I understand what you're saying, and agree with you on general terms, but this argument doesn't apply to homeopathy. Homeopathy doesn't claim that "some substa

I understand what you're saying, and agree with you on general terms, but this argument doesn't apply to homeopathy. Homeopathy doesn't claim that "some substance heals people". It claims (according to Wikipedia [1]) "a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people". It's fundamentally flawed, and despite revisionist practitioners, has not yet managed to raise it's head above "pseudoscience" status. It shouldn't really be mentioned in the same sentence as research that is actually trying to determine if a substance has an effect, even if that research is flawed. Said research and homeopathy aren't really playing on the same field. It's like calling religion a science. It's based on a premise that can't be questioned without throwing out the entire idea. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy