This is just a focus point, because it is such an obvious problem. I have also hightlighted the other points where homeopathy collides with contemporary knowledge of how the body functions and of what causes diseases. You know this because you have answered some of my posts.

It is a straight lie that homeopathy is held to higher standards than conmed. Quite the opposite, in fact, since homeopathy is tolerated by authorities in most countries, even though no proof of efficacy exists. - Something conmed would never get away with.

All skeptics ask is that homeopathy (and other alternative medicine) proves its efficacy to standards that are comparable to those of conventional meds.

Hans

__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Is that not what I told you, a couple of posts ago?

It is really hard to answer questions when you can't understand simple replies.

Hans

__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

As such, will it not be better to divide homeopathy in two parts. Suppose if anything very odd(though look difficult in view of science is not yet absolute & final) happen, at least one part still remains. Low dose stimulation & high dose inhibition(hormesis) is scientifically understood concept, so can't be denied, if low dose(molecular presence) is scientifically justified. Efficacy well exist in people at mass in most part of world since long back. Though it is different that, due to nature of remedies(with least apparent side/adverse/toxic effects), their effects can't be so apparent as from modern medicines. Can't say, if remedies give real effects+least apparent adverse effects(aggravations)+placebo whereas modern medicines real effects+ more apperent adverse effects+placebo.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

That is not so simple. So you can reply, if no undue stress to you.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

Interdisciplinary Sciences: Life Sciences (SpringerLink)
Electromagnetic properties of highly-diluted biological samples (2009) FULL TEXT // Prof. (Dr.) Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate for discovering HIV Virus. Potentised bacteria and virus DNA emits electromagnetic signals (low frequency radio waves) at 5C and 6C potencies and forms nano-structures. The radio waves affected water molecules, and the water molecules remembered and emitted radio waves.

__________________
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

If it wasn't for the fine credentials of these researchers, I would dismiss it as ridiculous. Fortunately, however, scientists with finer credentials than mine do just that. Also, it is pointed out that even if the results are bonafide, they don't support homeopathy.

Reference: Luc Montagnier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(BTW, I'n a little puzzled that you can always find the articles that seem pro homeopathy, but you can never find the debunkings, Nancy )

For myself, since electromagnetics are my speciality, let me point out a few things about this research:

1) The experimental set-up is extremely noinse sensitive. In fact it seems that they use the noise as signal input. This is very unprofessional and highly error-prone. Basically you can measure whatever you like on a noise input.

2) The frequencies they cite as some kind of resonance are virtually impossible as such; the frequencies are far too low. For any object to exhibit electromagnetic resonance, it must have a physical size that has some connection with the resonating wavelenght, but the wavelenghts of the cited frequencies are high in the kilometer range, so it is impossible that a resonance effect can exist from a microscopic object. Whatever they measure, it is not resonance from anything in a small test-tube.

3) There is no mentioning of blinding. This suggests that the researchers were aware what they were measuring on, and since the test set-up is extremely sensitive (even the position of persons near the test equipment will influence the result), they could very easily be fooling themselves.

Those were my technical comments. I will then add that the publishing can hardly be called peer-reviewed, since Dr. Luc Montagnier is responsible editor of the publication. I also notice that as (at least partly) as a result of the controversy sparked by this research, the good Dr. has retreated to a Chinese research institution where he "hopes for more open minds".

- I don't think he will be disappointed, since the Chinese are not too particular about what they they call research. OTOH, homeopathy does not have much following there.

Hans

__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

I answered it, several posts ago.

Hans

__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier on homeopathy

__________________
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/

I can see you decided to ignore the comments that Luc Montagnier's research on this is strongly disputed, and that it does not support homeopathy anyway.

I have already commented.

Hans

__________________
You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

The links provided speaks volumes of Nobel laureate Dr. Luc Mountaginer's works on homeopathy.

__________________
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/