Dr. Manish Bhatia of Hpathy.com (Homeopathy 4 Everyone) has written about anti-CAM (Complementary & Alternative Medicine) information on Wikipedia.

Here is a sample of what it states regarding Homoeopathy:

Claims to the efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by the collective weight of scientific and clinical evidence,[7][8][9][10] although advocates of homeopathy point to studies of the effects of compounds diluted almost out of existence.[11][12] Common homeopathic preparations are diluted beyond the point where there is any likelihood that molecules from the original solution are present in the final product; the claim that these treatments still have any pharmacological effect is thus scientifically implausible[13][14] and violates fundamental principles of science,[15] including the law of mass action.[15] Critics also object that the number of high-quality studies that support homeopathy is small, the conclusions are not definitive, and duplication of the results, a key test of scientific validity, has proven problematic at best.[16] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy[17] and its use of remedies without active ingredients have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience;[18] quackery;[19][20][21] or, in the words of a 1998 medical review, “placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst.”[22] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

In response to reading the above excerpt I went to Wikipedia to see the whole article and found a lengthy description of the modality and 167 References. This is in contrast with the search for ‘Conventional medicine’ (but being diverted to ‘Medicine’) with 15 References. My first thought was wow, whoever is slamming Homoeopathy must really think it a threat! To spend enough time to find so many References. Of course, there is neutral information to be found but overall there is definitely a message suggesting homoeopathy is somehow pseudoscientific.

More on this argument in Part 2…
In response to the misleading and bias claims found on Wikipedia, Hpathy.com have decided to launch their own version of Wikipedia, called Wiki4CAM Online Encyclopedia. At the risk of appearing even more of a breakaway from so-called ‘modern medicine’, it will attempt to right the wrongs and provide a CAM practitioner-only view of each modality, from Acupressure to Yoga. I believe this will create an excellent source of one-stop-shop information for practitioners within CAM but outside of this I’m not sure how it will be perceived, particularly because the information on Wikipedia will remain and is open for further comment. Although potential for embarking on a tit-for-tat argument, I believe the focus should be on providing positive, evidence based documentation on the efficacy of homoeopathy and EVERY other modality, on Wikipedia. That is, add to the existing data. What are we afraid of? Do we feel there is insufficient proof of healing? Must we crawl on our knees while others stand tall in their beliefs?