Talk:Homeopathy
From RationalWiki
Good article. Exactly what I had hoped to see here.--Bob_M (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
- Did you hear the one about the homeopath who forgot to take his medication--and died of an overdose? --Gulik 01:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
- No, regular water--it's even more diluted! --Gulik 16:52, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
- If no one minds, im gonna wikify and cite.--PalMD-yada yada 10:52, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
- Ok, i'll have to finish my little project later...falling asleep now...--PalMD-yada yada 11:35, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
- I love homeopathy...it's just so...dumb.--PalMD-yada yada 19:25, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
- The article, while quite fine, doesn't mention Avogadro's number at all (last I noticed), which is of course the key to the killing blow of there not being any active ingredients in their higher (and stronger!) dilutions. People who don't see this math might think "well, there's still something there". Can there also be something that connects the stupid "like cures like" idea with the reality of vaccines? humanbe in 19:36, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
- Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim (Paracelsus) proposed the theory of "Like cures like" but said it did not apply in all cases, and also founded the Science of Toxicology. He also spent most of his career saying you should do the experiment yourself and not trust authority, and would have been horrified by Homeopathy and their lack of rigour and basis in his authority?
[edit] Funny
Homeopathy Tmtoulouse 17:43, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
- Wow, a good, in-depth article on CP. I liked their quote from David Deutsch: "As I understand it, the claim is that the less you use Homeopathy, the better it works. Sounds plausible to me."
[edit] It pains me to see this kind of thing on a wiki supposedly dedicated to rationalism
Think of the last time you saw a creationist talking about evolution. See how they misunderstand the theory on purpose? How they make claims based on that "misunderstanding" and base their entire argument on it? And how they're very selective in their information, making sure not to let anything too pro-evolution slip.
See, I would assume that this crowd, the more intelligent crowd, wouldn't drop to their level by omitting more or less anything that doesn't support your claim, and hiding it behind a few supporting words that serve no purpose but to veil your bias.
I'm no advocate of homeopathy, I prefer medicine that does follow modern scientific methodology, but I still prefer that those seeking unbiased information about a topic be able to get it.
Homeopathy has been proven to work on both infants and animals, both of whom are not able to be affected by placebo, seeing as they're completely unaware of what they're taking, which proves that it's not placebo. On the other hand it doesn't prove that it is as universal as modern medicine, but it does prove that some part of the theory is true.
See number four for an interesting experiment regarding water memory and homeopathy.
I'm not going to make an edit, since I'm sure someone will just revert it, and also because I lost faith in people's abilities to change their minds in light of new evidence a while ago.
[edit] replies
- You are correct, there is no ability on teh internets for people to change their minds. CЯacke® 12:42, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- couldn't resist adding this quote: Ambrose Bierce said (to HL Mencken), "I have little use for homeopathy as medicine except in one respect, Mencken. It aims to cure the diseases of fools. But because it doesn't cure them--and sometimes kills them--it's ridiculed by the thoughtless and commended by the wise." Jrssr5 12:26, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
(sorry Jrss: bit of an edit clash thereKeepthe faith 12:37, 25 July 2007 (CDT))
- thats cool. Jrssr5 12:55, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Stranger
You can cite this evidence, Stranger?Keepthe faith 12:50, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- Stranger, I can tell you to read the evidence cited, but I'm sure it won't make a difference to you. Homeopathy is pure bunk, and your comment about children and animals and placebo is ridiculous? Where is your evidence! Once again, I'm sure you have none, or else we would all be at our homeopaths and live to 100. Common...don't be a wuss...show us the evidence. 162.82.215.199 12:34, 25 July 2007 (CDT) User:PalMD
- BTW, I followed your link...it says nothing..just defines placebo. What's the relevance? NONE!!!! Betcha didn't expect anyone to read it.User:PalMD 12:35, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
On the contrary; give us some rational, scientifically proven evidence & we'll be delighted. Why not log in & have a real chat? Keepthe faith 12:42, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, that was me responding to the idiot.162.82.215.199 13:26, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Why you not log on? - Everything under 'replies' is to him/her so no bothers Keepthe faith 13:39, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- I'm very lazy. Whodat?
[edit] I've had my tea and am much less crabby
I'm sorry for the harsh reproach above. I don't take well to anon., non-sensical retorts. I would love to see someone actually give refuting evidence, if it existed.
