Imagine the number of citations you could get for a solid double blind study that showed homeopathy to beat placebo. The only better impact I could imagine would be showing that climate change doesn’t actually exist.
There's enough money in 'crank health' that, if it were possible to publish something that might have a chance of lending some credibility (and thus expanding the breadth of the vulnerable customer base), then I would think it would have been done already.
This implies to me that the counter-evidence is strong and complete enough to discourage 'investment' into such a pursuit.
But there is many order of magnitude more money invested in preventing the publication of something like that..
All the "reputed" journals who gets funded by pharma would not touch such a study, despite any merits it have. This is so apparent to anyone who is not completely oblivious of how the world work that no one in their right mind will even attempt to fund such a study...
They need to wait for someone not in their right mind then. Has RFK been petitioned?
(this is not a serious reply, my apologies. I get that entrenched views are very difficult to change, hence the phrase "Science advances one funeral at a time", and funding sources are bias-generating - refer oil companies and climate change. Having said that, isn't any human that drinks any water taking part in homeopathy? I mean, dehydrated folks are likely to be less healthy than hydrated folks, but I think that's a case of correlation doesn't imply causation)
It is really funny when people claim that Trump just want his friends to make money.
Will someone explain to me how all Trumps friends are making money from pseudo science and not from the biggest and ever growing pharma business, that he appoints someone like RFK in that position.
You get funding for such a study the same way you get funding for anything else: first you run cheap small studies, perhaps in mice, perhaps observational, that show an interesting effect and motivate why you need money to run a proper clinical study.
I think you should look into NCCAM funding[1], how much that was, and how many useful treatments came out of it, before speculating that 'funding for the research to be undertaken' is the issue stalling clinical acceptance of complementary/alternative treatments like homeopathy. I do believe the amount was about 2 billion US dollars.
Here is an insightful comment [1] in this thread but it is "dead" now, thanks to the down votes of true believers of "science". Any study that goes against the narrative despite any of the merits, would suffer the same fate as this comment.