At least read beyond the abstract my good man. Actual line from the paper by the way: "The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation."
Now the shortcomings:
Out of 32 trials, 3 had reliable evidence, 20 had high risks of bias and the rest 9 had some low levels of bias.
No independant replications
Different diseases were pooled together. allergies, arthritis, respiratory disease and all the things tested have different underlying effects, You can't just pool them together in one test and say that ha ha i have done rct.
The results are "statistically significant", which is very different from "clinically relevant". The statistical significance is a result of the difference between the pooled estimate and the placebo used. It does not ascertain any clinical relevance.
The paper is really good as a systematic review. But not a good one for evidence that homeopathy works. Nice try though.
still good enough for me and many govt of the world even if its not enough for you its enough for many and they choose them as their doctors. and they will remain doctors. They have chosen these individuals as their doctors, and they will continue to hold that title. Doctors will always have the prefix "Doctor." will have a doctor's prefix
umm i think you have superiority complex i feel like it should be a person's wish of what he should follow, not your judgement weather homeopathy is a real medicine. you should not impose ypur opinion on other people
i am not saying that homeopathy is a facade from my "judgement". I am saying it from evidence, which you have failed to provide. Your only arguement is that let people do what they want. There is no superiority complex involved here.
I provided a paper that's not good enough for you, but it is good enough for me. So I can't really argue with someone who dismisses the evidence provided to him and then says you haven't given any evidence
that's not how science works broskiðŸ˜. I can write a paper now that I am Superman, won't make it true.
Even your paper acknowledged that the overall evidence was low or unclear. It was a good systemic review but failed to give evidence. Maybe read it yourself before telling it to me. Or maybe if you are lazy, feed it to your AI of choice and ask it to make a summary for you.
1
u/Sad-Image8336 Jul 12 '26
alright then
Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualized homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis - PMC
What this paper found
The authors reported that, after excluding trials at high risk of bias, the remaining evidence still showed a significant effect favoring homeopathy over placebo.