I feel bad for people who believe in woo...but not as much when they try to spread it to others. And when they post irrational ranting on a "supposedly rational wiki", i get a little irked. The baseless assertions about homeopathy being woo-uderful are unsupported. The link given above leads to a definition of placebo that is un-enlightening. Since I had the decency to cite literature in the article, critics should have the decency to give useful citations. Nuf sed.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 14:59, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
As one of the primary authors on this piece I too would like something more than vague generalities. There is extensive evidence that homeopathy does not work, there is extensive evidence that water memory is total hog wash.....you will need a lot more than what you are giving us if you want to make us see the light. We encourage you to present your evidence here for us to look at. Until then... tmtoulouse harass 15:06, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- To be fair, the person was siting the number four example in that link, to a study that found a response to diluted histamines. I am looking at the info now. tmtoulouse frustrate 15:17, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- Ha, I thought this sounded familar, James Randi is once more a head of us :), check this out for an interesting read. tmtoulouse oppress 15:22, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
Quoting the relevant portion for those that don't want to read it all:
| “ | NARRATOR: But as more codes are read out the true result becomes clear: the Cs and Ds are completely mixed up. The results are just what you'd expect by chance. A statistical analysis confirms it. The homeopathic water hasn't had any effect.
PROF. MARTIN BLAND (St. George's Hospital Medical School): There's absolutely no evidence at all to say that there is any difference between the solution that started off as pure water and the solution that started off with the histamine. JOHN ENDERBY: What this has convinced me is that water does not have a memory. NARRATOR: So Horizon hasn't won the million dollars. It's another triumph for James Randi. His reputation and his money are safe, but even he admits this may not be the final word. JAMES RANDI: Further investigation needs to be done. This may sound a little strange coming from me, but if there is any possibility that there's a reality here I want to know about it, all of humanity wants to know about it. NARRATOR: Homeopathy is back where it started without any credible scientific explanation. That won't stop millions of people putting their faith in it, but science is confident. Homeopathy is impossible. | ” |
tmtoulouse provoke 15:26, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- That Horizon report's a lulu. Send it to (where was it - the state with the "homeopathic surgeon" Arizona? Nevada?) that state gov't. Because that's another lulu. D'you suppose they can read? It's bad enough our future(?) king being an alternative medicine freak, but when actual bodies with real power are taken in ... Keepthe faith 15:45, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
- (they're not the same crowd that tried to legislate pi are they?)Keepthe faith
- It's arizona...they need a good mail campaign down there to figure out what the hell their legislature is up to.162.82.215.199 16:08, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Cases
I am your idiot, and since I know you'll automatically and immediately reject any cases coming from sites run by homeopaths, or that are pro homeopathy, I just won't try :)
Also, I could respond to your comments, where you do exactly what I said in the first paragraph of my earlier post, except for tmtoulouse who had the decency to actually read my post and (By the power of your almighty and infallible figurehead, James Randi) go to the correct place on the link, so thanks for proving once again that collectively, people can deceit themselves, at least the conservatives are aware that they're stubborn.
Keep worshiping your false idol and convincing yourself that you're not as stupid as the rest of us.
- If you have evidence please present it. If it it exists it shouldn't be that difficult.--Bob_M (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Reply
Oh do give it a rest! Or better still log on and have a real conversation. We don't bite honestly. Keepgoats 01:25, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
- Eh, you're probably right, I'm not getting anywhere with this anyway. — Unsigned, by: 84.108.244.22 / talk / contribs
- Well, you still haven't signed in or signed your posts...I, of course, read your post thoroughly, which is why I know where you link goes...
- You would be surprised how open-minded I can be...just show me some real evidence. For instance, that study you referred to about water memory was clearly disproven...it was not reproducible under controlled conditions. If your ideas about homeopathy can be shown true...well, show us. Pete
- I'm not going to continue, partially because I really don't believe that, even in the face of evidence, any people's minds are going to be changed, but also because Homeopathy doesn't "adhere"(Read:works by the rules) to your kind of sicentific methodology.— Unsigned, by: 84.108.244.22 / talk / contribs
- Which is eerily close to saying that creationism is true because it doesn't adhere to scientific method either, so I'm going to stop now, before I suddenly transform into a conservative.
