Homeopathy has been kicking around the block for 200 years or so, since Hahnemann first came up with the idea.
In all those 200 years, there is no reliable, rigorous evidence to show that it performs any better than placebo, and only then for (mostly) self - limiting illnesses. The more rigorous the clinical trial, the more tenous the claims to any kind of benefit.Where remedies with a proven clinical benefit that perform better than placebo exist, it could be considered unethical to offer such homeopathic remedies.
Apart from placebo, homeopathy has no plausible or scientific methodology - most of the dilutions are so great that it is doubtful there is even a single molecule of the alleged active ingredient(s) left by the time the dilutions have been performed and battered with the bible.
Now, I dont care a jot if people want to imagine that such remedies help them out for trivial illnesses, if they are paying our of their own pocket, but there should be absolutely no question of providing therapies of such limited benefit on the public purse - The money could be put to far better use.
One final point - You may think that homeopathy is harmless - but you have stores and homeopathists offering homeopathic malaria prophylaxis - In Africa you have homeopaths offering untested remedies for HIV, and childhood diarrhoea. This could be considered murderous behaviour.
Personal testimony is just anecdote - it is an untested observation and with all due respect no evidence to support it other than one persons unsubstantiated word.
Supporting it just feeds into the anti-scientific complementary and alternative medicine meme.
http://www.smh.com.au...th-20090605-bxvx.html