Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 65

Hi! I'm seeing both spellings in bibliography on homeopathy (both in scientific and in believer bibliography), should we give the alternative spelling? Is there one that is more prevalent? Thanks! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

ExperiencedArticleFixer, miasms, definitely. That is the Hahnemanian term of art. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Miasm" is the English word and "miasma" the original German one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Miasma is also English according to Merriam-Webster's, but it means something different, an "atmospheric" "vaporous exhalation", so not what Hahnemann meant, so I agree with Guy in keeping miasm. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

We even have an article about Miasma theory. Brunton (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, that's it then, they are two different things. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Sam’s thinking was very much rooted in the 18th century medical paradigm. Perhaps he co-opted some of the medical terminology of the day. My “waiting to be read” pile includes a book about the cultural context of the origins of homeopathy; there might be something useful in that when I get around to it. Brunton (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

A paper we covered has been retracted, and we couldn't be happier - Ars Technica. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at reducing the overciting in the lead, but thought it best to get some opinions here before doing so. I understand that the pseudoscientific wording is especially contentious and will need those cites, but was hoping to reduce some of the others.

• All relevant scientific knowledge about physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology has 6 cites

• All relevant scientific knowledge about physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology Clinical trials have been conducted, and generally demonstrated no objective effect from homeopathic preparations has 4 cites
• As a result national and international bodies ..... and recommended against the practice receiving any further funding. 4 cites

All these are very well covered in the body so theoretically no cites are necessary. My personal preference would be to remove all these cites (including others with just a couple) from the lead and leave in the pseudoscientific ones. But I understand that there may be a case to leave some cites in. If so can we reduce them. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, this is the result of an endless parade of True Believers demanding that we source the fact that homeopathy is bollocks, wherever and whenever we mention it. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked through the archives and most complaints seem to be related to the pseudoscience and quackery statements so I left those in. Not terrible bothered if you want to return the others, I just find it messy and it is a bit overkill having more than two or three cites for a statement. I double checked that everything in the lead is well sourced in the body. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dude, did you not read what Guy said? Homeopathy is stable now because a lot of us science editors had to crush the pseudoscience of the true believers. If you think something needs to be reduced, then chat about it here. None of us has any patience whatsoever with major edits, unless you find the 100th peer-reviewed reliable source that shows that Homeopathy is bullshit. Sigh. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't dude me, I am as much a science editor as anyone else here. Yes I read what Guy said. Look at the chronology. I posted this nearly two weeks ago and made the change ten days after that when nobody responded. This is normal and expected editing practice. If you want the cites back in then that is fine, but there is no need to undo all the other copy editing that I had done. I am not the enemy here. AIRcorn (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't see how the overciting in the lead can be reduced much, and the whole overkill of true believers and their efforts to change reality via wikipedia is the result. I agree with Guy and SkepticalRaptor. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That's fine. It was more about aesthetics. AIRcorn (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Homeopathy/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Berchanhimez (talk · contribs) 13:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I'll start by saying it's nice to see the editor who delisted the article from GA a "few" years ago, and who recently failed it again due to lack of repsonse from the nominator working to bring it back up to GA status - I agree completely with the 2012 decision to delist, which I reviewed to help decide if I'm comfortable taking this on. It will take me at least a day to go through all the prose, which I will be doing offline and will only post here when I am complete with the whole article (although it may come in chunks so I don't lose the edit if something glitches), and I'll likely start with criteria 2-6 first as I find they help me get very acquainted with the article so that the prose review can be more complete. I've spent about 20-30 minutes doing a cursory review of the article and the criticisms provided in the failed review, as well as the 2012 delisting, and I think the article has a shot at being able to be listed again (i.e. isn't a quick fail). Many of my comments are likely to be nitpicking, and I am happy to work with the nominator regarding any disagreements as to whether a change is required to make it meet the good article criteria. I will return later to complete criteria 2-6, and expect to be able to have the full review completed NLT Monday morning or so, if it even takes me that long (will heavily be based on my workload at work). If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask or bring them up to me. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for starting this Berchanhimez. Take the time you need. As you are probably aware it is a controversial topic area here on Wikipedia so there may be some things that I can't change without wider consensus (cites in the lead is a recent one). Happy to work with you and answer any questions you have. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem, and I understand that completely regarding prior consensus - I've looked through the past discussions I can find to try to comply with past consensuses, but if I make suggestions that are against some consensus I missed please feel free to simply tell me so and I won't hold it against the review. I've read through the article completely a couple times now with an eye towards the "grand" criteria (as opposed to "petit" criteria like grammar/etc) and will hopefully complete my third readthrough specifically for prose quality, spelling, grammar, etc either later today or tomorrow at the latest. I've also during these first two readthroughs been doing a random spot check of sources - that they verify the material they purport to, etc - and so will post that review now as well. My next step over the next few days is going to be to critically read every word of the article, now that I understand the flow/organization/etc - for the grammar, prose, and direct in-line citation of sentences with quotes/contentious material/etc. Also see further commment at the bottom under "comments". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I hope to work through this in the next few days. AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy for you to take the time you need. I will post on your talk page or ping if I feel progress has stalled. On another note, given that this is a contentious subject, I am happy to ask for a second opinion to ensure we are not missing anything - but I am also fine with completing the review myself. If you would like me to ask for a second opinion just let me know. Please give me a ping when you're done with edits or comments on my suggestions/concerns. Thank you Aircorn :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  

   See below in collapsed section(s)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  

   I believe that the Explanations of perceived effects section could be "proseified" and would be better that way, but I am open to disagreement on this.

   The article needs a pass for compliance with summary style - there are multiple sections which have primary articles yet go into very deep detail here - those need to be pared back. it's fine after discussion.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  

   I'm marking this as done, but I am going to trust User:Aircorn to take time to fix the few duplicated ref-names and/or other CS1 errors that are present in the article.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  

   For James Tyler Kent's 1905 Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica, 217 preparations underwent provings and newer substances are continually added to contemporary versions. This sentence, since it references the specific book, should have an inline citation for it.

   I am happy with the citations in the article and did not find any contentious/quoted material that is not cited appropriately. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:  

   A spot check of approximately 50 citations I could access over two different read throughs (I ensured I didn't duplicate the same citation twice) shows that the material is supported by the citations it's attributed to.

   Aside from this, I believe that the Explanations of perceived effects should be rewritten as prose instead of as a list - it's currently unclear to the quick reader that the entire list is sourced to [19]:155–167.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  

   Earwig tool finds no copyvio, but there are a few smaller issues which must be taken care of before I can feel comfortable passing this criterion.

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  

   I think this article is organized marvelously well. As it is a pseudoscience, it makes complete sense to put history above the actual practicing of the "science", but that then comes as the next main section (preparations) for those readers who are looking for such information. The evidence (for/against, primarily the second per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE), the efficacy, and the regulations/legislation around the topic are all discussed later on.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  

   I see no problems with the current article with bias or due weight. As the four (necessary) cites in the first sentence confirm, homeopathic medicine is not medicine and is a fringe pseudoscience - thus "due" weight is to give almost all weight with very limited exceptions to the sources and content which discusses it as a pseudoscience. I did not see any overtly biased or even covertly biased statements in my read through, nor did I see anything masquerading as neutral which was really trying to push a viewpoint. However, I am putting this on hold because of the issues I identified above - there certainly could be some bias issues after the article is pared back to comply with summary style, so I will re-review this once the summary-style is fixed.

2. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  

   I see no active edit wars or any current major content disputes - it is worth remembering that articles like this will always have a large edit rate simply because many people are interested in the topic. The last 500 edits do not show any large scale edit wars or anything concerning on this front. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

3. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  

   Unfortunately, no ultimate source is given for File:Hahnemann.jpg - making the copyright status unverifiable that I can see. I am hoping I'm just missing something, and I would be willing to consider passing over this one image given it's survived 15 years on commons undeleted, but I do believe that the letter of the GA requirements would require this to be rectified, if not the spirit as well.

   There is a source given for File:Mortar2.jpg, but I doubt it would pass muster on commons as it is now, as the user who uploaded it claims they do not remember anything about the date it was taken and there is no metadata information to potentially verify that... but this should be easy to rectify by replacing with another picture of a mortar and pestle if you wouldn't mind.

   Both replaced/removed so no problems.

   No other image licensing issues found - all are purportedly free so there are no fair use rationales to evaluate.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  

   The image of the oscillococcinum pills is very generic - there does not appear to be any distinguishing feature of them versus any other small white pills - thus I'm not sure what benefit including the image has. It also doesn't appear to be relevant to the section it's placed in at a minimum - while it's "200C" pills, that isn't related to the appearance of the pill - or this isn't specified in the prose at least. Aside from that, all images look to be relevant, and I will still be working on the remainder of the review, but I do believe this image should be reconsidered before pass/fail determination is made.

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:  

   Overall, this article can certainly be a good article, but it will need a decent chunk of work here. I am not comfortable passing it in its current state given primarily the summary style violations, but I am happy to leave it on hold and even extend the hold time if you are able to actively work on paring it back for the two sections I point out. Please feel free to ask me any questions you have on my review, and to ping me as you take care of issues so I can re-review and start turning some of these purple bubbles to green check marks for you. I will also, as I mention below, be reviewing the prose of the two "summary sections" (i.e. preparations and evidence/efficacy) after they are pared back in line with summary style. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Preface: This is and will always be a very controversial/contentious article, and especially so for the lead section. For this reason, I am going to be very stringent in my review, and attempt to point out things that may have the air of non-neutrality, so that they can be evaluated and discussed. As with the prose review, I am more than happy to work with you and discuss if you disagree with anything I bring up, and we can work together to come to a decision. There may also be some prose review things pointed out here, but I believe most of that has been taken care of so I'm trying to focus solely on neutrality/MOS now.

One of these pictures of Hahnemann might be good substitutes: taken from a book published in 1837. a Daguerreotype from 1841. ArcticDragonfly (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and User:Aircorn feel free to use either of those images, and feel free to begin working on the issues I've already identified if you'd like - I do not have a problem with you actively working on it while I complete my review. As you have said, this is an article that I don't know how many other people would've taken on, and I am going to be taking great care to ensure it meets all criteria and solidly so for your benefit. The last thing I want is for this article to pass a good article review here then ultimately be delisted quickly by "detractors" because they find some minor technical issue like "that one section is too long per "summary style"!!!!" or something. I realize that I am asking a lot of work from you to rewrite entire sections during a review, and I'm sure I'll end up with probably 10kb of nitpicks about prose/grammar when I finish that part of the review. Thus, I'm happy to extend the on-hold time past a week for as long as you're willing to commit to actively developing the article towards improvements - because I think that it's close enough and that you seem willing to put in the work to get there. I plan to complete my prose review within a couple days, and I apologize for the review taking this long - again, I am trying to get this extremely correct for your benefit so that this article is a "strong GA" which someone who wants to demote can't just find some flimsy reason that we miss. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

p.s. somehow I pinged User:ArcticDragonfly when refactoring their comment to be on one line (for ease of organization, as I have a feeling this section may get long) - apologies for that. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I apologise, for my absence. I had computer issues and then a busy weekend. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this. I will reply to your points below. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review this. AIRcorn (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The book for the "explanations" section seems to be available for free checkout on the internet archive library. I think turning it into a table, but moving details into a paragraph or two (so that the table only includes "placebo effect", "unassisted natural healing", etc).

Happy with the citations/copyright concerns I identified, but again I'll hold off on a full in depth neutrality/sourcing review until the prose is in its "final" state. I am also happy to let the evidence/efficacy section slide provided the one subsection (explanation of effects) is improved as above. I also am not certain but I think that Ethics and safety may be better bumped up to its own level 2 heading instead of subsection of "evidence/efficacy" - but again I'm open to your opinion on that.

Appreciate you looking on the dilutions section reduction. Upon another look, I'm happy leaving the regulation section as is. I can't see much to add and the size is not overwhelming at this time. I will note that Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy seems to be the "main page" for this, but at the same time this article isn't overly detailed - that article could be expanded tons more than this one. Happy for you to take the time you need on the dilution section.

Happy with the pictures and with your commitment to work through the prose issues. I'm in no rush if you're not, so as long as you'll check in every few days and it looks like you're making progress on the article I'm happy to leave it on hold for a reasonable amount of time. I'll update the above sections momentarily. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez I reduced the dilutions section and managed to also do some to the efficacy section. It might be worth another look now. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to note I've seen this, have done a cursory look at the work and it all seems good for now, but I will give you the benefit of a full review, including the parts I "postponed" (neutrality mainly) within the next couple days (likely on Sunday, if not sooner). I will actually ping you when the full review is complete. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn Great work on the article. I've done my "final" review for neutrality now that you've made the prose changes, and I've found a few more prose issues. If you'd go through the second review and make changes as you see fit, or discuss/explain why you feel they shouldn't be made, I am happy to look again when you get a chance. I am happy to work with you to resolve disagreements on the necessity of specific changes, and after we go through this set of recommendations I think it'll likely be passable, but I'll do one final pass just for completeness sake. I won't make you wait for that final pass unless I see any "failing" issues in the article - but I may offer you recommendations anyway if that's okay. My end goal with this overly-thorough review is to ensure that there is no question that this is a good article and to ensure that this controversial topic is in compliance with policy and guidelines - especially the neutrality, which is why I brought up some issues that may seem minor or nitpicky. As before, I'm happy for you to take the time you need, but if you think it'll be over a 3-4 days, please just let me know and ping me when you're done with this set of changes. Only other thing is I'd like you to reconsider the oscillococcinum picture and whether it's actually descriptive :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I think I got everything. Like usual changed most (not necessarily with your suggestions, but hopefully to clarify things a bit). Disagreed on a few, but that is fine. Let me know if any are sticking points and I can have another think about them. This has been a very thorough review, probably one of the most thorough I have been through. Thanks for taking the time to do this, it is much appreciated. Oh, I found another picture and changed the description fro oscillococcinum. Hope this one works better. AIRcorn (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work on this User:Aircorn - I think it's in a position now where there's unlikely to be any decent argument that it doesn't meet the GA standards - and in fact in my opinion it's well above them. This was my goal - to get it to a point that people couldn't "complain" about it being a GA or being non-neutral, etc. Thanks for your work and patience through this process - I'll be completing the listing soon. Pleasure working with you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"change pseudoscientific to scientific" who give you this information,homeopathy is proved 117.193.44.212 (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please also cite reliable, independent sources when making a request. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

please change the statement as homoeopathy is a pseudoscience. I can show you many refference article about this topic. You can see Dr E. S. Rajendran's research papers and also papers published by IIT Bombay regarding homoeopathy. IFFK (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  Not done No, please read about a dozen previous discussions here. Praxidicae (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

