> And still, there is NOT ONE high quality (properly blinded) study that
> gives any hint that homeopathy is anything more than placebo.

The placebo effect is the other mystery. :)

>it would disprove nearly everything we know about physics and chemistry.
Not, only just about human healing process :)

“The fact that even dummy capsules can kick-start the body’s recovery engine became a problem for drug developers to overcome, rather than a phenomenon that could guide doctors toward a better understanding of the healing process and how to drive it most effectively.”
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all

>Please provide even ONE LINK to a high quality,….

see published evidence for and against homeopathy
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html#pub

(continued)

Real medicine is also enhanced by the placebo effect.

Also, faith in alt-med often comes at great cost. It seems pretty harmless to take it for minor, self-limiting, conditions…. but not all conditions are such. Avoiding or delaying conventional treatment to persue quackery too often ends with terrible, even fatal, results.

Also, if they have gained relief from homeopathy, continue giving them ‘homeopathy’, but TOTALLY fake. When they get the same relief from that, explain the placebo effect.

What seperates alt-med believers from those that are grounded in reality often comes down to one statement : “giving a patient a treatment and then asking if it helped is a reliable way to test medicine.” true or false.

Is it a bad thing to expose the quackery or is it better to let them remain convinced of its validity even though the chemistry alone shows that it can be “nothing” more than placebo?

The problem is this:

1) We’ve had an open mind about homeopathy for 200 years, now.
2) And still, there is NOT ONE high quality (properly blinded) study that gives any hint that homeopathy is anything more than placebo.
3) That is beside the fact that if it did work, it would disprove nearly everything we know about physics and chemistry.

In your first link, NONE of those provide any evidence of homeopathy. They discuss its history, who uses, and even THE LACK of good quality evidence…. again, no evidence of efficacy provided.

We have had enough of the hand waving.

Please provide even ONE LINK to a high quality, randomized, properly blinded, clinical study that supports the hypothesis homeopathy is anything more than placebo. Until then, get lost. The rational community has been very specific on what type of evidence is exceptable, we tire of stack after stack of non-evidence.

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/search?fulltext=homeopathy

latest:
Paolo Bellavite, Paolo Magnani, Elisabetta Zanolin, and Anita Conforti
Homeopathic Doses of Gelsemium sempervirens Improve the Behavior of Mice in Response to Novel Environments
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep139v1

and opinion from Martin Chaplin
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html