Homeo is just applied placebo. (1) it is based on an idea that statistically proves there is no active ingredient in the resulting solution. (2) it depends on the idea that water contains the "energy patterns" of the active ingredient ('the water has memory' line) in an undetecable form and undetectable concentration. That means that we are supposed to believe that the solution which is undetectable ... i.e. is chemically unreactive ... will still cause a reaction in the body. Yep you have to believe two completely contradictory conditions exist simulataneously in order for homeopathy to be valid.
Homeo is not an alt medicine, it is an alternative belief right up there with Norman Vincent Peal and Scientology. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it.. just embrace the wackiness.
I'd love to agree with Asok, but I was just cruising around on medline. The Cochrane analyses are coming back with placebo, but we've got some stuff like: "Homeopathy as replacement to antibiotics in the case of Escherichia coli diarrhoea in neonatal piglets." (Homeopathy. 2010 Jan;99(1):57-62.) If little piggies don't need to use antibiotics, we all benefit with less MRSA. So maybe trashing something that might save our bacon is funny, but not cool. I've got older medline studies supporting homeo at www.maloneymedical.com. Before you say I'm a believer, I use homeo like a wrench because sometimes it works great (within 60 seconds, like sublingual nitro). Do I need to believe in a wrench?