Homeopathic remedies are ineffective

Thank you Con for your response.Con's argument is not really an argument, it consists exclusively of sourced material bizarrely asserting the lack of side effects in homeopathic remedies, a fact which only reinforces my claims about their lack of any active ingredient and is completely irrelevant to the matter of how effective they really are. If you have read my first post then you will see the extreme levels of dilution in homeopathic remedies, they consist only of water, therefore it follows that they would no side effects, or any effects at all for that matter. I mentioned in my previous post the stunt James Randi performed in which he consumed many boxes of homeopathic sleeping pills to nil effect. This kind of stunt has been repeated by the 10:23 campaign with such remedies as 'belladonna' and 'arsenic'. Here is a video link http://www.guardian.co.uk.... Both belladonna and arsenic are extremely toxic when taken even in tiny doses but due to the extreme dilution of the homeopathic remedies there is literally zero effect on the participants. Is it therefore any surprise that there are no side effects? The only time con really challenged the lack of any active ingredient in homeopathic remedies is when he wrote: “One theory is that during the production of a homeopathic medicine, the dilution and agitation processes cause an interaction between the original material (e.g. a plant such as Belladonna) and the water and alcohol it is mixed with. This creates tiny new structures (nanostructures) which are the ‘active ingredient' and remain present even when the sample has been diluted many, many times.[1]” This passage refers to the concept of water memory and succussion which I refuted in my previous post but I will address it again. Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water showed that "liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure" within fifty millionths of a nanosecond. (1) This shows very clearly that the idea of water memory is absurd and is strongly contradicted by our modern knowledge of science. On top of this I'd like to point out that even the homeopathy website which Con sourced this from only regards the explanation as an unsubstantiated theory. The second marginally relevant point Con sourced is that there have been studies in which a range of 0-11% of patients have suffered very minor side effects such as headaches, tiredness, dizziness. This included 'homeopathic aggravations' which is when you have a certain condition and it flares up when a homeopathic remedy is taken. The conclusion that you are meant to draw from this is that the remedies can't be placebos due to the flaring up of these 'side effects.' Now, I'm not going to patronise Con by going into the list of possible and very reasonable causes of these trivial everyday afflictions. I'm simply going to state the very obvious fact that this range is statistically insignificant and inconclusive due to the play on chance and the prevalence of everyday conditions such as a headache or tiredness. It certainly does not count as any form of evidence for a type of remedy which, if true, would change the face of modern science completely. As Carl Sagan put it “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and this could hardly be called evidence, let alone extraordinary. After this point Con simply delves into standards and ethics within the homeopathic community which is completely irrelevant and is copied from the same website which he sourced all of his argument. http://www.homeopathy-soh.org... Therefore I feel I can very safely say that not a single one of my original points were disputed. Vote Pro! Sources (1) http://www.nature.com...