Neviem aky impact ma The Lancet, ale mali zopar metaanalyz, napriklad:
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Interpretation
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.


ale vela tych studii nie je, kedze ocividne vedci radsej skumaju nieco slubnejsie. co myslis, ake su dovody pre to ze chybaju kvalitne spravene vyskumy? nebudu tie dovody nahodou podobne tym, preco chybaju kvalitne spravene vyskumy na temu "je mozne liecit rakovinu modlitbou za splnu mesiaca"? :)

homeopatia zdaleka nie je dosledne popreta vedou ako pises, pretoze by sa nou tieto periodika ani nezaoberali.
nesuhlasim, periodika sa zaoberaju vselicim a aj negativne dosledky su velmi dolezite. ona navyse nie je popreta len vedou (uz len to ze za 250 rokov neexistuje plauzibilna teoria fungovania homeopatie by mohlo nieco naznacovat) ale aj tym, ze napriklad v UK s ich dlhou tradiciou aj oficialne financovanej homeopatie zacali jej financovanie skrtat na zaklade cost/benefit analyz.

toto z tvojho prispevku ma zaujalo: The nonlocal models proposed would predict that it is impossible to nail down homeopathic effects with direct experimental testing and this places homeopathy in a scientific dilemma.
mne sa skor zda ze to je eticka dilema, pretoze ak nevieme testovat efekty nejakej terapie, tak nemame ziaden zaklad podla ktoreho tuto terapiu niekomu odporucat.