Talk:Homeopathy

Good article. Exactly what I had hoped to see here.--Bob_M (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Did you hear the one about the homeopath who forgot to take his medication--and died of an overdose? --Gulik 01:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I can't figure out whether 'extra-strength HeadOn' is supposed to be more or less effective than the regular strength stuff. --jtl^talk 01:28, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Thinking about about it, the ultimate medicine would have to be sea water. It got a dilute bit of everything.--Bob_M (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

No, regular water--it's even more diluted! --Gulik 16:52, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

If no one minds, im gonna wikify and cite.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 10:52, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Ok, i'll have to finish my little project later...falling asleep now...--PalMD^{-yada yada} 11:35, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

I love homeopathy...it's just so...dumb.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:25, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

The article, while quite fine, doesn't mention Avogadro's number at all (last I noticed), which is of course the key to the killing blow of there not being any active ingredients in their higher (and stronger!) dilutions. People who don't see this math might think "well, there's still something there". Can there also be something that connects the stupid "like cures like" idea with the reality of vaccines? human^{be in} 19:36, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim (Paracelsus) proposed the theory of "Like cures like" but said it did not apply in all cases, and also founded the Science of Toxicology. He also spent most of his career saying you should do the experiment yourself and not trust authority, and would have been horrified by Homeopathy and their lack of rigour and basis in his authority?

Funny

Homeopathy Tmtoulouse 17:43, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Wow, a good, in-depth article on CP. I liked their quote from David Deutsch: "As I understand it, the claim is that the less you use Homeopathy, the better it works. Sounds plausible to me."

It pains me to see this kind of thing on a wiki supposedly dedicated to rationalism

Think of the last time you saw a creationist talking about evolution. See how they misunderstand the theory on purpose? How they make claims based on that "misunderstanding" and base their entire argument on it? And how they're very selective in their information, making sure not to let anything too pro-evolution slip.

See, I would assume that this crowd, the more intelligent crowd, wouldn't drop to their level by omitting more or less anything that doesn't support your claim, and hiding it behind a few supporting words that serve no purpose but to veil your bias.

I'm no advocate of homeopathy, I prefer medicine that does follow modern scientific methodology, but I still prefer that those seeking unbiased information about a topic be able to get it.

Homeopathy has been proven to work on both infants and animals, both of whom are not able to be affected by placebo, seeing as they're completely unaware of what they're taking, which proves that it's not placebo. On the other hand it doesn't prove that it is as universal as modern medicine, but it does prove that some part of the theory is true.

See number four for an interesting experiment regarding water memory and homeopathy.

I'm not going to make an edit, since I'm sure someone will just revert it, and also because I lost faith in people's abilities to change their minds in light of new evidence a while ago. ^{— Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]}

"Homeopathy has been proven to work on both infants and animals, both of whom are not able to be affected by placebo" This is quite, quite wrong. Animals have indeed been shown to demonstrate the effects of a placebo, although it takes some training - you have to get them to associate being given the pill with a particular effect and then give them sugar pills and they experience the effect again. This is exactly the same as telling someone that a pill will cure them, you just can't go up to animals and tell them they're taking medicine. This is because the placebo effect is far more complex than most people think. It's very culturally dependent in particular.

I also note that the New Scientist link doesn't mention anything about homeopathy. I'll be going through the original research myself a little later, but some preliminary googling (Bringing up the JREF forum among others) shows that it certainly doesn't support homeopathy or the so-called theories around it at all.

Now finally, as our BON just goes on to say that they won't make an edit, I'll put them in the asshat camp and say that they've lost most credibility. Don't complain about something you can easily fix yourself. ^pathetic 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

replies

You are correct, there is no ability on teh internets for people to change their minds. CЯacke® 12:42, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

couldn't resist adding this quote: Ambrose Bierce said (to HL Mencken), "I have little use for homeopathy as medicine except in one respect, Mencken. It aims to cure the diseases of fools. But because it doesn't cure them--and sometimes kills them--it's ridiculed by the thoughtless and commended by the wise." Jrssr5 12:26, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

(sorry Jrss: bit of an edit clash thereKeep^{the faith} 12:37, 25 July 2007 (CDT))

thats cool. Jrssr5 12:55, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Stranger

