On t'other thread, Dana Ullman wrote:
I'll speak in defense of it. I think your criticisms are incorrect and misguided. The eight studies of homeopathy that were deemed large and of high quality are identified in Lancet 366, p. 2083, in the authors reply to published comments on their original article. You can find a lot more on this here
Also, you seem to be concerned that the study uses 8 homeopathic trials out of 105 to conclude that homeopathy shows no benefit beyond placebo. This is the whole point of the study: to compare the complete set of homeopathic trials with the ones that are large and of good quality. This allows the authors to strip out the effects of poor study design and bias. In other words, the original 105 papers contain a number of lousy studies from which no useful conclusions can be drawn. When these studies are excluded, homeopathy shows no effect.
You also claim that the study did not test what you call true homeopathy, using individualised remedies. In fact, the study includes 18 such trials, of which 2 were deemed to be large and high quality. The study also divided homeopathic trials into four types (clinical, classical and compex homeopathy, and isopathy). The study found that there was no significant difference in effect between these four types. That is, your classical homeopathy is no more effective than any other type of homeopathy.
More on me blog