- I'm not going to continue, partially because I really don't believe that, even in the face of evidence, any people's minds are going to be changed, but also because Homeopathy doesn't "adhere"(Read:works by the rules) to your kind of sicentific methodology.— Unsigned, by: 84.108.244.22 / talk / contribs
- "...doesn't adhere to your kind of scientific methodolgy...". Then, to what kind of scientific method does it adhere? Is it magic?162.82.215.199 14:03, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
- You would be surprised how open-minded I can be...just show me some real evidence. For instance, that study you referred to about water memory was clearly disproven...it was not reproducible under controlled conditions. If your ideas about homeopathy can be shown true...well, show us. Pete
- Also, if you think that "Homeopathy doesn't "adhere"... to your kind of sicentific (sic) methodology," why did you think a site that promotes the scientific method as the only truth would even consider it? ThunderkatzHo! 14:04, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
- Might I encourage our nameless author to contribute to our article: List of Scientifically Controlled Double Blind Studies which have Conclusively Demonstrated the Efficacy of Homeopathy. If you could give us five or six examples to start with that would be useful.--Bob_M (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Ugh! I shook my water and it tasted like poo
I guess it had the memory of the sewage plant it came from!!!-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 15:47, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
[edit] Medical Homeopathy
Why is this wiki so nagative on homeopathy? Do you not know that there are medically qualified homeopaths? (some guy) — Unsigned, by: 217.172.33.60 / talk / contribs
- Chiefly 'cause it's a load of crap. SusanAm I the Anti christ? 09:44, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- Susan, that's being negative and reinforcing bunch's prejudices against us. The moment there is one, just one properly conducted, double blind study that has been properly peer reviewed and published in a respected medical journal which shows any benefit from homeopathic remedies then I and many, if not all, members of this site, will accept that there may be something in it. As long as it relies on woo then, as Susan said, it's a load of crap. Silver Sloth 10:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- It does rely on woo; ergo it is crap! SusanAm I the Anti christ? 10:23, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- (Edit conflict! Gaah!) More than that, if homeopaths want to be taken seriously, they need to come up with a plausible explanation for how water can retain the properties of a medicine that is no longer present at a molecular level. If homeopathy does work, we will need to make substantial revisions to our current conception of chemistry/physics. Jellyfish!Hysterical and useless 10:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- It's Water memory!, didn't you know? SusanI am the antichrist 10:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Bollocks)
- I agree (with your explicit postscript, I mean). Claiming that something is present without actually having a molecular presence (or atomic, even. Any particle would do!) is no different from supernaturalism. Jellyfish!Winner of the Best Conversation Award 2008! Good work everyone! 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
- It's Water memory!, didn't you know? SusanI am the antichrist 10:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Bollocks)
- Susan, that's being negative and reinforcing bunch's prejudices against us. The moment there is one, just one properly conducted, double blind study that has been properly peer reviewed and published in a respected medical journal which shows any benefit from homeopathic remedies then I and many, if not all, members of this site, will accept that there may be something in it. As long as it relies on woo then, as Susan said, it's a load of crap. Silver Sloth 10:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Demosthenes (reverted) edit
From the referenced FDA source:
| “ | Some homeopathic remedies are so dilute, no molecules of the healing substance remain. Even with sophisticated technology now available, analytical chemists may find it difficult or impossible to identify any active ingredient. But the homeopathic belief is that the substance has left its imprint or a spirit-like essence that stimulates the body to heal itself. | ” |
| “ | Although Pediatrics is published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Jacobs' study and several others published in such journals as The Lancet and the British Medical Journal are considered "scanty at best" by the academy. "Given the plethora of studies that are published [on other topics] in scientific journals, I wouldn't say there are a lot of articles coming out," says Joe M. Sanders Jr., M.D., the executive director of the academy. "Just because an article appears in a scientific journal does not mean that it's absolute fact and should be immediately incorporated into therapeutic regimens. It just means that the study is [published] for critique and review and hopefully people will use that as a stepping stone for further research." | ” |
I know it's quote mining but I don't think this can be called support in any way. SusanI am the antichrist
From my talk page ħuman eats glue :
Dear Human,
on another page I started as you suggested, on the talk page, only to be told: "it's a Wiki - improve if you will - you can be praised or damned afterwards" Why are you reverting a sourced statement, especially one that directly contradicts the exaggeration "every single scientific study"? Rational argumentation should consist of facts, not rhetorical excesses.
