Homeopathy-It works

Rebuttals: Con say’s “the placebo effect is on the basis of the patient truly believing that the placebo works. However as many people now know that Homeopathy is in reality a placebo they will tend to look the other way, and if they consume it it will have no effect on them.” Actually, studies have shown that placeboes have been known to work even when the patient knows they are taking a placebo. (1) In fact one study concluded that “Placebos administered without deception may be an effective treatment” (2) This proves cons statement “Placebos are based on the exterior factor of believing” False. Con says “All conventional medicine for certain diseases which people still die to are purely in the experimental process. Also even if we have a cure for every disease people will still die due to murder or other physical wounds that are not given attention. Please do not rebut with saying "Death is a disease" And in the rare case that conventional medicine not working, either the wrong one has been given OR it has been given too late.” People die from diseases all the time while being treated with conventional medicine. I was not rebutting with “Death is a disease” (nice try at a strawman) I was stating that modern medicine does not have a cure for everything. In the last round you said “ homeopathy/placebos could not really treat every single disease.” I was rebutting that the same thing is true about conventional medicine. Unless con believes there is a cure for cancer… Con asks “75% of what?” Of being a cure. “Furthermore, the placebo effect is no small or insignificant statistical aberration. Estimates of the placebo cure rate range from a low of 15 percent to a high of 72 percent. The longer the period of treatment and the larger the number of physician visits, the greater the placebo effect.”(3) Con says “the website you have linked does not seem very scientifically motivated. It was extremely vague on it's description. And the desired effect for me or someone else who is educated on this topic will not be achieved, at all.” I find it ironic that my opponent is unimpressed by my sources. I am unimpressed by his entire lack of sources. Con seems unwilling to concede that science supports the fact that placeboes work. Con says “Please stop turning this debate into a debate on the definition of "works" I did not turn this debate into a debate on the definition of “works,” you did that when you made the resolution. Con says that he wanted a debate where “we could discuss the scientific basis of homeopathy and it in reality working other than the Placebo effect.” You should have made that the resolution… I also doubt the sincerity on this claim as you stated earlier in this round that in regard to placeboes “that it (placebos) doesn't (work) and no person educated on this topic think it does.” Clearly you did not think that an educated person would engage in this debate…. Con says “This debate has turned into a new resolution of "Do Placebos work?" which is clearly not the intended resolution.” I accepted this debate with the resolution presented. As I am pro, I am free to defend that resolution in any way I choose. I have chosen to show that homeopathy is a placebo. Placebos have been known to cure. Placebos therefore work. Homeopathy then is known to work. This is simply logic. The resolution stands. (1) http://www.scientificamerican.com... (2) http://www.plosone.org... (3) http://www.psychologytoday.com... My link from the last round no longer seems to work. I will post it again here.http://www.learnmindpower.com...