You can cite this evidence, Stranger?Keep^{the faith} 12:50, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Stranger, I can tell you to read the evidence cited, but I'm sure it won't make a difference to you. Homeopathy is pure bunk, and your comment about children and animals and placebo is ridiculous? Where is your evidence! Once again, I'm sure you have none, or else we would all be at our homeopaths and live to 100. Common...don't be a wuss...show us the evidence. 162.82.215.199 12:34, 25 July 2007 (CDT) User:PalMD

BTW, I followed your link...it says nothing..just defines placebo. What's the relevance? NONE!!!! Betcha didn't expect anyone to read it.User:PalMD 12:35, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

On the contrary; give us some rational, scientifically proven evidence & we'll be delighted. Why not log in & have a real chat? Keep^{the faith} 12:42, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, that was me responding to the idiot.162.82.215.199 13:26, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Why you not log on? - Everything under 'replies' is to him/her so no bothers Keep^{the faith} 13:39, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm very lazy. Whodat?

I've had my tea and am much less crabby

I'm sorry for the harsh reproach above. I don't take well to anon., non-sensical retorts. I would love to see someone actually give refuting evidence, if it existed.

I feel bad for people who believe in woo...but not as much when they try to spread it to others. And when they post irrational ranting on a "supposedly rational wiki", i get a little irked. The baseless assertions about homeopathy being woo-uderful are unsupported. The link given above leads to a definition of placebo that is un-enlightening. Since I had the decency to cite literature in the article, critics should have the decency to give useful citations. Nuf sed.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 14:59, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

As one of the primary authors on this piece I too would like something more than vague generalities. There is extensive evidence that homeopathy does not work, there is extensive evidence that water memory is total hog wash.....you will need a lot more than what you are giving us if you want to make us see the light. We encourage you to present your evidence here for us to look at. Until then... tmtoulouse ^persecute 15:06, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

To be fair, the person was siting the number four example in that link, to a study that found a response to diluted histamines. I am looking at the info now. tmtoulouse ^persecute 15:17, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Ha, I thought this sounded familar, James Randi is once more a head of us :), check this out for an interesting read. tmtoulouse ^persecute 15:22, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Quoting the relevant portion for those that don't want to read it all:

“” NARRATOR: But as more codes are read out the true result becomes clear: the Cs and Ds are completely mixed up. The results are just what you'd expect by chance. A statistical analysis confirms it. The homeopathic water hasn't had any effect. PROF. MARTIN BLAND (St. George's Hospital Medical School): There's absolutely no evidence at all to say that there is any difference between the solution that started off as pure water and the solution that started off with the histamine. JOHN ENDERBY: What this has convinced me is that water does not have a memory. NARRATOR: So Horizon hasn't won the million dollars. It's another triumph for James Randi. His reputation and his money are safe, but even he admits this may not be the final word. JAMES RANDI: Further investigation needs to be done. This may sound a little strange coming from me, but if there is any possibility that there's a reality here I want to know about it, all of humanity wants to know about it. NARRATOR: Homeopathy is back where it started without any credible scientific explanation. That won't stop millions of people putting their faith in it, but science is confident. Homeopathy is impossible.

tmtoulouse ^persecute 15:26, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

That Horizon report's a lulu. Send it to (where was it - the state with the "homeopathic surgeon" Arizona? Nevada?) that state gov't. Because that's another lulu. D'you suppose they can read? It's bad enough our future(?) king being an alternative medicine freak, but when actual bodies with real power are taken in ... Keep^{the faith} 15:45, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

(they're not the same crowd that tried to legislate pi are they?)Keep^{the faith}

It's arizona...they need a good mail campaign down there to figure out what the hell their legislature is up to.162.82.215.199 16:08, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Cases

I am your idiot, and since I know you'll automatically and immediately reject any cases coming from sites run by homeopaths, or that are pro homeopathy, I just won't try :)

Also, I could respond to your comments, where you do exactly what I said in the first paragraph of my earlier post, except for tmtoulouse who had the decency to actually read my post and (By the power of your almighty and infallible figurehead, James Randi) go to the correct place on the link, so thanks for proving once again that collectively, people can deceit themselves, at least the conservatives are aware that they're stubborn.

