.
OK, I'm being a pedant. But the vast majority of homoeopathic remedies are not water.Well, most people drink water......
What makes me sicker is the BBC report about it. Look at the journal title. Look at the authors. Does this look like an objective scientific paper? To be fair, they did get Egger to comment, but they really should have said where the Spence paper was published. What's more, Spence is a consultant paid by the NHS!!!!! What the hell is going on here? Come on guys, let's see some letters to the editor, and possibly some complaints to the BBC.
On reflection there's no point in writing letters to the journal - they will almost certainly not be published. Interesting though to look at letters on other topics. For some reason Lewith and Peters are writing to this comp alt med journal about papers that appeared in The Lancet etc. Prime example of how the sCAM community sticks together. Is this what they mean by integration?
Oops, so it's fine if you think you like the outcome (even if you have misinterpreted what that outcome is!), but not if you don't. They also wax wroth about the omission of the infamous Linde et al. 1997 paper, which is about all they've got to cling to. Of course the paper was discredited by multiple re-analyses of the original data, including two retractions by the original authors, but that's never stopped the homoeopaths waving it in the air like a victory banner.
That is just what they do. Our friend Neil ("Bach") recently claimed that since his basic assumption is that homeopathy works, then it is logicaly consistent for him to asume that tests that yield a negative results are faulty
. I wonder if he would accept that I deemed a positive trial faulty, solely on the premise that homeopathy doesn't work? Or would he cry "bias!" 
? Well, I suppose we'll have to wait for a positive trial to test that .
Dry mountains, stones, cactus trees, deserts, ocean, camels....can think, why people drink so much water as it has no/least use and nutrients? But they may be wrong in common sense.
Just in case anyone wants to see this in all its, er, "glory", here's his article, and here's some discussion of it...That is just what they do. Our friend Neil ("Bach") recently claimed that since his basic assumption is that homeopathy works, then it is logicaly consistent for him to asume that tests that yield a negative results are faulty
No sadly I missed that. I do strongly urge all fellow sceptics to complain to broadcasters about unbalanced and disingenuous reporting. I have just sent in another one about the BBC website's reporting of the Spence paper. Of course, they won't agree. I even had one complaint escalated to the BBC governors, with support from a leading authority in the field, but they still fobbed it off. But it's extremely quick and easy to lodge a complaint, and if enough people do it they will eventually take notice. At present of course they take more notice of complaints of blasphemy than they do of irrationality. Very sadly there seem to be far more religious extremists in the world than there are critical thinkers.