- I reverted it because the "source" is a site that claims referenced information, but has no specific references to its sources. IE, "In 1991, the British Medical Journal published an analysis" ... "In a double-blind controlled study conducted in Britain in 1980" ... "Other significant positive studies" ... "A study, conducted in 1985, found that patients who took the homeopathic product" - these are not cites, they are claims with no way to research them. ħuman sap 15:12, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
I think this is factrually wrong. The quoted page has specific references:
Quadruple - Blind, The Lancet, April 22, 1989, p. 914.4
Ferley, J.P., A Controlled Evaluation of Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndromes, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1989, 27, pp. 329 - 335.
Reilly, D.T., Is Homeopathy a Placebo Response? Controlled Trail of Homeopathic Potency, with Pollen in Hay fever as a Model, The Lancet, October 18, 1986, pp. 881 - 886.
Fisher, P., Effect of Homeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia), British Medical Journal, 1989, 229, pp. 365-6.
Kleijnen, J., Clinical Trials of Homeopathy, British Medical Journal, 1991, 302, 216-23.
Gibson, R.G., Homeopathic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Evaluation by Double-Blind Clinical Therapeutic Trial, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1980, 9, pp. 453-459.
Jacobs, J. et al,Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Traila in Nicaragua, Pediatrics, Vol. 93, No. 5, May 1994, pp. 719-725.
Reilly, D., et. al, Is Evidence for Homeopathy Reproducible?, The Lancet, 1994; 344: pp. 1601-6
These are primary sources. Demosthenes
[edit] "Positive" homeopathic studies
I have been meaning to explore this issue more indepth anyway, perhaps not in this article though. There is substantial problem with many of the "pro" studies. But it will take time to step through it. I am going to roll back the article to the previous state as we work through what may or may not be valid research. tmtoulouse frustrate 15:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
[edit] To something relevant
Now, to your edits regarding homeopathy. The link you gave to Vital Force Consulting has data's most current mentioned study is in 1994. Is there any pro-homeopathy arguments you can provide that would be a bit more current? This site is about looking more objectively at crank and pseudoscience like homeopathy or Bigfoot and scrutinizing it. (occasionally drifting into outright rejection) --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 12:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- To be fair, 1994 is not that long ago. It has always been my impression that there have been a few small studies which showed a positive effect - but that the overwhelming bulk of studies showed no such effect. If the facts are that a handful of studies have, by chance, shown a positive effect shouldn't we mention that, while at the same time pointing out that these are exceptions? Surely that is better than simply trying to deny they exist?--Bobbing up 13:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- Well, yes but would the naysayers by more impressed with a study from, say 2004 than 1994. Because of it's pseudoscience attitude, it seems to heave some opposition here, being one of the more biased articles. Amrite? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 13:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank you Bob. The Lancet is generally not considered to be friendly to crank science, and the studies referred look as replicable as anything you may have seen in a medical journal. Thus, the fact that they were not specifically debunked in the intervening years suggests that they are reasonably reliable. Either way, the eighties and the nighties are not exactly the Dark Ages in science, so certainly the statement made in the article "Every single scientific study" is factually wrong (and thus the strident tone is unjustified).
Disclaimers. I don't claim comprehensive knowledge of the field. I am not affiliated with Vital Force Consulting in any way shape or form. I have actually written up a protocol to assess the claims of homeopathy and sent it to Dr. Ernst who recently made waves by offering GBP 10k for a successful trial, but he hasn't responded (perhaps because I told him I don't want the money).
- Thanks for you thanks, but as I am sure you are aware I am by no means a believer in Homeopathy. I seem to recall reading about a recent meta-analysis of all Homeopathy studies which first reviewed them for methodology so as to eliminate those with faulty methodology and then came down absolutely firmly on the "no effect" side of the fence.--Bobbing up 13:42, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I found this which claims a flaw in the study. This article seems to have reliable sources though.
In 1991, the British Medical Journal published an analysis of 107 clinical studies published between 1966 and 1990. The authors found that in 81 of the experiments, the homeopathic treatments were successful. Even when they included only the 23 studies that they considered to be of the highest quality, the vast majority of these (15) showed positive results. Here's how the results broke down: 13 out of the 19 trials of respiratory infection treatment were effective, 6 out of 7 were positive for other infections, 5 out of 7 were positive for digestive system treatment, 5 out of 5 were successful for hay fever, 5 out of 7 showed accelerated recovery after surgery, 4 out of 6 helped in rheumatological disease, 18 of 20 were beneficial for pain or traumatic injury; and 8 out of 10 worked for mental or psychological problems.
BMJ is a pretty reliable one, wouldn't you say? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 13:44, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
What would you say to this as the header for the homeopathy page?