Keep worshiping your false idol and convincing yourself that you're not as stupid as the rest of us.

If you have evidence please present it. If it it exists it shouldn't be that difficult.--Bob_M (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Reply

Oh do give it a rest! Or better still log on and have a real conversation. We don't bite honestly. Keep^goats 01:25, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Eh, you're probably right, I'm not getting anywhere with this anyway. ^{— Unsigned, by: 84.108.244.22 / talk / contribs}

Well, you still haven't signed in or signed your posts...I, of course, read your post thoroughly, which is why I know where you link goes...

You would be surprised how open-minded I can be...just show me some real evidence. For instance, that study you referred to about water memory was clearly disproven...it was not reproducible under controlled conditions. If your ideas about homeopathy can be shown true...well, show us. Pete

I'm not going to continue, partially because I really don't believe that, even in the face of evidence, any people's minds are going to be changed, but also because Homeopathy doesn't "adhere"(Read:works by the rules) to your kind of sicentific methodology.^{— Unsigned, by: 84.108.244.22 / talk / contribs}

Which is eerily close to saying that creationism is true because it doesn't adhere to scientific method either, so I'm going to stop now, before I suddenly transform into a conservative.

Mr/Ms IP 84.108.244.22 please 1. sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~), and 2. use colons to indent your comments. Asterisks are considered bad form here. Whoever you are. human^{be in} 14:01, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

"...doesn't adhere to your kind of scientific methodolgy...". Then, to what kind of scientific method does it adhere? Is it magic?162.82.215.199 14:03, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Also, if you think that "Homeopathy doesn't "adhere"... to your kind of sicentific (sic) methodology," why did you think a site that promotes the scientific method as the only truth would even consider it? Thunderkatz^Ho! 14:04, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Might I encourage our nameless author to contribute to our article: List of Scientifically Controlled Double Blind Studies which have Conclusively Demonstrated the Efficacy of Homeopathy. If you could give us five or six examples to start with that would be useful.--Bob_M (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Ugh! I shook my water and it tasted like poo

I guess it had the memory of the sewage plant it came from!!!-- ^{I am the Alpha}TimS_{and the Omega!}. 15:47, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Medical Homeopathy

Why is this wiki so nagative on homeopathy? Do you not know that there are medically qualified homeopaths? (some guy) ^{— Unsigned, by: 217.172.33.60 / talk / contribs}

Chiefly 'cause it's a load of crap.   ^Contribs_Talk 09:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Susan, that's being negative and reinforcing bunch's prejudices against us. The moment there is one, just one properly conducted, double blind study that has been properly peer reviewed and published in a respected medical journal which shows any benefit from homeopathic remedies then I and many, if not all, members of this site, will accept that there may be something in it. As long as it relies on woo then, as Susan said, it's a load of crap. Silver Sloth 10:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

It does rely on woo; ergo it is crap!   ^Contribs_Talk 10:23, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(Edit conflict! Gaah!) More than that, if homeopaths want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a plausible explanation for how water can retain the properties of a medicine that is no longer present at a molecular level. If homeopathy does work, we will need to make substantial revisions to our current conception of chemistry/physics. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Horseshoe-shaped gonads!} 10:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

It's Water memory!, didn't you know?   ^Contribs_Talk 10:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Bollocks)

I agree (with your explicit postscript, I mean). Claiming that something is present without actually having a molecular presence (or atomic, even. Any particle would do!) is no different from supernaturalism. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Horseshoe-shaped gonads!} 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Demosthenes (reverted) edit

From the referenced FDA source:

“”Some homeopathic remedies are so dilute, no molecules of the healing substance remain. Even with sophisticated technology now available, analytical chemists may find it difficult or impossible to identify any active ingredient. But the homeopathic belief is that the substance has left its imprint or a spirit-like essence that stimulates the body to heal itself.

“”Although Pediatrics is published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Jacobs' study and several others published in such journals as The Lancet and the British Medical Journal are considered "scanty at best" by the academy. "Given the plethora of studies that are published [on other topics] in scientific journals, I wouldn't say there are a lot of articles coming out," says Joe M. Sanders Jr., M.D., the executive director of the academy. "Just because an article appears in a scientific journal does not mean that it's absolute fact and should be immediately incorporated into therapeutic regimens. It just means that the study is [published] for critique and review and hopefully people will use that as a stepping stone for further research."

