Who will oppose homeopathy? Only two types of people: One who has never taken homeopathic medicine, so he does not knows its immense benefits.
That is what clinical trials are for: to test whether, and if so, to what extent a drug or medical procedure is effective. What you’re saying is no less absurd than that a surgeon should first have to undergo every procedure on him/herself before s/he can be judged competent to perform it.
And second: Who have taken but shows no sign of improvement.
Not true. There is at least one more category, namely those who recognise the ludicrous and wishful pseudoscience that comprises the bulk of homoeopathy.
No medicine including homeopathy can have 100% results.
Perhaps so, but a medicine should at the very least perform at a statistically significant level above a placebo. More than that, one should be able to demonstrate its efficacy objectively.
I have no need to know.
Yes, that would seem a good summary of the essential difficulty here.
Placebo is equally there in allopathy.
Ignoring once again the malapropistic “allopathy,” the above is correct, and conventional medicine has recognised the placebo effect. That is why clinical trials are usually controlled for the effect by having a sub-population that receives a placebo instead of the test drug. A large part of homoeopathy’s problem is that the drug
is the placebo, and hence its effect
can’t be distinguished.
Long term use of antibiotics suppesses the immune system and has serious (bad) effects on body especiaaly kidney.
Oh, so now we’ve shifted the goalposts by the opportune introduction of “long term use.” In that case, you are undoubtedly correct. To put things in their proper context, I assume that you know that drinking enough water can also kill you.
Even the allopathic community itself has been fed up with its side effects, so they now have come up with probiotics (which do no harm to health bacteria)
But – and this is just in case you missed it – these probiotic agents were not developed by homoeopaths!
Why don't you try for yourself using blotting paper instead of beating around the bush. That would be a proof that even if does not contain any molecue, it's still a medicine
I
have tried it, though admittedly not with Pulsatilla, on more occasions than you probably suspect, actually. Your crude test cannot even get close to the distinguishing capabilities of spectrographic analysis, another marvel of modern science that homoeopaths are apparently oblivious to. “Medicine” it most assuredly is not, at least not in any usual sense of that word.
So instead of actually answering a perfectly reasonable challenge that you correctly identify a homoeopathic preparation from a batch of similar-looking counterfeits, you dodge and issue a counterchallenge. But here’s the hook: that challenge has nothing to do with anything that would in reality support homoeopathy. Worse, it’s quite obviously an idiotic, even a dangerous challenge. There are substances that are safe to ingest but not inject (e.g. tap water and snake venom), and vice versa. The challenge is for some conventional medical practitioner in the US to drink a bodyweight-calibrated amount of vaccine preparation. Since I am not on the list of eligible participants, the point is in any case moot, so you’ve once again wasted everyone’s time.
Now, will you or will you not answer the JREF challenge to identify successfully a homoeopathic preparation from a batch of fakes?
'Luthon64