>>68It seems strange you would link stuff that invalidates your claims. Take the first link for example, where you find a meta study on veterinary homeopathy:
>Nine of the 15 RCTs displayed high risk of bias; only two comprised reliable evidence.Holy shit. Well, what did we get from those two then?
>For the two RCTs with reliable evidence, OR = 2.62 [95% CI, 1.13 to 6.05]; P = 0.02).Do we even need to read the conclusion?
>Meta-analysis provides some very limited evidence that clinical intervention in animals using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from corresponding intervention using placebos. The low number and quality of the trials hinders a more decisive conclusion.Systematic reviews/meta studies are about as good as you get too.
One ought almost dismiss the other two links just on the basis of them having "homeopathy" in them. The last link requires a login, so I guess there's a possibility of you being part of the clique, explaining your bizarre defense of this pseudoscience purporting that water has memory and shit which basically breaks the known laws of physics.
Let's have a glance at the second link though:
>Homeopathic research, and the criticisms of homeopathic research, cannot be understood if the philosophical assumptions of homeopathic medicine are not understood. These philosophical assumptions necessitate a different set of criteria for assessing the validity of homeopathic research.They basically state they're special snowflakes. "Different set of criteria" - because the rigorous scientific criteria invalidates it, therefore we must make up some criteria which validates it. Pathetic.
There's a longitudinal study though. What can this tell us? Well, there's significance in the date, which implies there's a "considerable" positive effect for "allergic rhinitis and headache in adults, and atopic dermatitis and multiple recurrent infections in children". At least they admit a limitation:
>One limitation of our study is that the observed effects cannot be categorized with respect to specificity, i.e. we cannot draw conclusions as to the beneficial mechanisms. Furthermore patients were allowed to use conventional therapies during the study period in addition to homeopathic treatment. Thus, the observed improvement cannot be attributed to homeopathic treatment alone.Strange they don't mention another obvious limitation: a control group.
Some might grant that homeopathy at least gives a sort of elevated placebo effect, but who can truly tell with all these crappy studies? It's known that homeopaths spend more time with patients than actual medical practitioners, so perhaps that could explain some of it? I would reject the notion that it does a-little-better-than placebo altogether though. It's complete and utter bullshit objectively speaking. The very (mystic) theory of homeopathy is so disconnected from reality that, were it to be true, the entirety of all other sciences would have to be thrown out the window. It's so insane that even having studies on homeopathy is completely worthless, unless we're talking psychological studies on why people believe in it to begin with.