I know it's quote mining but I don't think this can be called support in any way.   ^Contribs_Talk

From my talk page ħuman :

Dear Human,

on another page I started as you suggested, on the talk page, only to be told: "it's a Wiki - improve if you will - you can be praised or damned afterwards" Why are you reverting a sourced statement, especially one that directly contradicts the exaggeration "every single scientific study"? Rational argumentation should consist of facts, not rhetorical excesses.

Demosthenes

I reverted it because the "source" is a site that claims referenced information, but has no specific references to its sources. IE, "In 1991, the British Medical Journal published an analysis" ... "In a double-blind controlled study conducted in Britain in 1980" ... "Other significant positive studies" ... "A study, conducted in 1985, found that patients who took the homeopathic product" - these are not cites, they are claims with no way to research them. ħuman 15:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I think this is factrually wrong. The quoted page has specific references:

Quadruple - Blind, The Lancet, April 22, 1989, p. 914.4

Ferley, J.P., A Controlled Evaluation of Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndromes, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1989, 27, pp. 329 - 335.

Reilly, D.T., Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trail of Homeopathic Potency, with Pollen in Hay fever as a Model, The Lancet, October 18, 1986, pp. 881 - 886.

Fisher, P., Effect of Homeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia), British Medical Journal, 1989, 229, pp. 365-6.

Kleijnen, J., Clinical Trials of Homeopathy, British Medical Journal, 1991, 302, 216-23.

Gibson, R.G., Homeopathic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Evaluation by Double-Blind Clinical Therapeutic Trial, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1980, 9, pp. 453-459.

Jacobs, J. et al,Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Traila in Nicaragua, Pediatrics, Vol. 93, No. 5, May 1994, pp. 719-725.

Reilly, D., et. al, Is Evidence for Homeopathy Reproducible?, The Lancet, 1994; 344: pp. 1601-6

These are primary sources. Demosthenes

All my quotes above are from [1] which lists none of what you just cited. That page has no references, unless they hid them somewhere. ħuman 19:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"Positive" homeopathic studies

I have been meaning to explore this issue more indepth anyway, perhaps not in this article though. There is substantial problem with many of the "pro" studies. But it will take time to step through it. I am going to roll back the article to the previous state as we work through what may or may not be valid research. tmtoulouse ^persecute 15:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

To something relevant

Now, to your edits regarding homeopathy. The link you gave to Vital Force Consulting has data's most current mentioned study is in 1994. Is there any pro-homeopathy arguments you can provide that would be a bit more current? This site is about looking more objectively at crank and pseudoscience like homeopathy or Bigfoot and scrutinizing it. (occasionally drifting into outright rejection) --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 12:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, 1994 is not that long ago. It has always been my impression that there have been a few small studies which showed a positive effect - but that the overwhelming bulk of studies showed no such effect. If the facts are that a handful of studies have, by chance, shown a positive effect shouldn't we mention that, while at the same time pointing out that these are exceptions? Surely that is better than simply trying to deny they exist?--Bob^{bing up} 13:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, yes but would the naysayers by more impressed with a study from, say 2004 than 1994. Because of it's pseudoscience attitude, it seems to heave some opposition here, being one of the more biased articles. Amrite? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 13:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Thank you Bob. The Lancet is generally not considered to be friendly to crank science, and the studies referred look as replicable as anything you may have seen in a medical journal. Thus, the fact that they were not specifically debunked in the intervening years suggests that they are reasonably reliable. Either way, the eighties and the nighties are not exactly the Dark Ages in science, so certainly the statement made in the article "Every single scientific study" is factually wrong (and thus the strident tone is unjustified).

Disclaimers. I don't claim comprehensive knowledge of the field. I am not affiliated with Vital Force Consulting in any way shape or form. I have actually written up a protocol to assess the claims of homeopathy and sent it to Dr. Ernst who recently made waves by offering GBP 10k for a successful trial, but he hasn't responded (perhaps because I told him I don't want the money).

