Talk:Homeopathy#vomit and feces

{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN

|action1date=03:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

|action1link=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 12#GA review

|action1result=failed

|action1oldid=75658304

|action2=GAN

|action2date=2007-09-27, 18:14:57

|action2link=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 17#GA Review

|action2result=listed

|action2oldid=160740951

|action3=GAR

|action3date=02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

|action3link=Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 18#Delisted GA

|action3result=delisted

|action3oldid=162931498

|action4=GAR

|action4date=13 October 2007 (UTC)

|action4link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 30#Homeopathy

|action4result=delisted

|action4oldid=164347209

|action5=PR

|action5date=2007-10-19, 10:37:35

|action5link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive1

|action5oldid=165560903

|action6=GAN

|action6date=2007-10-25, 19:38

|action6link=Talk:Homeopathy/GA1

|action6result=listed

|action6oldid=167006517

|action7=PR

|action7date=22:12, 9 February 2008

|action7link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive2

|action7result=reviewed

|action7oldid=190198296

|action8=PR

|action8date=03:54, 2 March 2009

|action8link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Homeopathy/archive3

|action8result=reviewed

|action8oldid=274175149

|action9=FAC

|action9date=19:39, 4 April 2009

|action9link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homeopathy/archive1

|action9result=not promoted

|action9oldid=281664452

|action10=GAR

|action10date=02:30, 2 November 2012

|action10link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Homeopathy/2

|action10result=delisted

|action10oldid=520910103

|action11=GAN

|action11date=07:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

|action11link=Talk:Homeopathy/GA2

|action11result=failed

|action11oldid=959644982

|action12=GAN

|action12date=13:16, 29 Oct 2020 (UTC)

|action12link=Talk:Homeopathy/GA3

|action12result=listed

|action12oldid=985955563

| topic = natsci

|currentstatus=GA

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV. Its contents should be treated with extreme caution, and any material taken from it must be carefully verified.}}

}}

{{Press

|author = David Gorski

|title = Ivermectin booster Dr. Tess Lawrie goes all-in for homeopathy for COVID and long COVID

|date = March 6, 2023

|org = Science-Based Medicine

|url = https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-booster-dr-tess-lawrie-goes-all-in-for-homeopathy-for-covid-and-long-covid/

|lang =

|quote = Lawrie, as is the case with most quacks, is not happy with Wikipedia. Indeed, she starts out by looking at Wikipedia: "Let’s start with the lies and misinformation about homeopathy. Here's how the internet's propaganda factory Wikipedia currently defines it:"

|archiveurl =

|archivedate =

|accessdate = March 13, 2023

| author2 = Syeda ShahBano Ijaz

| title2 = How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Wikipedia’s Credibility

| org2 = American Political Science Association

| url2 = https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/

| date2 = 29 May 2023

| quote2 = Take the example of the Wikipedia page on homeopathy: from 2001-2006, the lead on the page described homeopathy as a “controversial system of alternative medicine.” From 2006-2013, the content changed to mentioning that homeopathy has been “regarded as pseudoscience” and sharing that there is a “lack of convincing scientific evidence confirming its efficacy.” By 2015, this description had stabilized to “homeopathy is a pseudoscience.”

| archiveurl2 =

| archivedate2 =

| accessdate2 = 30 May 2023

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 65

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:Homeopathy/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

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

}}

__TOC__

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

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

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

:{{notdone}} Please use this template for precise editing requests on matters where consensus has been achieved. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Research on homeopathy has been mixed, with proponents citing anecdotal success stories, while critics argue that clinical trials have failed to demonstrate any efficacy beyond the placebo effect. Homeopathic remedies, often prepared using plant, animal, or mineral substances, are prescribed based on the principle of “like cures like.” YeeloHomeopathy (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:See the notes at the header of this page and consider providing reliable sources for your claims. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Homeopathy a Threat to Organised Drug Interests

{{atop|Drive-by trolling does not need responses. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Homeopathy is scientifically proven to work. See the Bern University website in Switzerland which gives over 600 provings of various remedies. There is also a huge body of empiracle evidence to prove its efficacy.

This article on Wikipedia is ill thought out and frankly wrong. It supports the establishment view that homeopathy is a pseudo science and placebo, but this biased opinion has come about because homeopathy is a threat to organised drug industry interests, both for humans and animals.

Homeopathy is incredibly effective, cheap and side effect free. This is why the drug establishment continues to run it down, so they can keep their profits high selling allopathic medicines which are often harmful and toxic. 37.169.54.3 (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:See Q7 of the FAQ at the top of the page and provide a specific link to a vetted paper. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think this statement might set a Wikipedia record for the greatest percentage of false statements per word written. Well done. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)