Posted: May 23, 2010 5:49 pm
GenesForLife wrote:
2) Double blind clinical trials that have shown any kind of statistically significant efficacy (I can cite papers from Lancet which suggests that the field per se is bunkum, and since these are peer reviewed papers with available data supplements, one cannot get away by crying "bias")
3) Double blind studies that indicate an efficacy that is better than conventional medicine (anything worse and homeopathy is tantamount to denial of more efficacious therapy)
A study using 57 primary care centers in Europe showed that homeopathy is as effective at treating acute respiratory and ear complaints as conventional treatment. Data of 1,577 patients was evaluated and 857 patient received homeopathic treatment.
Homeopathic and conventional treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints: A comparative study on outcome in the primary care setting
Background: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of homeopathy compared to conventional treatment in acute respiratory and ear complaints in a primary care setting.
Conclusion: In primary care, homeopathic treatment for acute respiratory and ear complaints was not inferior to conventional treatment.
More details at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1831487/