hi timo,
found this from NIH:
NIH Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, homeopathy wish they had gone into more detail but they do have a bibliography attached and the details are almost certainly within those sources.
it does sound like most scientists don't believe there is any validity to homeopathy, but others say there is some evidence.
thus, sounds like they (NIH) think it is still open for debate, open to be proven or disproved. i think that was the point i was trying to make the second time around when i used herbs as an example.
thanks for making me go look into this....i remember when this branch of NIH was started, don't remember exact date, but 10-20 years ago, so the idea of alternative and complementary medicine is still a relatively new concept in the U.S. not sure about homeopathy in particular, but do know that other things like herbs, like acupuncture, etc are becoming more accepted by mainstream medicine over time.
and then also thinking outside of medicine, even some nobel prize winners' theories were scoffed at for a long time, McClintocks theories on "jumping genes" (transposons), Mitchell's chemiosmotic theory. or even Avery's determination that DNA is the genetic material. i think those stories, and others, have taught me to neither believe nor discount something til proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. now, that's not to say that i don't discount nonsensical illogical talk, i do agree that there is a lot of pseudoscience out there.
