I know almost everyone here will pile disbelief upon ignorance and that's fine, but I would still like to stand up for homeopathy here - homeopathy note, not homeopaths of whom there are just as many shonky ones out there as there are bad mechanics.
I barely knew anything about it when I started studying naturopathy but I've seen it work again and again and the vehemence with which scientists and the scientifically-minded will refute it makes me all the more keen to support it, particularly when there ARE studies that indicate it's effectiveness. Even when The Lancet published it's discrediting article calling for The End of Homeopathy they had to admit to a bias later on and it's this censorship and refusal to entertain that there might be another way of considering high-dilution medicine rather than thinking they understand molecular science completely and reproducible apparent contradictions (see the first article I linked to) are to be laughed down.
When I've got some more time I'll post about what I mentioned in the autism thread about the alteration of water bonding, cellular memory and the contradiction of Avogadros Number. Hopefully there will be some people here who will look for an explanation as oppose to writing it off or referencing that hilarious Futurama episode.
I hope my links work, some of them are via Pubmed.
Here's an abstract to get Modi et al started.
Hormesis, epitaxy, the structure of liquid water, and the science of homeopathy
Author: Mastrangelo, D
Citation: MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR 13 (1): SR1-SR8 JAN 2007
Abstract: According to the western medical establishment, homeopathy is both ''unscientific'' and ''implausible''. A short overview of its history and the methods it uses, however, easily reveals that homeopathy is a true science, fully grounded on the scientific method and on principles, such as, among others, the Arndt-Schultz law, hormesis, and epitaxy, whose plausibility has been clearly and definitely demonstrated in a number of scientific publications and reports. Through a review of the scientific literature, an explanation of the basic principles of homeopathy is proposed based on arguments and evidence of mainstream science to demonstrate that, in spite of the claims of conventional medicine, homeopathy is both scientific and plausible and that there is no reasonable justification for its rejection by the western medical establishment. Hopefully, this hurdle will be overcome by opening academic institutions to homeopathy to enlarge the horizons of medical practice, recover the value of the human relationship with the patient, and through all this, offer the sick a real alternative and the concrete perspective of an improved quality of life.