Demosthenes

Thanks for you thanks, but as I am sure you are aware I am by no means a believer in Homeopathy. I seem to recall reading about a recent meta-analysis of all Homeopathy studies which first reviewed them for methodology so as to eliminate those with faulty methodology and then came down absolutely firmly on the "no effect" side of the fence.--Bob^{bing up} 13:42, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I found this which claims a flaw in the study. This article seems to have reliable sources though.

In 1991, the British Medical Journal published an analysis of 107 clinical studies published between 1966 and 1990. The authors found that in 81 of the experiments, the homeopathic treatments were successful. Even when they included only the 23 studies that they considered to be of the highest quality, the vast majority of these (15) showed positive results. Here's how the results broke down: 13 out of the 19 trials of respiratory infection treatment were effective, 6 out of 7 were positive for other infections, 5 out of 7 were positive for digestive system treatment, 5 out of 5 were successful for hay fever, 5 out of 7 showed accelerated recovery after surgery, 4 out of 6 helped in rheumatological disease, 18 of 20 were beneficial for pain or traumatic injury; and 8 out of 10 worked for mental or psychological problems.

BMJ is a pretty reliable one, wouldn't you say? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 13:44, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

What would you say to this as the header for the homeopathy page?

Homeopathy is a type of alternative medicine based on the idea that "like cures like". It was created in the 18th century by Samuel Hahnemann and competed successfully with leeching as medicine 300 years ago. For some reason a few credulous people living in the modern era have decided to go back and embrace it as actual medicine. The vast majority of refutable scientific studies has found that homeopathy has no effect above placebo and it has been widely rejected as quack medicine and pseudoscience. However, in 1991, the British Medical Journal published an analysis of 107 clinical studies published between 1966 and 1990. The authors found that in 81 of the experiments, the homeopathic treatments were successful[1], leading to the conclusion that at least some studies exist to back up claims.

--*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 13:47, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I was thinking of this Lancet 2006 one: [[2]] The Lancet, the respected UK-based medical journal, has published its conclusions about homoeopathy after examining findings from 110 homoeopathy trials and as many trials of conventional medicine. "There was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions - this finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects."--Bob^{bing up} 13:54, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Both would work, it seems. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Come on! The 2006 "placebo effects" Lancet study must pwn the 1991 one! :-) --Bob^{bing up} 14:04, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

By date, but one is a placebo effect. The other is 80 percent effective. *raspberry* --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Both are in, tell me what you think, both of you please. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

mmnnn We seem to have crossed over a bit on that. Where do you get "80 percent effective" from? --Bob^{bing up} 14:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Ok I see it.--Bob^{bing up} 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Here is teh anylis of the BMJ study from PUB MED pubmed. 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. Not quite as hot as the "80 percent effective" quote from the homeopathy site I think.--Bob^{bing up} 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Details details. Just because it might be biased and incorrect is no reason not to state it as pure fact. Well, in the article I'd like to not give too much data against the sources going for it, seeing as how half an hour ago it said "EVERY SINGLE STUDY SAYS IT'S FAKE. HOMEOPATHY SUCKS" more or less. Besides, I could find data saying your pubmed data awaits further review and is biased. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. Im changing the "no better" to "as good as". Yes it's a little not-un-dis-truthful but hey, we need some balance. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:39, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

All data is provisional. :-) It should be interesting to see what happens to it after the rest of the gang wake up though.--Bob^{bing up} 14:43, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Susan will be fun to convince. What did Human think of it? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:44, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I don't know. I'm not going to touch it further though. On balance ... I'm sure you know that we don't strive for a neutral point of view - we strive for a skeptical point of view. So your attempt at balance may or may not survive. :-) --Bob^{bing up} 14:47, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Good point. But shouldn't there be some kind of a devils adovocate for it, at least a sentence or two? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 14:49, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

--- Guys, I'd like to move the homeopathy discussion to the homeopathy talk page if at all possible. I'm not a homeopathy fanatic, and I didn't even suggest one needs perfect NPOV here, a skeptical view is fine with me. However, skeptic != fanatically, irrationally biased against. If there is evidence that supports homeopathy, I dislike having it suppressed. I'd like to see the rational argument presented on the page. I don't think that the skeptical position is strengthened by strident tone and talking past the advocates.

