Homeopathy

Evidence for this bare assertion being?TTFN,WK

So its only as scientific as ID and creationism then, you are thinking of subscribing to the Michael Behe school of science perhaps? Sure, but it depends if you only want it to be as effective as the placebo effect or to have an additional effect. A pretty massive claim and one you failed to substantiate in some pretty lengthy threads. Or did you only mean it works as well as sugar pills and injections of saline? But some of these were founded almost 2 centuries ago. The Royal London Homeopathic Hospital was founded in 1849. Do you not think that medicine has progressed in 150 years, well perhaps not since homeopathic medicine is still firmly stuck in the scientific milieu of its foundation with some quantum technobabble (energy medicine? Seriously?) crudely grafted on to try and justify it.Its early initial acceptance has definitely helped homoeopathy hang on in the face of the evidence. I wonder if the homoeopathic principles had been formulated nowadays they would ever have risen above the noise of the other further out alternative 'therapies' like therapeutic touch, laetrile or scientological 'assists'. The fact that some people in government believe something is absolutely no guarantee of its truth or value. You still need to show that it does work, and there have been 200 years for that to happen, surely enough time for a real effect to be widely recognised scientifically? It has been investigated, the initial hypothesis was not necessarily 'crank', its foundations may have been tenuous but it was certainly testable. It has been investigated for over 200 years, and the evidence still fails to convince most people in the field. Evidently, I prefer being cranky.TTFN,WK

You forgot the other important aspect, that the substance should be highly diluted, sometimes to the point of being essentially non-existent.After all otherwise you could be describing the principle behind some early forms of vaccination.TTFN,WK