It is interesting, I'd still like to see the scientific evidence for stints in clogged arteries, for aspartame in lieu of sugar, for half of the allopathic remedies...
We want evidence for herbs, accupuncture and not the centuries worth of anecdotal....but if a pharmaceutical company has got something with only 14 side affects and most of the patients live...eureka.
There is now somewhere a way you can look at the hospitals for heart surgery and determine how your hospital stacks up against others...average, better than average, worse than average...in order to get those results they had to have the stats...I don't want the sanitized version I want the stats...ie what percentage die on the table, what percentage within 10 days, what percentage end up with a staph infection... but these results would make people leery of using the hospital....duh..
Just like when the FDA said no to food labeling for GMO, Radiation (now known as Cold Pasteurization) and foods with growth hormone injections or fertilized with human sludge waste treatment plant sludge....they said if they labeled them, people wouldn't eat the food....duh.
One thing that does concern me about homeopathy is if it is scientifically proven will that mean that when they say the safe level of arsenic, or lead or pcb is xx ppm...should that actually be higher??