Article that support homeopathy

Okay in addition to the link that was included what are the major studies that supposedly support homoepathy? tmtoulouse ^persecute 15:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Which link, Lancet or BMJ? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 16:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

The one Demosthenes included to a list of a few studies. Just list any support studies here though. Let us see what the positive evidence looks like. I do think that it should be limited to controlled double-blind studies, pro-effect articles on homoepathy have a tendency to avoid these designs. tmtoulouse ^persecute 16:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

This article, which suggests a placebo effect, came from the Lancet. This one talks about various studies from 80 to 94 which give indication towards it working. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* ^{Get to the bunker} 16:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

All right cool, I am aware of some others as well, I will get back with my analysis soon. Just a little busy today. tmtoulouse ^persecute 16:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

In evaluating statistical claims favoring the implausible, Bayes must inform your analysis. Scientifically improbable claims actually require better evidence than plausible ones. The fact that some studies may (or may not) have shown benefit from homeopathy does not "prove" homeopathy. The preponderance of evidence is against it, and the implausibility of it make it, er, implausible.-- -PalMD ^{--'scuse me, while I kiss the sky} 19:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

The link posted by Gen. S.T. Shrink discussing studies from 80 to 94 and "giving indication towards it working" is from holisticonline.com and has no citations. Given the innate implausibility, I don't know if this link should count, though I do agree that evidence in favor of homeopathy needs to go up here if any can be found, possibly with a disclaimer about study rigor when called for. BlueMoon 16:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cover story

(Please do not archive this section)

Shouldn't this be one of our randomly featured cover stories? ħuman 15:34, 9 February 2009 (EST)

So what happened to this? Also, the two templates at the top look bad and move the actual content down way too much. --  Nx/talk  06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to have commented. I deleted the "bullshit" template, we really don't need that thing all over the place. I'm also going to work on streamlining the cover|approved one if no one has yet. Do you think this is cover-worthy? ħuman 19:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

See my attempts in my sandbox (there's one variant in the top right corner too). The article is good, but I don't know how cover articles are decided here (do we have any criteria for that?) --  Nx/talk  19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any criteria, but if we can put something in the article discussing any evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy that has been found, with disclaimers about study rigor when needed, I think it will be a good example of the work we hope to do here. BlueMoon 16:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've just finished Bad Science, which has everything this article needs to know on the subject, I'll go through and do some cleaning and then it'll probably be worth of a cover article and I'd say "best of". ^pathetic 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done some sprucing, and Trent seems to like it at least. Should we move this to cover story approved? ^pathetic 19:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It just occured to me

Where do they get the water, or alcohol or whatever, they dilute stuff with? Wouldn't it be at least as impure or contaminated as the greater dilutions. even distilled water would pick up a molecule of stuff from the atmosphere or the container. It'd need to be vacuum distilled in gold containers to avoid contamination. _and marmite 15:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, details, details.--En attendant Godot_{"«I think like a genius, I write like a distinguished author, and I speak like a child. --V.Nabokov»} 15:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a very valid criticism. Or say for example they claim that homeopathic caffeine can treat insomnia. Well I just poured half a cup of cold coffee down the sink. It goes out into the drains, getting further diluted as it travels along into the sea etc. Eventually the entire Atlantic ocean becomes a huge source of homeopathic caffeine. Then as further mixing occurs all the surface water in the world becomes homeopathic caffeine. The entire human race suddenly starts to feel very sleepy all the time causing the collapse of human civilization. I for one am very worried. JoeDuffy 15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose they'll say it's not given the (magick ritual) banging, but the first dilution is, of course, and subsequent dilutions progressively fewer "bangs". _and marmite 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Phew, that's ok then :) On the other hand my 18 month old daughter is partial to hitting her plastic toys on the pipe for the waste water outside our house. Would that count? JoeDuffy 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pedantic note: the caffeine stays in the ocean, since "fresh" water is generated by evaporation. So the ocean may now be too strong to work as a source of homeopathic caffeine. Remember, what makes homeopathy work is not having any active ingredients left in the solution. Oh, shoot, that means rain would be perfect. ħuman 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, cooling water used in Nuke power plants (They recycled most of them, so it has to be pure to prevent scaling and all the other fouling problems) has order of magnitude of 10^-9, and tap water is way higher than that (bottled distilled water is ~10^-6, and tap water is probably similar to spring water, which both of them has organoleptic (taste) differences compared to distilled water). It is doubtful what concentration of impurities can be obtained without large amounts of capital for the technologies. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not Confuse "Banging" with "Succussion".--Tolerance 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference? ħuman 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the difference between random Banging and considered, rhythmic Knocking.--Tolerance 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How does know what rhythm to use? How does the water know it's being "considered" properly? ħuman 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

