The 2005 Lancet review proved superior quality of homeopathy trials: what's next?

Several former reviews showed positive effects of homeopathy, but in 2005 The Lancet published a review which claimed that homeopathy is a placebo effect. This review was criticised for not revealing essential information. A reconstruction of post-publication data challenges the negative conclusion. The only conclusion that was rectified by the methodology of the 2005 review was that the quality of homeopathy trials, and especially of smaller trials, is better than quality of conventional trials. The comparison of the effect of 110 homeopathy trials with 110 matched conventional trials was flawed by selection bias, different publication bias, different quality, and different safety. Nevertheless, there is no significant difference of effects between both methods. Discussions about proof for homeopathy are in fact discussions about science. The prior assumption that homeopathy cannot work pervades all aspects of this discussion and is not properly evaluated in the introduction of most analyses.