioned gently as a possibility by some observers, seemingly far more gently than some of the homeopathic claims of the danger of medicine. Sorry, it's not unbalanced. Please do not go to "known" homeopathic baiters anywhere, else that you start having people bring in medical baiters from homeopathy. The problem with bait is that it often has a hook inside.

By edit the presently approved article, no, other than for typos, it's frozen. It is possible to edit the draft, and eventually to have the edited draft become the newly approved.

Again, what specific principles of homeopathy 'are not in the lede? --Howard C. Berkowitz 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Friends, it has been a while since I check-in here. I have not re-read most of the new draft, but I can tell you that I do not like the lede paragraph. It is simply not encyclopedic or impartial. Anyway, we only recently spent a lot of time approving the previous edition. I suggest that we let it sit for 3-6 months or more before we re-do it. Dana Ullman 05:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Dana, I hope you can insert sentences that read something like, "there is scientific evidence for homeopathy", using the PDF for "Scientific framework of homeopathy: evidence-based homeopathy" available at http://www.feg.unesp.br/~ojs/index.php/ijhdr/article/viewFile/286/354 wherever appropriate.—Ramanand Jhingade 08:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report

The British government has reassessed it endorsement of homeopathy as a treatment option under the national health service. It's enquiry sought written evidence and submissions from concerned parties (See News in brief: Homeopathic assessment and Evidence check: Homeopathy).

In February 2010 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that:

‘

... the NHS should cease funding homeopathy. It also concludes that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) should not allow homeopathic product labels to make medical claims without evidence of efficacy. As they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA. The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible. The Committee concluded - given that the existing scientific literature showed no good evidence of efficacy - that further clinical trials of homeopathy could not be justified. In the Committee’s view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice-which the Government claims is very important-as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful. Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS. Source: UK Parliamentary Committee Science and Technology Committee - "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy"

’

The Committee also stated:

‘

We conclude that placebos should not be routinely prescribed on the NHS. The funding of homeopathic hospitals — hospitals that specialise in the administration of placebos — should not continue, and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths. Source: Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy, Fourth Report of Session 2009–10, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 20 October 2009, parliament.uk

’