usual suspect wrote:

> Pesco-vegan wrote:
>
> First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
> pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.

Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.
Do you have a problem with it?

> > Usual suspect writes: "Homeopathy is quackery. The goal is to get the
> > "spirit" of a substance
> > into the preparation by diluting into ridiculously small fractions. The
> > link below shows how ridiculous this is."
>
> Geez. Learn how to use your browser. It's not difficult at all.
>
> > The theory behind homeopathy does indeed seem ridiculous
>
> That's because it IS ridiculous.
>
> > but some studies into its efficiacy have suggested positive
> > results for the technique.
>
> The link I offered discusses some of those "studies." Scroll down to the
> heading of "Unimpressive 'Research.'"
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ics/homeo.html
>
> > The study sighted
>
> CITED
>
> > by Rudy may have concluded that the effect is no greater than
> > a placebo
>
> Which is consistent with what others have found when reviewing so-called
> homeopathy studies like those in the above link:
>
> Placebo effects can be powerful, of course, but the potential
> benefit of relieving symptoms with placebos should be weighed
> against the harm that can result from relying upon -- and
> wasting money on -- ineffective products. Spontaneous remission
> is also a factor in homeopathy's popularity. I believe that most
> people who credit a homeopathic product for their recovery would
> have fared equally well without it.
>
> > but this conclusion is not consistent with all meta-analyses
> > on the subject.
>
> The hell it isn't. Find me one metanalysis which shows homeopathy's
> efficacy beyond placebo effect. You will not find one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

"CONCLUSIONS--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."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

"INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible
with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are
completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from
these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single
clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted
provided it is rigorous and systematic."

> > As far as I know the jury is still out.
>
> Now you know better: the jury has declared homeopathy to be
> pseudoscience quackery which peddles expensive sugar pills off to
> gullible people.