Rarely have I disagreed with someone, I'm on the same side with, more - this person actually claims homeopathy has no religious component - but at least he got this much right:
Giving patients water is probably a lot less harmful than many folk remedies that fly under the scientific radar, but homeopathy has two notable distinctions. One is that people spend a lot of money on it—the US market was already close to half a billion dollars in 1999. The second is that homeopaths have demanded that their field be treated as a science, performing clinical studies, proposing mechanisms, and even convincing Elsevier to publish Homeopathy, a peer-reviewed journal.
The articles in this special edition of Homeopathy display a number of consistent themes: internal inconsistency, a rejection of scientific standards and methods, and established science being applied to inappropriate situations (for example, quantum entanglement between people is proposed). In cases where mechanisms are suggested, they frequently violate our basic understanding of the natural world. Tying things together are unsupported assertions and logical leaps that have no place in science. The experience of reading the journal was like seeing a science publication reflected through Alice's looking-glass.
And seeing the world through that journal - it didn't arrive from another planet - is even worse,...