{{Not satisfied with your answer}} what you need to accept the fact.I can provide you. Did you need any CCRH papers or any other peer reviewed journals related homoeopathy. I need a solution for this.Its absolutely unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFFK (talk • contribs)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Cpotisch removed some content, along with some grammatical/wording changes. I have no major concerns with the grammar changes, but I readded two of the three pieces of content that were removed as I feel they aren't "weasel wordy" at all and that they are important information to the article. If Cpotisch could comment here with what exactly they see problematic in the parts I readded, it would help us to improve it further. Thanks, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve reinstated another bit, but trimmed it down somewhat because it included stuff that wasn’t actually in the source. Brunton (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, all the info I removed relies on primary sources, including one site that sells homeopathic "remedies." The way it was phrased really seemed to imply scientific legitimacy, which I think is quite problematic. Cpotisch (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Cpotisch, primary sources are not necessarily prohibited in this case, and while I understand they could be more reliable it seems uncontroversial to cite a homeopathic practitioner website for a description of the "math" behind it (i.e. the dilution levels). You also removed content cited to a journal review (secondary and good quality) source as well as a book source. Hence why I readded it. If you'd like to discuss the wording further please feel free to - in the interest of full disclosure, I conducted the good article review for this article and spent many hours reading through it multiple times before and after changes to try and ensure that the wording was carefully crafted to ensure accurate representation of sources and facts, without going beyond sources in saying it's "legitimate". It's certainly possible I missed something, as I'm just another human (last I checked at least), but I'd appreciate a specific quote of the wording you feel "impl[ies] scientific legitimacy". You can use {{tq|insert-quote-here}} to quote wording from the article here. Thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a pure scientific...there is nothing like pseudo ways to describe it...my humble request is that please replace the word pseudoscience from science..thank you😊 Dr.Kishan Patel (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

... No. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 08:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• No Read the FAQs listed above, please. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hahnemann noticed that his treatments had bad side effects so started diluting the amounts he was giving his patients. When he realizes that he had diluted it pass the dilution limit he claimed that the water had memorizes the effects of the medicine. We now know it was his patients that had memorizes the effects of the medicine as has been verified by modern experiment.Robert_Ader#Research_in_psychoneuroimmunology TheLittleAmericanMonkey (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Until we have a reliable source tying homeopathy to psychoneuroimmunology, this is original research. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think “water memory” was proposed by Hahnemann. And it’s rather unlikely that Hahnemann “realizes that he had diluted it pass the dilution limit” as he was dead by the time a value for Avogadro’s constant was figured out. Brunton (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The following sentence is at the beginning of History/Historical context section of the Greek language version of this article (https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9F%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE).

"Ιστορία Ιστορικό πλαίσιο Οι oμοιοπαθητικοί ισχυρίζονται πως ο Ιπποκράτης πιθανόν έχει θεμελιώσει την ομοιοπαθητική περίπου το 400 π.Χ., όταν υπαγόρευε τη χρήση μιας μικρής δόσης μανδραγόρα για θεραπεία μανίας, γνωρίζοντας πως αυτό προκαλεί μανία σε πολύ μεγαλύτερες δόσεις.[27]"

This translates as follows, and it should be added at the beginning of the section titled "History", for consistency.

"Homeopaths claim that Hippocrates probably founded homeopathy around 400 BC, when he dictated the use of a small dose of mandrake to treat mania, knowing that it caused mania in much larger doses.[*]" Citation [*]: Hemenway, Henry Bixby (1894), «Modern Homeopathy and Medical Science», JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association (11): 367, doi:10.1001/jama.1894.02420900001001 [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenalg (talk • contribs) 1 May 2021 00:38 (UTC)

We cannot control the Greek Wikipedia, and it is not a goal of Wikipedias to be "consistent" across languages. That source from 1894 is one source that merely states a claim - and in fact, this is an exceptional claim about a respected "father of medicine" believing in homeopathy (a pseudoscience) for which the Greek Wikipedia does not seem to have adequate sourcing. It is not our problem that they have that in their article - they are their own project and can make their own decisions - but it does not meet our sourcing standards here, and in fact I venture to say that no matter how reliably sourced that "claim" is it's not due weight to consider it here, as it's merely another misleading claim made by believers in pseudoscience to attempt to legitimize their "science". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Lenalg, homeopaths claim all kinds of crazy shit. But homeopathy was invented from whole cloth by Samuel Hahnemann. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It's actually not homeopaths claiming this if you read the source. It is quite a critical piece and doesn't claim Hippocrates probably founded homeopathy, but is more drawing tenuous comparisons to some of his writings. Given its age not really useful here in any case. Aircorn (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Anonhh (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TimSmit (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, you had mentioned its a pseudoscience well its not. I would like to a change from " Homoeopathy is a pseudosceince" to "Homoeopathy is an alternative medicinal system" Thankyou. Have a good time. Anonhh (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done. The established literature disagrees with you.^[1][2][3][4] - DVdm (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the article doesn’t include the phrase “homeopathy is a pseudoscience”, and as far as I can see hasn’t since November 2019. Brunton (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Add World Homeopathy Day as April 10th. The day marks the birth anniversary of German physician Dr Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann.

Source: https://thecsrjournal.in/world-homeopathy-day-india-medicine/ Kumarajit112358 (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Stating that homoeopathy is pseudoscience is incorrect and false please change it RJPawan (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

It is you who is incorrect. -Roxy . wooF 12:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Stating that homoeopathy is a pseudoscience is false and controversial please change it, also the spelling of our pathy is HOMOEOPATHY not homeopathy RJPawan (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Renat 12:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Look at the response above to the request made on 7th May. It includes four references to RS supporting the article’s current statement that homeopathy is pseudoscientific. And the article already includes the alternative spelling. Brunton (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

RJPawan, You are a homeopath, yes? Guy (help! - typo?) 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the spelling of homeopathy is fine. It's the American English spelling and is acceptable. Homeopathy is absolutely pseudoscientific. I agree with keeping it as is. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

in wikipedia's Homeopathy

1st para "pseudoscience" is pejorative, and should be deleted

para 1, "All relevant scientific knowledge about physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology[8][9][10][11][12][13] gained since at least the mid-19th century[14] contradicts homeopathy."

this is not true: homeopathy is supported by the following:~ ~ Poincare's Recurrence Theorum

  - Poincaré Recurrences. Max Planck Institut für Physikkomplexer Systeme/Max Plank Institute for the Physics of Complex Systems. Accessed 

April 12, 2021, at:https://www.pks.mpg.de/nonlinear-dynamics-and-time-series-analysis/visualization-of-dynamical-systems/poincare-recurrences

  - Carathéodory C: Über den Wiederkehrsatz von Poincaré:  Berl. Sitzungsber 1919: 580-584

~ amplification of signals through resonant driving

    as for instance with sounds  ....
   - e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance ....  Acoustic resonance is a phenomenon in which an acoustic system amplifies sound waves whose frequency matches one of its own natural frequencies of vibration (its resonance frequencies).
   - or mechanical resonance - eg.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance    Mechanical resonance is the tendency of a mechanical system to respond at greater amplitude when the frequency of its oscillations matches the system's natural frequency of vibration (its resonance frequency or resonant frequency) than it does at other frequencies. It may cause violent swaying motions and potentially catastrophic failure in improperly constructed structures including bridges, buildings and airplanes. This is a phenomenon known as resonance disaster.

para 2 "Homeopathic remedies are biochemically inert"

  - in ultradilution experiments, ultradilute "signals"/(remedies) derived from, for example, potato virus X (PVX) can bind demonstrably their labeled cDNA (and no other) (as illustrated in Allan's letter to the journal Homeopathy 2007 (citation to follow - meanwhile a close facsimile of this letter is posted on my website at http://www.normanallan.com/Sci/New%20Scientist%20homeo%20letter.htm
     (and  this is discussed and demonstrated in Allan's article "An Explanation of Ultradilution and Potentisation in Homeopathy" to be published in the journal Homeopathy October 2021)
   - The ultradilute IgE basophil degranulation, histamine release, work of Benveniste (Davenas  et al: Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE.Nature1988;333:816-818) was frivolously/(here you will really see pseudoscience)  attacked/"debunked" by Maddox, James, and Stewart, but was vindicated by . Belon etal; (April 1999). "Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: Results of a European multi-centre trial". Inflammation Research 48 (Supplement 1): 17–18. (Maddox had questioned the integrity of the techician counting the basophils - Belon etal used a flow cytometer for their counts)

para 5 talks about meta-analysis of clinical trials... a very biased field (statistician excel in these debates of how many angels... I need to collect my thoughts and materials on this...)

I can be reached at (Redacted). This page certainly needs, balanced, rational, changes.

NormanBethuneAllan (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Your changes are not "balanced, rational". Your suggestions are akin to attempting to lie to the public by not calling it what it is, and by fudging data or outright misrepresenting sources to attempt to mislead people. It is virtually universally understood that homeopathy is a pseudoscience, the "data" used to support it is either falsified or from studies carefully crafted to show misleading results, and that these sorts of arguments that take legitimate theorems and data from other aspects of science are... to put it bluntly, lies. No changes will be made as you suggest, and your belief that being a "pseudoscience" is perjorative should make you reconsider your heavy belief in the pseudoscience - not fight for conspiracies with no basis in science. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

NormanBethuneAllan I've removed your email address and phone number. It's an incredibly bad idea to post these publicly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

2409:4042:D84:59F6:0:0:ACC8:F10E (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Why does this article use British English? It's not like homeopathy is a uniquely British idea or anything... Minkai ^(rawr!) _{(see where I screwed up)} 18:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You haven’t been here very long have you? Because in British English, everything is correctly spelled. Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 18:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The short version is that, on Wikipedia, whichever dialect of English is used first when creating an article (American or British), that's the version we keep throughout the article's history. This is to avoid the back-and-forth edit warring over which one is most appropriate for an international audience. (Those were dark days in Wikipedia's infancy...) Please see WP:ENGVAR, specifically MOS:RETAIN for clarification. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, homeopathy is neither uniquely American nor Canadian either. I suppose we could rewrite the article exclusively in gibberish, as the propositions of homeopathy are universally nonsensical, but as far as the article's discussion of available evidence on the matter, British English is as good as any.EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

need to change this information as Homeopathy is different than what is written here. The Higher Purpose (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you tell us which bit we got wrong? -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 10:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello The Higher Purpose, have look first at frequently upcoming discussion points and answers to them in the FAQ first. If you then still believe that a specific phrase is incorrect in the article, suggest a change here on the talk page in X to Y format with reliable sources. Keep in mind though that Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own ideas, but is an encyclopedia that sums up what reliable sources are saying on a topic. E.g. if they consider homeopathy a pseudoscience, so does Wikipedia. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The term pseudoscience has to be removed. Just because the investigations have not been done as in Allopathy, it cannot be called as a pseudoscience. Joecheriross (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Homeopathy is absolutely pseudoscience. This is well-established so we cannot grant your request. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This will not happen. The investigations have been done, again and again and again, and it is all referenced in the article. It is one of the prime examples of pseudoscience. VdSV9•♫ 13:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The article mentioned as second citation for the pseudoscientific is still debatable.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01950.x . There are many articles which says homoeopathy needs further research. Pream electronics (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ located at the top of this page. -- McSly (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes change PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC to NANO MEDICINE

https://highdilution.org/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/764/803 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23277079/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539158/ https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Nano-Pharmacological-Aspect-of-Homeopathic-Drugs-A-Rajendran/c32d4beb0f74f4a235a38770582e12edc7803ce4 https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0038-1669988 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15139095/ https://www.journalijdr.com/homeopathy-nanomedicine–-identification-and-characterization-nps-hypericumperforatum-6c-30c-200c-1m Christoaa (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

No. your sources do not support such a change. Roxy the dog. wooF 07:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Y

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no possibility whatsoever of any 'consensus' for such a change, based on the sources cited: see WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no dearth of evidence in favour of Homeopathy today. A host of basic and clinical trials have come out in its favour. Let's have a look here, for example: https://www.ccrhindia.nic.in//admnis/admin/showimg.aspx?ID=15844. The book is a collection of scientific studies taken up around the globe for evaluating the effectiveness of Homoeopathy, and their outcomes.

By still calling it pseudoscience, we are also ignoring the fact that it is one of the leading alternative systems of medicine, and used in more than 80 countries, including much developed ones. This is reported by the world Health Organisation here: https://www.who.int/traditional-complementary-integrative-medicine/WhoGlobalReportOnTraditionalAndComplementaryMedicine2019.pdf?ua=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocHK (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of this page. Cannolis (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS for the type of source material necessary for this article. Your first source is a document from the 'Central Council for Research in Homeopathy', who clearly are going to claim it works. Actual science doesn't consist of assertions, and nor does it consist of compiling selective lists of 'research' for the purposes of confirming your own prior conclusions. As for the WHO report, it contains data on countries where homeopathy etc is practised. Which isn't a statement one way or another as to whether it has any scientific basis. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the effectiveness of homeopathy is unproven, that claims made in terms of its supposed mechanisms are incompatible with elementary scientific knowledge, and that accordingly, claims made about it's efficacy are pseudoscientific. Accordingly, that is what this article is going to continue to say, unless and until scientific consensus changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The document https://www.ccrhindia.nic.in//admnis/admin/showimg.aspx?ID=15844 is titled 'Scientific framework of Homoeopathy', and it is not published by Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (CCRH) alone. It is a joint publication of LMHI (https://www.lmhi.org), ECH (https://homeopathyeurope.org), and CCRH. It doesn't report only CCRH's works, but the reliable, scientific, published works on Homoeopathy all across the globe. Hence, it is not one clinical trial but a collection of many that the link will take one to. It thus, make for the secondary resource as per : See WP:MEDRS — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocHK (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, the main page of homeopathy calling it a pseudoscience provides 4 references, all of which are not research outcomes, but more of opinions based on experiences most published as chapters in books, thus make for unsuitable primary resources, especially for backing a term as conclusive as 'pseudoscience'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocHK (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A document published by the Ministry of AYUSH is obviously not a reliable medical source (it's unsurprising that the claimed "clinical trials" are reported in the Indian Journal of Research in Homeopathy), and a report showing that it is used widely in 80 countries doesn't have any relevance to its efficacy, or in this case the lack of it. Black Kite (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

May kindly provide a citation for the document you are referring to in the above para. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocHK (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@DocHK: In order to avoid wasting your time discussing something that has been discussed before, please have a look at the talk page archives of this article by entering pseudoscientific pseudoscience in the search box on top of this page. See this - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What? I am describing the document that you linked, which is obviously not WP:MEDRS-compatible. Regardless, DVdm's advice is also sage - you will not succeed in changing this article without providing reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Please know neither of the documents cited above are published by Ministry of AYUSH. There is a range of "reliable" sources. Scientific Framework document is just a collection of many. Will provide more in due course, working on its compilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocHK (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@DocHK: Again, as I asked on your talk page, please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) and indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. - DVdm (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the editors of that book. A former director of the CCRH and Director of AYUSH. The director general of the CCRH (part of the Ministry of AYUSH). A former Secretary for research at the LMHI (a homeopathy organisation). And six "scientists" and research fellows at the CCRH. So effectively it is a document originating from the Ministry. (Also, amongst its "reviewers" we also find a number of homeopathy apologists, including some quite famous ones like Paolo Bellavite, Robbert van Haselen ad Dora Pachova). So, no bias there then! Its reliability is effectively zero. Black Kite (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The term Pseudoscience is wrong should be corrected. Doctorpankaj (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please feel free to read the many, many, discussions in the archives of these pages (the links are at the top of this page) as to why that will not be happening. Black Kite (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

How am I supposed to link folks to this article, and expect them at a glance to realize homeopathy is fake?

