Scientific research studies
The Homeopathic Medicine Research Group, formed by the European Union to determine the effectiveness of homeopathy conducted another study in 1996. This study is notable in that skeptics of homeopathy were involved in its design. The study pooled results from 17 clinical trials involving 2,001 patients and found that homeopathy was more effective than placebo with a 0.027% probability that this result was due to chance.
In response, here is a devastating excerpt from the conclusion of a meta-study published in
The Lancet in August 2005 (nine years later), comprising near enough 100 clinical trials, i.e. one of much greater statistical significance:
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
Immediately following, the report adds this:
In fact the study found that, the more rigorous the trial, the weaker the evidence that homeopathic treatment works. This backs up earlier meta-studies that reached broadly the same conclusions. A 2002 study by York University concluded that ‘there are currently insufficient data either to recommend homeopathy as a treatment for any specific condition, or to warrant significant changes in the provision of homeopathy’, largely because of the ‘methodological inadequacies of the existing evidence base’.
It seems then that your “evidence” is once again homoeopathically dilute and doesn’t pass muster.
'Luthon64
