Richard Dawkins debates homeopathy with Dr. Peter Fisher (2007)

Richard Dawkins made a television documentary called "The enemies of reason" in 2007. A large portion of the first part of the documentary is on homeopathy. You can watch it here. While I think it was a pretty good documentary that consisted of legitimate criticism, it was edited for television and was focused on "gotcha" moments. I think it also missed out on an educational opportunity to explain the rigorous methods of a well conducted randomized controlled trial. I recently ran across Dr. Peter Fisher's defence of NHS funding for homeopathy in the 'uncut' interview with Dawkins from the documentary.

This was probably the best defence of homeopathy I have ever seen. Despite this, with his usual style, Dawkins had Dr. Fisher on the ropes the entire time without even citing the evidence for a lack of homeopathic efficacy. Admittedly Dr. Fisher is an easy target, however I would hate to have to debate Dawkins on any subject. He finds common ground, concedes valid points, asks great questions, and lets his opponent talk him/herself into tight corners. From my biased perspective, in this interview Dawkins essentially had Dr. Fisher admit that homeopathy is a form of placebo. However, is there any context in which homeopathy could provide a safe, cost-effective treatment that is completely placebo? Probably not, however water is pretty cheap and safe.