The current intro will read, to an uneducated person, as "Homeopathy is a ...scientific system of ...medicine...by a physician...and cures..."

Read the current intro here under that lens:

"Homeopathy ... is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. It was conceived in 1796 by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann. Its practitioners, called homeopaths, believe..."

We need an intro sentence that reads to everyone as "This is fake." Be need it blunt, clear, with no big words. As it is now, I find the article useless for linking to people. I'm disappointed that it has devolved to this point of weaselly phrasings. Wikipedia is supposed to be a beacon of truth, not compromise. I remember this article being more blunt in the past.

Habanero-tan (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone would interpret the sentence "Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine" as "Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a scientific system of medicine..." The prefix pseudo and the adjective alternative are pretty visible and supported by the cited sources, and our wp:MOS doesn't allow throwing them at the reader in bold face. I see no problem with that first sentence. - DVdm (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please remove the word 'pseudoscience' from the sentence it is a well proven science which can cure disease Manuvenkitesh21 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: This has been discussed extensively and is well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The line in the introduction, "Homeopathic remedies are inert..." is not entirely true. Very low dilutions in the decimal scale such as 3X, 4X, 6X are definitely not inert potencies, not to mention Homeopathic "Mother Tinctures". The line needs to be corrected. Michael Cambridge (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

While lower dilutions exist, the ones typically used are highly dilute, 6X and upwards. Hahnemann, who still seems to be regarded by homeopaths as an authority, recommended 30C for most purposes, and one of the major ‘selling points’ used by homeopaths is that the remedies are too dilute to cause harmful effects. The article needs to reflect homeopathy as it is actually used. I would say “homeopathic remedies are typically inert…” would be suitable wording. Brunton (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Focussing solely on ultra-high dilutions to the exclusion of low dilutions is not an accurate description of the availability and use of Homeopathic remedies. Homeopaths use a whole range of potencies from Mother Tinctures to low dilutions and ultra-high dilutions. I ask that my edit in the articles introduction be reinstated to more accurately describe the range of potencies in use. The statement "Homeopathic remedies are typically biochemically inert" is just a biased statement toward the use of ultra-high dilutions without acknowledging low dilutions at all in the introduction. In an encyclopedic article such as this an accurate description of the range of Homeopathic potencies in use needs to be explained clearly whether they are typically used or not. My edit reflected how Homeopathy is actually used and it is used in a whole range of dilution levels, this is an undisputed fact. Please reinstate my edit. Michael Cambridge (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please indent your talk page messages as outlined in wp:THREAD and wp:INDENT — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

You edit was wp:unsourced. - DVdm (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The citation I added to my edit is an article from Popular Science. If we are going to describe Homeopathy in an encyclopedic way then we need to describe it in its entirety. If we are going to mention ultra-high dilutions that are "biochemically inert" in the introduction then we also need to mention in the introduction the use of low dilutions that contain active ingredient. It is important to be fair and truthful in our presentation of Homeopathy to the world. Michael Cambridge (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the problem here is that "active ingredient" may suggest to the reader that such remedies actually have an "active" effect, which of course they don't? Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That does not look like a reliable source. I have removed it, pending possible wp:consensus here. - DVdm (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "active ingredient" doesn't imply effectiveness for anything specific. And in the lower dilutions some of these substances could have an effect. It is true that there currently are products branded and sold as "homeopathic remedies" that have low dilutions, I have seen them at even lower dilutions (higher concentrations) than the 6X mentioned in the ref given by Michael Cambridge, and I see no problem with using that reference for that information. BTW - and I know this can't be used as reference, but please indulge me with this rant -: One popular "homeopathic" laxative sold in Brazil (note the scare quotes are in the word homeopathic, because this goes against everything in homeopathic theory) has 5 mg of Sodium picosulfate and 20 milligrams of the laxative Cassia senna at a meager 1X dilution (plus a couple other plants used in herbalism against diarrhea at 1C or 2X). I would love to have an RS to point out that these are homeopathic products only in name, and that the homeopathic "pharmacy" that makes these is being dishonest in their labeling, but these are the facts. VdSV9•♫ 14:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that a few rare cases have detectable levels is already mentioned in ethics and safety section. To mention it as proposed in the lead is WP:Undue and provides WP:false balance as the instances of active ingredients being present is far far less common than the high dilutions. Aircorn (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with others here that homeopaths applying their "X" and "C" nomenclature to products containing detectable amounts of drugs does not make them homeopathic any more than calling oncological radiation therapy "energy healing" makes it reiki. A mention of this practice as being deceptive is, however, appropriate.EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Poor analogy; to a homeopath ionizing radiation is the cure for the symptoms of radiation poisoning and dilution is only to avoid problems, see for example what their textbook says on Radium "the 6x produced such severe symptoms that Dieffenbach warns against its use medicinally". Now if they are selling an actual laxative and it doesn't cause constipation in a healthy person, that's fake homeopathy. --Cubbi (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point of the analogy. Borrowed jargon doesn't change the nature of the intervention. You can't just dilute ibuprofen to 100 mg/mL, shake it up, invoke some imaginary mechanism of action based on the fact that consuming 10 grams of ibuprofen will actually cause pain somewhere in your body, and cite it as proof that homeopathy "works", but that is precisely the sort of maneuvering that the "1X homeopathy" crowd is after. The many 1X sulfur preparations for treating rosacea is a great example of this. Insisting that higher doses of sulfur cause skin irritation and slapping a "1X" on the box doesn't make it homeopathic.EditorFormerlyKnownAsPuddin' (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This paper might be useful here; it investigated reporting bias in trials of homeopathy. Discussed by Edzard Ernst here. Brunton (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

People often confuse the two as they don’t understand the significance of the name “Homoeopathy”. Homois means like or similar - pathos means suffering and hence Homoeopathy means similar suffering. It should not be misspelt as Homeopathy with all due respect. 86.190.168.98 (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The relevant part of the WP:MOS is WP:COMMONNAME. We don't concern ourselves with whether or not a name is 'correct', we look at what the sources call it. The 'homoeopathy' spelling variant is included in the article, but the majority of sources in the article itself seem to use the 'homeopathy' variant. I did a quick check on Google now: 'homoeopathy' gets about 19 million hits, whereas 'homeopathy' gets 1,400 million hits. I think out current title is the correct choice, in terms of our internal style guide. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Girth. For many years I used the "correct" spelling everywhere, but the usage thing won me over and the incorrect spelling everybody uses no longer grates with me. I still see red when I see Fiber instead of Fibre though, but that isn't quite the same thing as it is a regional variation. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

homeo- and homoeo- are the identical prefix; it's just spelled two ways, like color and colour. Both spellings are fine. Equinox ◑ 22:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There has been mounting scientific evidence that Homoeopathy works Dr Anand Pariyarath (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC) There is mounting scientific, clinical and statistical evidence that Homoeopathy is effective in mitigating and curing different diseases. Dr Anand Pariyarath (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• (1) No there isn't (2) If I am wrong you will presumably be able to provide multiple WP:MEDRS-compatible sources to confirm this. Black Kite (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9884175/

Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review

"Conclusion: The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. Future research should focus on replication of existing promising studies. New randomized studies should be preceded by pilot studies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay1938 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jay. I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Are you supporting or opposing the OP? Your citation does not support them. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

In a low-impact alt-med journal which would presumably provide as generous a hearing as homeopathy would ever get, the authors were still only able to torture the data enough to produce a we-need-more-studies conclusion. Even they were forced to admit that "...when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials no significant effect was seen." Rigorous tests of homeopathy produce negative results. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is the information on Homoeopathy not updated? As technology advances, new researches have been undertaken by CCRH, India , BSc students, IIT Mumbai and can show new evidences about working of Homoeopathy 2A00:23C6:190C:6D00:E103:1AF8:5EF1:6914 (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems up-to-date to me. If you have new information, you are welcome to propose a change to the article. Don't forget to cite the sources backing the changes you are proposing. I also strongly suggest that you read the FAQ at te top of this page as well as the archives of this talk page to get familiar with previous discussions on the same subject. --McSly (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Homoeopathy is a science and therefore it is still existing.. Before claiming it as PSEUDOSCIENCE, kindly check the respective literature. One is unable to find medicinal particles in the dilution doesn't mean that it doesn't contain it. Similarly One can take example of Electricity. You know power house etc.. but when the switch you on makes the light on, do you see any visible energy? Homoeopathy Similarly works in this way. h Nidhidaven (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The relevant academic literature has exhaustive consensus against considering homeopathy as a science and regardless of the mechanism, no effectiveness beyond placebo has been shown as for its medicinal effect. agucova (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

One is unable to find medicinal particles in the dilution doesn't mean that it doesn't contain it.

Resorting to Russell's teapot is not a great argument. Your argument about electricity is just plain asinine, since we have ample evidence of how electricity works & can even measure its presence (unlike your "water memory"). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

…but when the switch you on makes the light on, do you see any visible energy?

The light wouldn’t be much use if you couldn’t. But quite apart from that, there’s no good evidence for efficacy, the ideas behind it are contradicted by what we know about chemistry, physics and arithmetic, and we have appropriate RSs that say it is pseudoscience. Brunton (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Even by the standards of this talk page 'do you see any visible energy when you turn on the lights' has to be one of the weakest arguments yet. Dilution to non-existence doesn't improve efficacy around here.   AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, as we owe them that much, YES indeed we do. I fear they may not understand the answer, as they certainly dont understand their own question. Ah well, nevermind. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, just as we have invented special devices for detecting energy, implicitly there should be some way to invent devices to detect the medicinal particles. Once such is invented, then homeopathy can be considered a proper science. JumboDS64 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

We have devices capable of detecting medicinal particles, lots of them. The funny thing is, when they are pointed at homeopathic remedies, no such particles show up. One assumes that is why they don't work. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

In the first paragraph, there is a sentence that says "Homeopathic remedies are typically biochemically inert, and have no effect on any known disease". This seems slightly misleading, as homeopathic remedies can have positive effects on diseases, just not more than a placebo would. I think a more technically correct sentence there would be something like "Homeopathic remedies are typically biochemically inert, and have no effect on any known disease when compared to a placebo". Thoughts? ThePlug111 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Changes seen in the placebo arm of a trial are not necessarily caused by the placebo effect, but are mostly just down to the natural course of the disease; what would happen if no treatment is given. This is why they are generally referred to as “nonspecific”. And the placebo effect itself is the result of the perception that a treatment has been received, not specific to the actual treatment. If they have no effect over placebo, then the remedies themselves have no effect. “No more effective than placebo” does not mean “has a placebo effect”. Brunton (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In the lead section, can someone add "Samuel" in front of "Hahnemann" in this sentence:

"Its theory of disease, centered around principles ____ Hahnemann termed"

Its the first time he is mentioned in the article and should be specifically identified.

Thank you! 67.220.13.96 (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Reordered it so Hahnemann is mentioned earlier with his full name and link. Thanks for flagging. Aircorn (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

In Switzerland at the University of Bern at the Institute of Complementary and Integrative Medicine Classical Homeopathy / Potentiazed Substancesare researched.University of Bern,Institute of Complementary and Integrative Medicine, Inselspital Bern, Freiburgstrasse 46, CH-3010 Bern

• https://www.ikim.unibe.ch/about_us/contact/index_eng.html
• https://www.ikim.unibe.ch/unibe/portal/fak_medizin/dept_lehremed/inst_kom/content/e54415/e54416/e54418/e122276/pane122425/e1073382/JahresberichtIKIM-HOM-2019_2020_DE_ger.pdf
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserlinsen#/media/Datei:LemnaMinor.jpg page 7
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIDRFeaPFYg

in german : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_van-G2HXs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7M-qcP_pDY --2003:D2:2F4C:C5C6:64B6:FA0C:238:B3BF (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A photo of duckweed isn't 'research'. And YouTube videos aren't even remotely acceptable as sources in regards to any claims regarding medical efficacy. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for what would be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This study evaluated the effects with arsenic-stressed duckweed (Lemna gibba L.). The test substances were applied and compared with controls (unsuccussed and succussed water) regarding their influence on the plant's growth rate. Duckweed was stressed with arsenic. Afterwards, plants grew in either potentized substances or water controls All experiments were randomized and blinded.

• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21057725/

--2003:D2:2F2F:51E0:78C7:CDC2:F523:E0AE (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Junk primary research from dodgy publisher. Not usable. Bon courage (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yep. The Scientific World Journal is not a reliable source for what day it is, let alone science. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

OP, do not edit posts after they have been replied to. [4] It makes following the flow of discussions impossible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry,i found the duckweed sources later. In Germany the work on duckweed is widely accepted. Critics wish the work on many labors. 2003:D2:2F32:A950:8CDF:7395:931A:202A (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

In Germany the work on duckweed is widely accepted Yes, the DZVhÄ and other quackery lobby groups have been loud about it, and the coverage by journalists has been particularly gullible. But that is not what counts here.

That duckweed paper is a primary source, by at least one nominally incompetent author (a physicist). Not WP:MEDRS (read it).

There must be hundreds of bad studies on homeopathy, and you can probably find all of them in the archives because someone who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards wanted to include them.

Critics wish the work on many labors I cannot parse that sentence. "Kritiker wünschen die Arbeit auf vielen Taten"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Kritiker wünschen sich die Arbeiten in vielen Laboratorien .

• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21057725/
• https://www.homoeopathie-online.info/wasserlinsen-experimente-zeigen-spezifische-effekte-von-hochverduennten-homoeopathika-interview-mit-dem-physiker-dr-stephan-baumgartner/

short:

Critices wishes the work (independent of the) laboratory (from other universities)

Kritiker wünschen die Arbeiten unabhänig zu bestätigen (in Laboratorien anderer Universitäten)

long 1:

• https://scilogs.spektrum.de/detritus/die-hom-opathischen-wissensfeinde-vom-bayerischen-rundfunk/

Dann kommt ein „spektakuläres Experiment“ mit Wasserlinsen, diesmal von Stephan Baumgartner der Uni Bern. Dieser versucht seit vielen Jahren mit verschiedensten Methoden Unterschiede zwischen homöopathisch verschütteltem und ganz friedlichem normalen Wasser herbeizumessen. Hier hat er kleine Wasserpflanzen mit Arsen vergiftet, um sie dann mit „potenziertem“ Arsen wieder zu heilen. Lassen wir mal außen vor, dass ein Patientengespräch mit Wasserlinsen noch schwieriger ist: Das Ergebnis wurde noch nie unabhängig bestätigt, also nehmen wir es einfach mal hin, ohne dass wir ihm viel Beachtung schenken müssen.

long2:

Es scheint angebracht, weitere Forschung zu betreiben, weil das, was im Moment vorliegt, nicht genügt und zu viele Fragen unbeantwortet lässt. Sollten unabhängig replizierte Studien mit veröffentlichten Daten tatsächlich zum Schluss kommen, es gebe Effekte, wäre dies allemal willkommen. Wer wäre denn ernsthaft dagegen, etwas Neues über die Welt zu lernen?

