Three of the 4 letters received in response to my article1 seem to reflect emotional upset that hints of homeopathy can be found in biomedicine. As such, these responses are more polemical than constructive. They have several misstatements or misinterpretations in common that cannot be addressed individually given the allowed length of my response. The arguments of 2 of these letters (Sartin and Goldfarb) are rather general, and the few objections that they raise in more detail are either misstated or irrelevant. For example, the history of homeopathy as rendered by Sartin is both simplistic and irrelevant because it does not deal with the tenets under discussion. Sartin also confuses different and opposite biological effects, although the article stresses the difference between them. As the response of Zsenits et al is the most specific and encompasses most of the arguments raised by Sartin and Goldfarb, I will address the objections of Zsenits et al specifically.
Eskinazi D. Homeopathy: One More Revision—Reply. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(9):1376-1377. doi: