Colin Jacobson's letter on homeopathy (20 March, p 25) annoyed me.
First, he argues that homeopathy is good because it costs less than conventional medicine. Of course, water and sugar should be cheaper than clinically tested drugs, but that does not make it useful.
He then argues that homeopathy satisfies a real demand in healthcare, to the inconvenience of big drug companies, ignoring the fact that selling water and sugar to people is of great convenience to the big homeopathy companies.
Next, Jacobsen suggests that the author of the original article on homeopathy, Martin Robbins, should take into consideration the anecdotal evidence of his miraculously cured dog, disregarding the importance of the scientific method.
Finally, he rounds off by stating that homeopathy is "cheap, effective and safe". There are cheaper placebos on the market, more effective ways to treat people and there are safer, more reliable ways to run ...