Talk: Homeopathy

{{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__

Mathematically impossible statement

The article contains this statement:

"A 200C dilution of duck liver, marketed under the name Oscillococcinum, would require 10^320 universes worth of molecules to contain just one original molecule in the final substance."

This does not make any sense. For one, the volume of diluent would have to be (literally) astronomically large. For two, I'm pretty sure no known scientific process achieves this level of purity. If homeopaths in fact claim to achieve this level of purity, I suppose that's just another false claim: but I don't think it should be treated as a fact. Andrewbrink (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

:It's supposed to be earth atmoshpheres not "universes", I think. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::No, it's universes. The math is supposed to show how aburd homeopaths' claims are. Of course, homeopaths do not do the diluting all at once: take one "duck liver molecule" (whatever that may be) and 10^320 universes of water. They do it step by step, and in summary it amounts to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

:::That's precisely the point, though: no human can perform a dilution "step by step" that achieves anything even remotely resembling 1 molecule in 1 galaxy's worth, much less 1 universe's worth. This 10^320 universes must come from bad math or some mistake somewhere. If the idea is to discredit homeopathy, it would be best not to do so with logically impossible math / physics. Andrewbrink (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::::Demonstrating that something is mathematically impossible seems to me to be a darned good way to discredit it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::::The maths itself is correct - a 200C dilution is genuinely that small a resulting number of molecules. And it's actually not that difficult to dilute something to that level - it's only a 1:100 dilution performed 200 times. If you were diluting in bigger amounts of solvent you could do it very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::If this is all WP:OR, it doesn’t need to be included, mathematically sound or not. It’s like refuting creationism with the law of conservation of mass— you don’t need to prove something with no basis in science, that clearly is incompatible with science on a macroscopic scale (it doesn’t work) is also incompatible with science on a microscopic scale. That should be obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::It cites a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

:::::::It still seems like kind of a strange statement to include for the same reason I already described. Does this help the reader understand the topic or just double down on the fact that homeopathy obviously has no basis in science in a weird, overly technical way? Dronebogus (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

::::::::I made this edit, to make clearer to readers that it isn't OR: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homeopathy&diff=1237616920&oldid=1237423906]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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)