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.

It's oxymoronic. You're either pescetarian or pesco-vegetarian (which
some would likewise argue is oxymoronic).

> Do you have a problem with it?

It only shows you're not bright. That's your problem, not mine.

>>>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."

From that link:
Most trials seemed to be of very low quality....The results of
the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in
such a controversial subject as homoeopathy....not sufficient to
draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low
methodological quality and because of the unknown role of
publication bias.

> 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."

From that link:
Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible....we found
insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is
clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.

>>>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.

I remain unconvinced that homeopathic SUGAR PILLS offer any benefit
beyond a placebo effect.