Homeopathy should be banned

Still, whatever his reasons, I will treat his arguments without irrespective to any speculation on his intent, since to do so would be equivalent to judging homeopathy effectiveness based on our understanding of how it works. I will present the following by way of constructive argumentation: 1. Unwanted interactions in classical medicine - Michael Jackson 2. Medicine is not a science, but rather a business model based on a professional monopoly (Rockefeller & Medicine Men, AMA wars 1920-1930, Milton Friedman's essay on regulating naturist medicine) I shall now consider my opponent's arguments. 1. Pseudoscience / placebo -> not a reason to ban Even on the assumption that there is something fundamentally wrong or unworkable with homeopathy - and not something that we just do not fully understand yet - that is still not a reason for banning a practice that does not hurt anybody. Before trying to understand how it works, we need to establish IF it works, and that seems to have already been established. The consensus before 2000 used to be that homeopathy is effective. Though that consensus has been seriously eroded in the past decade, the few trials of "individualized / interview-based / classical" homeopathy seem to indicate that it has an effect over placebo, unless the h-friendly studies are excluded for "poor methodology" (wikipedia): --"A 1998 review[128] found 32 trials that met their inclusion criteria, 19 of which were placebo-controlled and provided enough data for meta-analysis. These 19 studies showed a pooled odds ratio of 1.17 to 2.23 in favor of individualized homeopathy over the placebo, but no difference was seen when the analysis was restricted to the methodologically best trials. The authors concluded "that the results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies. " -- If the current consensus - which seems to be against homeopathy effectiveness - is a basis to ban homeopathy, then back in the 70s, 80s and 90s, when homeopathy was considered effective, we should have banned classical medicine, which was far more expensive, less effective and used more resources. This is a severe incongruence / inconsistency in the "banning" argument. It also seems to suggest that the current consensus is the result of research tainted by significant more resources invested in research - i. e. , big pharma vs small-time homeopaths. 2) Placebo - unworkable -> still not a reason to ban My opponent seems to accept that h works solely on placebo, which I do not, for reasons previously explained. The use of homeopathy for treating "bleeding profusely from a primary artery" is an extreme example and it is not representative for how homeopathy is used. Similarly, I would not argue for banning classical medicine simply because mistakes are somehow made or because doctors sometimes kill or sexually abuse people. I will leave it to Logician to identify the logical fallacy present here. 3) Protecting people from themselves I have significant difficulties attacking this argument in the 1 minute I have left precisely because it causes an intense emotional rxn in me. My opponent is suggesting that we restrict choice because people cannot decide for themselves. . This is perhaps the main reason why we do not have death sentences in civilized countries: new evidence may surface, opinions change and previously strong decisions / judgments can prove to be wrong. Banning large chunks of the cognitive continuum based on how does the scientific opinion wind blows at specific times is a terribly expensive way of running science and it is pure, unsweetened scienticism [5]. In conclusion, I believe that to ban a practice such as homeopathy it is necessary to conclusively prove that this practice is more detrimental than classical medicine, which is impossible, since homeopathy is at worst placebo / neutral. In contrast, a significant number of people, including celebrities such as Michael Jackson, die in the hands of their doctors of either unforeseen interactions in their medications. -- 1. 128 Linde K, Melchart D (1998), "Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review", J Altern Complement Med 4 (4): 371–88, doi:10.1089/acm.1998.4.371, PMID 9884175. 2. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 3. . http://www.springerlink.com... 4. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5. . http://www.springerlink.com... 6. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. . http://en.wikipedia.org... My intention when I started this debate was to write a lengthy article to be summarized in this debate. I have yet to do so and am now running out of time. When done, I will publish it on . http://www.edutarian.com...