• https://kritisch-denken.ch/ist-die-wirksamkeit-der-homoopathie-endlich-wissenschaftlich-bestatigt-und-heilt-homoopathie-krebs/

--2003:D2:2F29:1A76:5D38:CE18:213:A429 (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). The material you have been linking does not comply, and will not be used in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The following text in the first section of the article is an issue: "The trend corresponded with the rise of the New Age movement, and may be in part due to chemophobia, an irrational preference for "natural" products". I do not contest any of the claims of the statement except the wording following "chemophobia". The use of the word "irrational" and placing the word "natural" in quotes make explicit and implied claims that are not only foolish, but deeply disrespectful. Chemophobia, as stated in its own Wikipedia article, is "an aversion to or prejudice against chemicals or chemistry". One cannot simply paint all chemophobia as irrational, even if some instances are. There have been many instances of abuse, misuse and misunderstanding of chemistry and pharmaceutical chemicals that have caused harm. For example, heroin was invented to help people overcome morphine addiction. We know how that went. Many medicines have serious and sometimes harmful side effects. While all this does not negate the value of biomedicine or pharmaceuticals, it is disrespectful and shortsighted to say that someone who fears putting manufactured chemicals into their body is "irrational". This is especially important if you consider the historical and societal context. For example, minority groups in the USA have historically been the target of harmful and sometimes non-consensual medical experimentation. To call someone with this background irrational for mistrusting pharmaceuticals - a large part of the medical industry - is also ignorant and insulting towards their very real history of pain. Additionally, putting "natural" in quotes as the author does is unnecessary and lends a sarcastic tone. It implies that there is something misguided about wanting to use natural products, or perhaps that there is no difference between what they call natural and manufactured chemicals. Again, this is disrespectful to large swathes of people and cultures. It is completely sensible to hold the opinion that a plant is more natural than something produced in a lab. In Japan, most physicians are trained in a type of herbal medicine. I hope the author is not implying that the herbal medicine traditions of such a scientifically accomplished country are something to be sneered at. Please do not think that I am merely nitpicking semantics by writing this. Though the section of text I addressed is small and subtle, it is very important. I will explain why. Such language disparages the huge number of cultures, histories and worldviews that are not part of the white and christian dominated worldview of modern science and medicine. Holding this worldview is not a problem on its own. It is acceptable for Wikipedia to promote the modern scientific worldview. However, it is unacceptable to take that a step further and disrespect those many millions who may think differently. A site so widely used and trusted for accurate information stands to do serious harm through such thoughtless language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.244.87 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Partly done: I've changed the wording to "an irrational aversion to synthetic chemicals", as I agree that there is an implied POV created by placing 'natural' in quotation marks. However, I've left 'irrational' for the reason that in the context of the article, it does appear to be explicitly referencing irrational fear - in no way does this label all aversion to chemicals irrational, but rather simply refers to the subset of this aversion which is irrational. Tollens (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

It is established that homeopathy is Quackery, but Wikipedia's definition of Fraud clearly states intentional deception, as opposed to sometimes ignorant deception which is the case with quackery/health fraud. So should this category still apply? No source demonstrates that homeopaths are engaged in (the regular sense, intentional) fraud. In my view, it's like saying that doctors performing bloodletting were frauds -- untrue, they were ignorant. Eroz7 (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that categorization is not verifiable? It does say "fraud" in the lead and with three citations. ByVarying (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Those three sources do not characterize homeopathy with the word 'fraud' (I am cleaning this up by removing that word in the lead and removing the ref to the Telegraph article, which mentions nothing about fraud or quackery.)

In general, when homeopathy is referred to as 'fraud' (for example, here in the article), we are talking about health fraud, which, according to the article, involves fraudulent or ignorant practices in healthcare. If we agree on that -- then precisely, not verifiable according to Wikipedia:Categorization#Verifiable -- categorization should be uncontroversial, and it is unclear where homeopathy is reliably established as 'intentional fraud'.

My concern, summarized: the category is about fraud, not quackery. Homeopathy is uncontroversially quackery, but we can't say the same for fraud. Obviously, I'm unsure about this, which is why I have put this into the discussion to get an opinion. Quite confusing how health fraud encompasses ignorant practices too, while the English definition of fraud very clearly involves intentional deceit. Want to get experienced editors' opinions on this matter and how categorization works in general (the guide is a bit ambiguous.) Eroz7 (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, you can just boldly remove the category if you think it fails verification. Someone might object though and come to this discussion. Also, we shouldn't base our assessment of what fraud, consumer fraud, etc. are upon what the wikipedia articles say they are: whether homeopathy is (consumer) fraud depends solely on what RS say about the matter. ByVarying (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, but this is regarding Category:Fraud, which would require some perspective on the definition, right? Plus, as mentioned before, the RS in the lead didn't mention fraud. Eroz7 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I can't make bold edits on this article as they are automatically assumed to be disruptive. Eroz7 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a combination of true believers and frauds in the homeopathy business. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, but the same can be said of any practice. Eroz7 (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Also depends on the location. There are many true believers in homeopathy in Asia, for example. Meanwhile, in the West ... [5]. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Take this with a pinch of salt, but I would contend that most practitioners, even in the West, actually believe in it. But yes, it is worse in Asia -- in India, it is heavily institutionalized. Hard to say that a considerable fraction of Indian homeopaths are frauds. I just feel that the consumer fraud label doesn't wholly encompass quackery, and it's tough to justify it. Eroz7 (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

The FDA definition of health fraud does not require any sort of intent.

ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read what I wrote. I agree that homeopathy is health fraud. Eroz7 (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We're in a tricky area here, as, just like with telling falsehoods, quackery (health fraud) does not always have to be deliberate: "A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess; a charlatan or snake oil salesman". Ignorance qualifies for the label. When someone should know better and acts against what is common knowledge, they can justly be called a fraud, even if they are an ignorant true believer.

