This comment didn't get through moderation:

Paul Theriault said:

“I would remind everyone reading that Homeopathy has been found efficacious in all methodologically rigorous meta analysis.”

Which ones are they? Can you provide a link to them?

“Furthermore trials of individualised Homeopathy, when sorted by Cochrane criterea, show a positive result that becomes more positive with higher quality of evidence. Please seehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25480654 for more details.”

It’s interesting that you should cite that Mathie et al. paper. He didn’t find very much high quality reliable evidence at all, did he? He found no trials that had low risk of bias in all seven domains they assessed. In the next lower category, he identified just 12 that had uncertain risk of bias in some domains and low risk of bias in all other domains. The rest were identified as having a high risk of bias in some domains. Of the 12 with uncertain risk of bias, he singled out just three that he concluded were of ‘reliable evidence’.

The number of participants in these three trials were 81, 75 and 62. One self-describes as ‘preliminary’ and another as ‘a pilot study’. It is difficult to understand why he chose to categorise as being ‘reliable evidence’, or why you cited it.

But it’s interesting to read what Mathie concluded: “Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.” Moreover, he emphasised:

“The overall quality of the evidence was low or unclear, preventing decisive conclusions.”

Is that the best then?