Talk:Evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I've also heard that many people don't drink enough water and that Homeopathy improves their health by increasing their water consumption. Is that an urban myth or should it be added to the article? WSC (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a joke by people who, er, make fun of homeopathy. :) Despite the fact that homeopaths like to drone at lengths about the "memory of water", dilutions and succusions, most homeopathic "remedies" that I've seen are in the form of small sugar pills. And I doubt that even the liquid ones contain enough water to influence one's daily intake.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The pills are something that RW's material lacks, incidentally. I do agree that the above is probably a joke. Scarlet A.pngmoral 08:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The pills are mentioned in the main article - Homeopathy#Mass production.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the "theory" on transferring the water memory to the sugar is missing and there isn't a larger space dedicated to it. This is particularly problematic since many, if not most, homeopathic remedies are delivered as pills. Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't these pills require one to drink some water to take them? WSC (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I have never considered that before... Scarlet A.pngmoral 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Combative article

The article does not read impartially and appears to single out straw-man arguments about Homeopathy, that discredits the article to anyone reading and looking for real information.

More effort should be made to be impartial rather than opinionated.— Unsigned, by: 99.239.111.114 / talk / contribs

The impartial truth would be an empty page I suppose. - Grant (Talk) 20:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I came here expecting a picture of tumbleweeds. There were no tumbleweeds... Nullahnung (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Truth be told, I expected the same. I was quite confused when I first saw this page. - Grant (Talk) 21:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This is because it spawned off from homoeopathy after it grew a little too big. Scarlet A.pngsshole 09:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for you highly specific and detailed feedback. I will action that immediately. Scarlet A.pngmoral 09:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Culled sections

I've cut two massive bullet-point lists from this. The first one was out of place since it's discussing physical evidence regarding claims made for the supposed mechanism of action for homeopathy - that this alone doesn't prove "homeopathy works as a medicine" is obvious, and doesn't need repeatedly laboured over 8 bullet points. The second is 19 bullet points that seem to repetitively say "if homeopaths admitted it was a placebo, this would be fine". Again, this has nothing to do with the evidence base for "homeopathy works as a medicine" or "claims for the supposed mechanism of action". It's simply labouring a very simple point that is already covered. {{subst:expand:User:Armondikov/sig}} 09:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support