The parallel with lying is seen in how we, and all RS and fact-checkers, deal with Trump. In the beginning, his flood of falsehoods was not labeled "lies", based on the argument that we did not know what he was thinking, IOW we didn't know if he knew what he was saying was false. Then it got so bad that even the most staunch opposers of labeling him a liar, such as at the New York Times and Washington Post, said they would start to do so because he should know better. His motivation was now irrelevant. His total disregard for the idea of truth qualified him for the label of "liar". He was making false statements that were against obvious common sense and what everyone else knew, so they began to label him a liar. Since then we don't try to figure out if someone knows better. If they are acting against what the vast majority of people know better, then they are culpable of willful ignorance, and if an innocent ignorant person gets caught up in that, well, that's too bad, but the public good is more important than sparing their feelings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I noted the definition of a quack and fully agree that homeopathy is quackery/health fraud. However, as a general term, "fraud" unquestionably includes intent. Now, in a parallel point of discussion about the article, the lead's mentioning of fraud alongside quackery, which is equivalent to health fraud, is not in the sources. Furthermore, one source is completely irrelevant and mentions neither. Regarding the category, it is not uncontroversial. In general, I don't see how the reference to the lone word "fraud" can be helpful, as the article clearly establishes that homeopathy is health fraud. This is my final position. Eroz7 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not very well-read on American politics, but I don't think Trump is a fair analogy to this. A lie is an intentionally false statement. A quick read of False or misleading statements by Donald Trump shows that the term "lie" came in favor due to "frequent repetition of claims he knew to be false" -- probably much easier to ascertain about one person than thousands of homeo-quacks, for whom there would really need to be some reliable sources establishing this. In India, the system is so skewed that there is a ministry for quackery, and so the "vast majority of people" don't know better and it's not "obvious common sense." Eroz7 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this is over now but what about changing category "consumer fraud" to "health fraud" (which is a category)? ByVarying (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added health fraud as a category, that should be completely uncontroversial and is supported by sources. Still seeking consensus on removing 'consumer fraud', as well as changes to the lead. Waiting for those who reverted my edits to respond. Eroz7 (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching, but haven't commented until now. I agree with adding the health fraud category, and in my opinion, that would make it reasonable to remove the consumer fraud category. I think it's also reasonable to say and link to fraud in the lead section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources provided in the lead do not support that conclusion, however. Especially the Telegraph source, which really should be deleted as it doesn’t even refer to quackery, although my deletion was illogically reverted.

This article is about all I could find on whether alt med is intentional fraud, and the answer is uncertain — it “will be so when knowledge is widespread in the future.” Unless someone else can find a source that actually refers to homeopathy as quackery and fraud, I cannot see how the inclusion of that word is justified.

It’s a bit like saying “evolution is a theory,” supported by sources, and the word “theory” linking to a definition that equates to hypothesis. Or “conspiracy theory” with the link to a scientific theory. It’s a mischaracterization.

When is there going to be any consensus? I do not see how this is that controversial. Especially removing the Telegraph source! Eroz7 (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

You've made some interesting points, but I don't believe you're going to see consensus for this change, given people's opinions above. If you wish to pursue it further, you might want to request some outside perspective via WP:DRN or starting a WP:RfC. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Really doesn’t look like there even is a dispute. Do we really need to go through dispute resolution for cleaning up an irrelevant source and removing wording that is not supported in the slightest by the sources? I understand the discussion regarding the inclusion of the *category*, which is why I started it, but the stuff in the lead seems like taking 2+2=5 to a dispute. Basically, my edits were assumed to be vandalism, and when it turned out that they weren’t, the discussion was stopped — no one has given a single argument in favor of keeping the lead as it is except “consensus hasn’t been reached”! If you’re going to revert my edits, then enlist your reasons for reverting the entire thing?

Here is the flow of events: I start a discussion, and I’m advised to make a bold edit. 1st edit - reverted because assumed vandalism. I restored because of an incorrect reason to revert. This was then reverted again because “talk didn’t reach consensus”. Is this valid under Wikipedia policy? And now I’m being advised to reach consensus based on bogus reverts that have zero “opinions”. Eroz7 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is obviously a dispute. No one mentioned vandalism other than yourself. Referring to reverts you disagree with as "bogus" is unhelpful. VQuakr (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the first edit revert was a sloppy vandalism assumption — and the second revert was practically the same. Both were not motivated by the opinions of those reverting. Just unhelpful warnings. Apologies for using the loaded term “bogus”, it isn’t to say that they were not in good faith. Just unhelpful, and undermining one’s ability to make bold changes. If any change at all needs to be discussed, then why not protect the page more strongly?

Anyhow, I don’t care enough to continue discussing who was right or wrong, I’m just trying to improve the article, and not a single point I have made regarding the content has been addressed. The “dispute” is essentially “let’s reach consensus.” Eroz7 (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

For the record the second revert was noting that this discussion had not reached consensus. Apologies if I was unclear when mentioning WP:BRD much earlier but you're generally supposed to wait until consensus has been reached before trying a second edit. (I do see that the first reverter initially said they made a mistake but iirc by then the second revert already happened. It's best to wait even if you think the reason for reverting was wrong.) ByVarying (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was sure the reason was wrong as soon as the vandalism notice popped up on my talk page. Secondly, both the reverts weren’t motivated by an actual difference of opinion; the first was a mistake and the second was “Hey, your change got reverted and the talk hasn’t reached a consensus (for what bold change?) so you can’t make any change. Let me also drop a warning to further intimidate you.” I sought out the opinions of experienced editors, and the response most have given is to try and shut me down.

Anyhow, it seems as though we’re getting somewhere. Eroz7 (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the "consumer fraud" category. It is unclear to me why you want to remove the Telegraph cite; it appears relevant. VQuakr (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It has no mention of quackery or fraud. Eroz7 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It quotes medical and scientific experts saying that it is "nonsense", "non-science", that it's use is "mad", and that it is "witchcraft", and links to another such statement with text describing it as "rubbish". That's certainly enough to support "quackery" as a paraphrase. Look at the meaning, not just the individual words. Brunton (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreeing with this. It's also supportive that the other sources present do explicitly use the term quackery. ByVarying (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I would contend then that the use of the phrase “quackery AND fraud” based on those sources is original research, and fraud should be deleted. There seems to be agreement among other editors that the category of consumer fraud should also be removed. Are these changes fair? Eroz7 (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the health fraud category makes the consumer fraud category redundant, so as with other editors here I think the consumer fraud category could be removed, but otherwise no. As I said, don't look at the individual words, look at the meaning and paraphrase that. Brunton (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

To paraphrase the meaning of any of that to “fraud” is an enormous leap and purely original research. We aren’t the arbiters of meaning. For a conclusion like “fraud” to be drawn, it needs to explicitly be present in those sources. I would contend that it is absolutely incorrect, too — I had previously noted the distinction between fraud in the general sense and health fraud/quackery. Nobody has addressed that. Why not change “quackery and fraud” to “quackery (or/, also known as,) health fraud”? And we can remove the link to the general sense of fraud that includes intent. In my opinion, that is much more precise and avoids controversial conclusions regarding the belief of the medical/scientific community. Eroz7 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The article states the following about Homeopathy: "Homeopathy, the longest established alternative medicine to come out of Europe," the source being a book on homeopathy.

How do we define something as established? Animal magnetism, for example, was created 20 years prior (in Vienna) and is still being practiced today in various countries in Europe (most prominently, it seems, in France), even if the term 'animal' has been dropped. It still has institutions. I would therefore consider it as a 'longer established alternative medicine to come out of Europe.'

In the end it is but a detail, and homeopathy is without question much wider spread than magnetism. What do other things of this? 130.92.208.129 (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Alternative medicine is simply stuff that is used as medicine but has no valid evidence of efficacy. So, humorism is alternative medicine now, although it was mainstream for centuries before homepathy was invented.

I think this claim is simply a meaningless appeal to antiquity and should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence is more factually correct (and concise) without this particular insertion.

I am sure there is a debate to be had which form of complementary healthcare is the oldest, still established form coming from Europe--but this debate is largely inconsequential to the audience of this Wikipedia page. 130.92.208.129 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and I have removed it: [6]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

https://homeopathy.org/homeopathic-education/homeopathic-schools-directory/ 2600:1700:FDF0:19D0:9DA2:17A:7162:AFC7 (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)