This is a very good question and an astute observation and shows at least that you are considering the arguments if only to attempt to refute them. If I have understood the implication of your question correctly here is your answer.

There are several branches of homeopathic prescribing that are permissible in classical homeopathy. One of them we refer to as 'Specifics'. This means that certain remedies have shown in clinical practice to be effective in (or specific to) one particular complaint. For example, Arnica is the first remedy we think of for bruising after injury. The specific remedy won't be effective in every case but in a sufficient number of cases to justify trying it first with the intention of looking for a more individualized prescription if it does not produce the desired result.

When we are forced to prove our medicine's efficacy through clinical trials we are required to select one remedy and prove it can be effective in the treatment of one particular condition. The opportunity to individualize is removed so we have to use specifics. Individualization is so fundamental to the homeopathic prescription that we are crippled without it. This can't be overemphasized. In fact I believe I am right in saying that Gina would argue the use of Specifics is not true homeopathy at all for exactly this reason- there is little or no individualization.

Let's take an example. Say we are doing a trial for migraine headaches.

First we have to find look at our cured cases for people with migraine headaches. Then we look at what remedies were prescribed in these cases. We find in 100 cases we used 20 different remedies in total but 40% of them responded to the remedy Natrum Muriaticum. So we select that remedy for the trial.

Then we do the trial. Don't forget only Nat. Mur. is used for every patient in the trial. Let's say the results show that 35% of subjects reported a significant improvement in symptoms after taking the remedy. The trial concludes that (crippled) homeopathy has an effect above that of placebo. Great! I'm happy!!!

But this is less than half the story. What would happen if a skilled homeopath were then allowed to individualize the 65% of cases that reported no improvement and prescribe any remedy he or she felt was indicated? I would expect that around 80% of these remaining cases would report a significant improvement.

Facts 30 and 32 do appear to contradict each other. But in FACT 30 Gina is explaining that we are forced to restrict ourselves to the use of Specifics in double blind trials and in Fact 32 he emphasizes that these are not a true measure of homeopathy's effectiveness because they make no allowances for the individualization that is so crucial for a successful homeopathic prescription.