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

DilutionThe problem with believing fairy-tales, such as eternal potentisation, is that they're not logical. I can't rationalise a belief that is based on such a fantasy, however I'm not defending it either. Homeopathy is, and I've said this time and time again, the doctrine that like cures like in medicine. These dilutations do continue to be used today, as your wikipedia source noted, among some homeopaths. Others have embraced a tradition for which there is insufficient scientific evidence - that does not make homeopathy any less a science. ScienceI'm sorry that I couldn't post links - I access these articles through my university's proxy server. Most large libraries have access to these journals, however, so you should be able to get to them. Sample size determines the level of significance, which is the chance the test is just down to luck. There are quite simple statistical equations for working out a sample size given the variables of the test, such as the expected standard deviation and significance level of the experiment (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). It's not as if a sample size of hundreds is needed for every clinical trial - in fact, the numbers in these trials are quite large compared to most other medical research. That's why the level of significance of the studies was so high. The reason why this works is because the sample is random - in a truely random cross-section of society, you would expect the results of even a small sample to be strongly representative of the effects on a big sample. Exactly how representative is determined by the significance level. As each of these studies reported results that were "highly significant", and their statistical equations were error-free, my opponent's sample size objections are likely based on a misunderstanding of basic statistics. Note especially that experiments only need to have much smaller sample sizes than observational studies. If there was an equation editor in DDO I could prove it mathmatically, or you could read any textbook on statistics, or ask any statistician. I say this because I've been in a situation before where my opponent pointed to a bunch of studies and said "look, this had a sample size of 1000", and I said "look, that wasn't an experiment and it had a completely different significance level". So please ensure you actually understand the statistics at work here before you criticise it. In each study the significance level was less than 1%, which leaves virtually no room for random chance affecting the sample. AJPM StudyMy opponent skips this one. BJCP StudyFirst, 46 is actually exactly the correct minimum sample size for their expected and actual outcomes, as they prove in their methodology section. Second, on the length of the desease, a placebo will not have any less or more pain-reducing effect the longer the desease has been diagnosed. That's because the pain is still the same - rheumanoid arthritis is typically diagnosed because of the immediate pain the patient suffers. I agree the desease is regenerative, but this study didn't examine cures - only relief. If I was fatally shot but not yet dead, it wouldn't matter if I took a placebo one second later or one minute later - the pain would still be intense. Lancet StudyAside from the sample size objection, which again doesn't hold true (the lower sample size was due to a lower expected standard deviation among the sample group, as the trial had been previously conducted), my opponent has nothing more to say on this one. The Lancet is probably the world's most widely distributed medical journal, so I find it very hard to believe my opponent can't find a physical copy on loan somewhere. BMJ StudyI did warn my opponent that this one used a particulary "high-potency" dilution. I said that my belief is that these kinds of solutions are often nothing more than quackery. In this case, however, it seems we have an exception. Homeopathy should not assume that more dilute is always better, but that doesn't mean that more dilute is always worse. Homeopaths should rather proscribe whatever works to heal the patient - and in this case, dilution to 30C works. Con also keeps believing that every study he sees has too small a sample size. QuinineI guess since I brought it up it can also be seen as evidence now. No response from my opponent as yet. VideosAs to the "bias" in the video, my opponent does nothing to rebut my claim of confirmation bias. All he does is appeal to the authority of the experts in the video. However, the "experts" weren't actual experts but homeopathy critics. It's no wonder they agree with the point of the video. You just know a video has confirmation bias when the formost critic of homeopathy, James Randi, is on the Youtube still (who recently declined G. Vithoulkas' challenge to a FAIR homeopathic test after delaying it for four years, even though his own team of experts had concluded the test was fair and Randi had made a signed agreement to that effect - see . http://www.naturalnews.com... - which completely undermines the idea that Randi is interested in the science of homeopathy but rather seems more bent on exposing a few false homeopaths in an effort to bring down the whole profession). The idea that the other one had a scientific test at all is ignorant of what a scientific experiment is. Failing to control for any variables - not even doing a blinding study! - is not an experiment and CANNOT establish causation. Besides that, it cites no evidence at all other than James Randi, which is a sample size of one. So no, that's not a scientific experiment. Longitudial studiesIf my opponent agrees the likely outcomes are relevant, then he is obliged to rebut them. He has not done so. ExpertsI agree experts can be wrong about outcomes. That's why I'm arguing most of the scientific establishment is wrong about homeopathy. However, I think the method is different. If the UK had allocated its budget by drawing straws, EVERYBODY would hate it, even those who agreed with the outcome. If they do a fair process based on the ideologies of the elected officials, then you might disagree with the decision, but you can't really argue with how they got to that decision. That's why many experts have tried to confirm the results of previous studies under more stringent conditions, over and over again. Every time they succeed. Of course, if India does take their healthcare seriously, then my opponent would agree that they put experts into their health ministry. On the WHO, note that they do not recommend homeopathy for SERIOUS deseases, like HIV. Niether do I. But if there is no modern medicine as an alternative, the WHO continues to believe homeopathy is better than other alternative systems. Tap WaterThis would only be a homeopathic remedy is cholrine causes coughs - remember that homeopathy means the symptoms must match. Since chlorine does not cause coughs, it also does not cure coughs homeopathically. I look forward to my opponent's reply.