i'm agnostic so no ,but that's not the point ,i meant scientific researches ,doctor's opinion etc ...
Here you have random paper from the Nature:
After a lengthy review process, in which the referees insisted on seeing evidence that the effect could be duplicated in three other independent laboratories, Nature published the paper. The editor, John Maddox, prefaced it with an editorial comment entitled 'When to believe the unbelievable', which admitted: "There is no objective explanation of these observations."
Naturally, the paper caused a sensation. "Homeopathy finds scientific support," claimed Newsweek. But no one, including Benveniste, gave much attention to the critical question of how such a 'memory' effect could be produced.
You're asking me to show you a paper writing that homeopathy doesn't work. There is no reliable paper showing why taking sugar should would be more effective than any other placebo.
Instead I ask you to show me a paper from Science or Nature supporting use of homeopathics or explaining how it should work.
I don't ask you for doctors opinion because most of them are not scientists and they don't prescribe other placebo to patients in order to check weather homeopathics are any better.
The medicinal claims of homeopathy are unsupported by the collective weight of modern scientific research - outside of the CAM community, scientists have long regarded homeopathy as a sham. There is an overall absence of sound statistical evidence of therapeutic efficacy, which is consistent with the lack of any biologically plausible pharmacological agent or mechanism. Abstract concepts within theoretical physics have been invoked to suggest explanations of how or why remedies might work, including quantum entanglement, the theory of relativity and chaos theory.