There has never been a substantive, peer reviewed study showing the benefits of homeopathy anywhere, ever.
Hyoscyamine has been prescribed for decades
Better and safer than vitamins and most allopathic medicines precisely because they don’t have real effects. People aren’t machines and treatments don’t need to be rational to be helpful.
Hahnemann's first homeopathic drug was to cure malaria. Are you saying it was meant to make you think you didn't have malaria?
Take a look at the long history of “like cures like.” I should take back my claim that it is “always” viewed as a mental effect— things get a bit squishy in the olden days.
I did. It has nothing to do with the claim that homeopathy was only ever meant to be a mental effect. If you claim that then you're doing God-of-the-gaps but with homeopathy.
That document lists a great number of like-cures-like cures from long before Hahnemann. However of note is that they don't claim that dilution makes medicine stronger. Chemo and radiation make you sick as a dog but they cure cancer. If we allow "like cures like" to be the only meaning of homeopathy (its name itself a synecdoche for the dual claims of homeopathy) then tons of real medicine is homeopathy.
I get the impression that you're in this field. I once worked at a military contractor where my job was either to waste the tax dollars of productive members of society or enforce a global hegemony that will end human life on earth. There was a path out of there for me, and I'm sure there's a path out of there for you.
I don’t know when the dilution became part of the story. As you said, a lot of allopathic medicine is like cures like (such as vaccines).
It's curious how positive results only come from associates in an industry profiting from trying to convince you that their water, chemically indistinguishable from regular water, has magical healing properties through its memory of past events.
In case you are curious, here is a rigorous research paper on the topic. It is extremely hard to evaluate. Any researcher who would try to do this sort of research is immediately suspect, so it takes a certain type. But I see no reason to dismiss a priori.
See what you think (over 250 cites): Roy, R., Tiller, W. A., Bell, I., & Hoover, M. R. (2005). The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. Materials Research Innovations, 9(4), 98-103.
They dismiss this criticism as undiscovered science, in much the same way fairies and leprechauns are undiscovered animals. They'll often cite quantum mechanics and even cosmology, the more esoteric the better, to try to shoehorn science into their beliefs.
I disagree with the results of the risk of bias assessments of the studies involved in that meta-analysis: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-022-02127-3/tables/1
Out of the 6 studies used, only 2 are from general research institutions. The other 4 are all specialists in homeopathy or private practices using homeopathy. Seems like the risk of bias there would be extremely high.