Homeopathy is a type of alternative medicine based on the idea that "like cures like". It was created in the 18th century by Samuel Hahnemann and competed successfully with leeching as medicine 300 years ago. For some reason a few credulous people living in the modern era have decided to go back and embrace it as actual medicine. The vast majority of refutable scientific studies has found that homeopathy has no effect above placebo and it has been widely rejected as quack medicine and pseudoscience. However, in 1991, the British Medical Journal published an analysis of 107 clinical studies published between 1966 and 1990. The authors found that in 81 of the experiments, the homeopathic treatments were successful[1], leading to the conclusion that at least some studies exist to back up claims.
--*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 13:47, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- I was thinking of this Lancet 2006 one: [[2]] The Lancet, the respected UK-based medical journal, has published its conclusions about homoeopathy after examining findings from 110 homoeopathy trials and as many trials of conventional medicine. "There was weak evidence for a specific effect of homeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions - this finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects."--Bobbing up 13:54, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Both would work, it seems. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
By date, but one is a placebo effect. The other is 80 percent effective. *raspberry* --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Both are in, tell me what you think, both of you please. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- mmnnn We seem to have crossed over a bit on that. Where do you get "80 percent effective" from? --Bobbing up 14:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- Ok I see it.--Bobbing up 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- Here is teh anylis of the BMJ study from PUB MED pubmed. At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials. Not quite as hot as the "80 percent effective" quote from the homeopathy site I think.--Bobbing up 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- Ok I see it.--Bobbing up 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Details details. Just because it might be biased and incorrect is no reason not to state it as pure fact. Well, in the article I'd like to not give too much data against the sources going for it, seeing as how half an hour ago it said "EVERY SINGLE STUDY SAYS IT'S FAKE. HOMEOPATHY SUCKS" more or less. Besides, I could find data saying your pubmed data awaits further review and is biased. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Fair enough. Im changing the "no better" to "as good as". Yes it's a little not-un-dis-truthful but hey, we need some balance. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:39, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- All data is provisional. :-) It should be interesting to see what happens to it after the rest of the gang wake up though.--Bobbing up 14:43, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- Susan will be fun to convince. What did Human think of it? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:44, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know. I'm not going to touch it further though. On balance ... I'm sure you know that we don't strive for a neutral point of view - we strive for a skeptical point of view. So your attempt at balance may or may not survive. :-) --Bobbing up 14:47, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- Good point. But shouldn't there be some kind of a devils adovocate for it, at least a sentence or two? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:49, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- I don't know. I'm not going to touch it further though. On balance ... I'm sure you know that we don't strive for a neutral point of view - we strive for a skeptical point of view. So your attempt at balance may or may not survive. :-) --Bobbing up 14:47, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- Susan will be fun to convince. What did Human think of it? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 14:44, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
--- Guys, I'd like to move the homeopathy discussion to the homeopathy talk page if at all possible. I'm not a homeopathy fanatic, and I didn't even suggest one needs perfect NPOV here, a skeptical view is fine with me. However, skeptic != fanatically, irrationally biased against. If there is evidence that supports homeopathy, I dislike having it suppressed. I'd like to see the rational argument presented on the page. I don't think that the skeptical position is strengthened by strident tone and talking past the advocates.
[edit] Article that support homeopathy
Okay in addition to the link that was included what are the major studies that supposedly support homoepathy? tmtoulouse persecute 15:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Which link, Lancet or BMJ? --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 16:01, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
The one Demosthenes included to a list of a few studies. Just list any support studies here though. Let us see what the positive evidence looks like. I do think that it should be limited to controlled double-blind studies, pro-effect articles on homoepathy have a tendency to avoid these designs. tmtoulouse irritate 16:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
This article, which suggests a placebo effect, came from the Lancet. This one talks about various studies from 80 to 94 which give indication towards it working. --*Gen. S.T. Shrink* Get to the bunker 16:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
All right cool, I am aware of some others as well, I will get back with my analysis soon. Just a little busy today. tmtoulouse beleaguer 16:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
- In evaluating statistical claims favoring the implausible, Bayes must inform your analysis. Scientifically improbable claims actually require better evidence than plausible ones. The fact that some studies may (or may not) have shown benefit from homeopathy does not "prove" homeopathy. The preponderance of evidence is against it, and the implausibility of it make it, er, implausible.--
-PalMD --'scuse me, while I kiss the sky 19:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
