Yet an extensive Belgian review of the most recent publications on homeopathy, including the meta-analysis in The Lancet, revealed serious weaknesses in all of these studies. Studies subject to minimal quality requirements were regarded as either negative or positive but burdened with methodological biases that ruled out any definitive conclusions. The review published in The Lancet, while it followed a rigorous methodology, did not permit a conclusion either, as it did not respect the principle of pathological and treatment homogeneity that is essential for meta analysis. The term has been misapplied to regular medicine ever since. Homeopathy's principles have been refuted by the basic sciences of chemistry, physics, pharmacology, and pathology.
Most homeopathic studies are of poor methodological quality, and are subject to bias.
Homeopathic product labels do not provide sufficient information to judge their dosages. Although homeopathic remedies are generally thought to be non-toxic due to their high dilutions, some preparations have proved harmful. The ostensible value of homeopathic products can be more than a placebo effect because some products have contained effective amounts of standard medications or have been adulterated. The United States Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act lists the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States as a recognized compendium, but this status was due to political influence, not scientific merit. The FDA has not required homeopathic products to meet the efficacy requirements applied to all other drugs, creating an unacceptable double standard for drug marketing.