Homeopathy is a load of crap and it doesn't work.

As the second most widely practiced form of medicine in the world, homeopathy is a very controversial topic. Just as my opponent will attempt to show that it is unlikely that homeopathy works, my burden of proof in this debate is to show that it is likely homeopathy is effective and has some effect. As suggested by my opponent, I will use scientific evidence to show this is the case. Note, however, that I do not need to show that homeopathy is more effective than some other treatment or remedy. I only need to show that it is effective beyond the placebo level, not that it is the most effective. I'm going to conceed right here and now that homeopathy is generally not as effective as what we might term "modern science". For that ~60% of the world's population that don't have good access to modern medicine, I argue that homeopathy is the next best alternative. NOTE: Dilution in this debate refers to concentration. Most homeopathic remedies today are manufactured in pill form (concentrating in sugar or similar), but since my opponent keeps talking about water-concentration levels, I shall use dilution for this debate.1. DilutionI'm going to define homeopathy as being a medical system with a method of prescription based on matching symptoms with symptoms the same as what the therapeutic agent has been known to cause. So if white arsenic causes food poisoning, homeopathy would proscribe white arsenic as a remedy for food poisoning. It is true that this will usually be heavily diluted, to avoid the medicine posing a serious threat to the patient, but most modern homeopathic providers do not dilute it nearly as far as my opponent framed it. The level of dilution is a big argument in homeopathy, but most practitioners today have avowed the spiritual idea of potentisation being an eternal process. The balance is delicate - include too much medicine and you'll kill or hurt the victim, include too little and you won't stop the desease. After many decades of practice, most modern homeopaths have the balance pretty accurate. Like my opponent, I agree that dilution to the extent that you're no longer given treatment is dumb, and I would further argue, completely contrary to all the principles of homeopathy (if we bear in mind that it was Hippocrates who was the first homeopathic healer). That some of these spiritual ideas in homeopathy exist, however, is no surprise. Conventional medicine also has it's fair share of non-scientific spiritual beliefs among a small minority of its practitioners too (Mary Baker Eddy, I'm looking at you), but that doesn't mean conventional medicine is wrong. Niether is homeopathy wrong just because it's been abused. A similar controversy once existed over the concept of miasms, which most mainstream practitioners of homeopathy never believed in. Since about the 70s, after a heated argument over Penicillin, the idea has been more or less completely dropped. Like modern medicine, homeopathy is self-correcting, and the effectiveness of its treatments have been improving over time as dilutions have become more accurate.2. Scientific researchThere has been a significant amount of scientific research. Unfortunately, most meta-analysis studies have included experiments that had high-dilution remedies, which again, are not really what homeopathy's about. There has been lots of scientific research for homeopathy (ie “American Journal of Pain Management” 3 July 1998, “British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology” 1980), but the big challenge is to make it reproducable. Given the amount of assertions that it's not reproducible, there have been surprisingly few studies on this, but every single scientific study investigating whether homeopathy is reproducible has yielded a positive result. For example, in 1994 six doctors tried to reproduce two previous scientific trials supporting homeopathy and succeeded in replicating the results (using a clinical trial and a placebo-control group in a double-blind controlled experiment). Surprise surprise, homeopathy worked again (The Lancet, 344.8937, 1601-1606). Another more recent trial, in 2000, set out to disprove earlier evidence of homeopathy being different from a placebo (using all the same controls), and ended up proving that it was significantly different. The trial was also significant in that it used a relatively high dilution (but obviously still enough for the treatment to remain - given the nature of the illness was relatively benign, a low dilution was not required). Nobody has been able to explain the results otherwise (British Medical Journal, 321:471). What objections are there to these trials? Some of the strongest objections come from the homeopaths themselves, who suggest that their ideas are holistic, and that individual treatments, on their own, cannot be shown to have the kinds of effects homeopathy promises. There has, as yet, been no longitudial study on the effects of homeopathy, although several are in planning. There is, however, good scientific evidence to believe that these will deliver positive results too - mostly from the scientists and statisticians, who argue that those who go to homeopaths are more likely to be health-concious, and do things such as exercise regulary. The only other objection is that the results could be due to chance, which is true. In the case of the BMJ study I cited, that chance is about 0.3%. That's why I can't prove homeopathy conclusively. Still, it's very likely that homeopathy is effective.3. Experts agreeThese aren't just rouge scientific studies - this data is well-supported by the scientific establishment. The United Nations-sponsored World Health Organisation (WHO Bulletin, 1999, 77.2, 160-165), who are advised by some of the top scientists, doctors, and other medical professionals, issued a memo that they believed "western medicine" should be integrated more closely with homeopathy. Following the controversial memo, the European Parliament decided to do their own fact-finding, and decided to agree with the WHO recommendation (Archives of Internal Medicine, 1999, 159.17). As a result, whole countries have changed their behaviour. These are not decisions made lightly - politicians are far more likely to be paid off by a drug company than by a homeopath. We're talking about decisions like India deciding to award all homeopaths who have undergone homeopathic training to be called "doctor". In Switzerland, homeopathy is a recognised treatment by all the major medical insurers. In the Netherlands, almost half of the doctors proscribe homeopathic remedies. I could go on. This isn't an appeal to authority. This is a testament to the quality of the scientific research I have shown earlier. Unlike how my opponent will try to frame it, interest in homeopathy is increasing around the world, not decreasing. The source of this is clearly the doctors, and they're most motivated by the science. That means the science is probably sound. ConclusionGhandi once said "Homoeopathy … cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and the most complete medical science. " It's pretty clear that the scientific evidence for that doesn't exist, but it's also clear that homeopathy isn't completely useless. Homeopathy does have some effect beyond the effect a placebo has, and this has been proven multiple times.