Here are the conclusions reached respectively for the below url's, nothing
to bet the bank on, thought you would want to know:
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.
and:
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.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids
=9310601&dopt=AbstractQuoted message said:Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43. Erratum in: Lancet 1998 Jan
17;351(9097):220. PMID: 9310601Quoted message said:Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G.
Clinical trials of homoeopathy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids
=1825800&dopt=AbstractQuoted message said:BMJ. 1991 Feb 9;302(6772):316-23. Erratum in: BMJ 1991 Apr
6;302(6780):818. PMID: 1825800Medical Scientism has supported homeopathy. 🙂
If you don't like it, then take the matter up with BMJ and The Lancet.
Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You geeks are ignorant!
Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!