These are Clearly Secrets of the Art.--Tolerance 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Homeopaths using the Lancet results

Err, I might be missing something here, but I was under the impression that the metastudy proved that Homeopathy was ineffective? And yet here they state:

"In 1997, The Lancet published a thorough meta-analysis which showed that, of 89 clinical trials, 44 reported homeopathy to be significantly more effective than placebo;1 none of the 89 trials found placebo to be more effective than homeopathy. Even accounting for any publication bias towards ‘positive’ trials, the authors came to the conclusion that clinical benefit from homeopathic therapy cannot be explained by the placebo effect alone. Similar general conclusions were drawn from other recent meta-analyses or systematic reviews of homeopathy.2–4 Further research is needed to identify, in particular, those medical conditions that respond most effectively to homeopathy."

Am I missing something? Crundy 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The paper's punchline:

“”The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homoeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homoeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.

In simple terms, the effects noticed for homoeopathy is not a placebo but they can't rule out it not having another causal factor. - π 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a meta-meat-analysis that include the paper you mentioned. - π 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of throwing stones at someone else's typos whilst living in a veritable greenhouse - I love the idea of a meta-meat-analysis. Silver Sloth 14:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article, of use!

Just explained the concept of RationalWiki to my mother, who has been a pharmacist since the mid 60's and was taught that homeopathy is a farce. She related that even today consumers get roped into badly labeled homeopathic "remedies" even in hospitals. This article is of great value. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A joke

Courtesy of TjW at teh JREF forums:

"A homeopathic pet? Would that be an aquarium that used to have fish in it?" ħuman 00:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Structured water

I'm just bookmarking some links on clusters and water structure that will go with the whole misinterpreted research that can be expanded. I'd upload the WP picutres but I don't think they're nearly as pretty as something that can be done on DS Visualizer or Lighwave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cluster http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html ^pathetic 12:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Upload them and post them here for inspiration? ħuman 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

powers of ten image

file:Magnitude.svg although well intended, I don't think really helps. First, one can't even see the "10^0" (one pixel) in the corner. Second, it tops out at 10^5, which doesn't convey very well what 10^20 means. Perhaps a better caption would help, like one that says "10^6 would cover your screen, 10^7 the floor of a 10m by 10m room, and 10^20 is larger than France"? The image is a good "idea", but fails to really support the orders of magnitude argument in a useful way. IMHO, anyway. ħuman 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's scalable though, if you set the pixel as ^5, then the largest square will be ^10 and so on. It's more to convey the effects of how a few small numbers make massive changes rather than to show what ^20 is (yet alone ^2000) which would be impractical to show properly. ^pathetic 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it still needs to be presented better. The "single pixel" isn't really visible, and due to the "square" aspect, they don't seem to grow that fast since the growth is spread over two dimensions. If on one dimension only, 10^3 becomes a screen width or so (1000px), and 10^4 reaches across the room, and 10^6 is a mile and a half. You know, it's the whole "laid end to end" type of example that is usually so striking. ħuman 20:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, with the context of dilution, we're expanding in three dimensions, so showing it linearly would be slightly more misleading IMHO. We have the numbers, which are just as good as showing it linearly. The fact that the single pixel is hardly visible is probably a good thing, as it shows you need very few powers to get from something so small to something so large. ^pathetic 16:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Linear is pretty much this. And http://www.himalayanheritage.com/homeopathy.html has a picture of how they're diluted but overall seems... well, eugh. How the hell can you treat this shit as anything but a complete joke?!? ^pathetic 16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)