"Some homeopathic remedies fare better than equivalent pharmaceuticals."
That is pretty general, practically meaningless statement. Even Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch admits that certain homeopathic remedies work. This is far different than demonizing the entire pharmaceutical industry, like quite a few alternative medicine advocates. The placebo effect is real, and some home remedies do have a plausible mechanism of action.
Do you hear Ron Paul defending homeopathy with the dilutions? Or magnet therapy? Or subluxation? Or accusing vaccines of causing autism? No.
And who said anything about the courts? Defending medicine is not the same thing as defending the actions of a corporation. I would hope that Ron Paul would be opposed to fraud.
There are a bunch of people in alternative medicine who don't distinguish between a good and the actions of the corporation producing the good. If I defend the science behind a drug, someone inevitably twists it around to portray me as somehow supporting fraudulent activity by a corporation. It's childish debating, if you can even call it that.
**Edit** I just realized you mean Ron Paul said homeopathic remedies are far better.
I call BULLSHIT on this claim. Prove to me that Ron Paul has said they are far better.
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its o