Homeopathy is scientific.

Pro makes an unfounded claim that homeopathy has been proven by the scientific method. . http://www.lse.ac.uk... The above source shows that homeopathy is indeed not based on evidence from the scientific method. The affirmation that the similar is cured by the similar is unproven and not been shown to work. To understand where this claim came from, we must go all the way back to the birth of homeopathy. The founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, encountered the claim that cinchona, the bark of a Peruvian tree, was effective in treating malaria because of its astringency. [That was the prevailing hypothesis, today we know this is because of the presence of the Anti-malarial drug quinine] Hahnemann said that other astringent substances are not effective against malaria and began to research cinchona's effect on the human body by self-application. [self application is NOT the scientific method] Noting that the drug induced malaria-LIKE symptoms in himself, he concluded that it would do so in any healthy individual. [Personal experience does not equal well established scientific fact] This is how 'like cures like' was born. Conclusion from the above : this was not done by the scientific method and the reason for the malaria-LIKE symptoms was coincidental, today we know the cure is due to quinine and quinine does not give such symptoms. Also, such a claim would have to be supported by testing many more diseases to exhibit the same properties - something that has not been done. Therefore, "like cures like" is not a scientific affirmation. "If you get poisoned, the infection will be cured with a weakened version of the same poison" This statement is false. There is no evidence to show that poison can cure an infection caused by it. Furthermore, homeopathy holds that the "weakened" poison be diluted so much that it has a very small chance of even a molecule of the original poison to remain in the medicine. *For the sake of argument* - if 'like cures like' was true, in small quantities, it certainly will not work if the original substance isn't even there such that it has been diluted out of existence! Then there are bizarre claims made of the 'energy' of the original substance remaining, which relies on vitalism which has been disproved. Also, the claims that "water has memory" is unscientific and if it did, it would have memory of practically everywhere it's been, including materials like glass, gases in air, and even animal waste. Moving on to the placebo argument - the placebo effect is well demonstrated and actually exists. Homeopathy is shown to be more effective than basic placebos because the patients do not believe that they are placebos, which benefits the effect (this is explained in the source above). However, homeopathy is still not scientific. It does have a slightly strengthened version of the placebo effect, but does not guarantee anything and is not backed by the scientific method. Furthermore, it is noted that instead of Homeopathy, one could opt for scientific medicine which would work with proven efficacy IN ADDITION TO the placebo effect that patients get in believing that it actually helps (which it does) and doctor's advice. This would make things much better. Moving on to vaccination, this is a completely false argument. Vaccines have nothing to do with homeopathy, they work on the principles of the immune system and its readiness to prevent the onset of a disease that it has been previously exposed to. Vaccinations cannot be taken after the onset of a disease to cure the disease - that would only make things worse. Homeopathy is taken to cure the disease, Vaccination to prevent the onset of a disease by immunisation, not cure. Any linkage between homeopathy and Vaccination is false. So 'modern' vaccines as well as the ones used earlier are not homeopathic treatments. Having refuted all of Pro's points, I conclude this argument.