That Chest paper is pretty dubious. For one thing, as pointed out in a response, the title does not match the content. Also, when you look at the data in table 2 the SD error bars are massive and there is always overlap between the placebo and remedy groups. I would seriously question the authors statistical analysis. I think the authors indulged in some statistical chicanery to get the answer they needed. However, assuming the data is meaningful, in order to accept the authors explanations we would need to overturn almost everything we know about physics, chemistry and biology. Of course we may need to do this in time but have you heard the phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. The authors make extraordinary claims but their evidence is dubious at best. Then there are also issues with homeopaths theories that remedies have to be individualised. These remedies weren't, so using the logic on the Hitler thread, this isn't homeopathy.

As for the ruta6 story. There has been ONE **** paper in a **** journal (IF of 1.6) and it has been thoroughly taken apart here. Certainly not compelling evidence for any scientific basis for homeopathy let alone justification for actually treating patients with it.