Papers related to the above domains are available at http://knol.google.com/k/scientific-research-in-homeopathy Which of them you would like to see?

Thus, note, my working assumption is that homeopathy does work—at least some of the times. Even if something works only “some” times, a curious onlooker can have enough material to seek to supply an explanation of it. That, I am doing. I emphatically have no wish to promote my blog (because doing so won’t even buy me a cup of coffee), but, if you, too, are curious, stay tuned for the next installments (I can’t promise when, only that I will, some time).

Now, a bit about this part of Akshat’s write-up:

“Homeopathy ‘works’ because of the placebo effect. It doesn’t matter if you are a sceptic, a baby or an animal – if people around you expect the treatment to work, it is more likely to.”

Aha! Forget the skeptic, but how I love it when you do include “a baby or an animal” in it. And, then, proceed, after the em-dash, to provide a hint at a sort of an explanation wherein you seem to attribute the efficacy of the homeopathic remedy to the “people around [the subject].”

As a believer in the psycho-somatic effects myself, this is good. However, you seem to go a bit farther than what I would care to once in the context of homeopathy. You seem to hint at a psycho-somatic effect wherein the psyche part belongs to one organism (the people around) and the somatic to the other (the baby or the animal). Such an extension of the pyscho-somatic effect, too, should not be ruled out, if you ask me. Yet, the really important point is to carefully note the distance you have already travelled in your attempt to deny homeopathy. Not entirely necessary, I say.

As written on my blog, I am (forever) in the process of providing an explanation of those effects of homeopathy in which even such psycho-somatic effects are nullified, via a carefully controlled protocol. (I need not spell out the fact *that* such protocols *can* easily be designed to you.)

Thus, my working hypothesis (and deep down in my mind, even my assertion) is that there is some effect, an effect rather pertaining to the material nature of a living organism, that still remains even after we subtract the psycho-somatic ones (whether these last refer to one and the same organism or, to, as you imply, to different ones). It is this last effect that I seek to explain, for which I do seem to have a hypothesis to offer.

One last point. I am surprised by the lack of reference to the so-called provings procedures, in most critiques of homeopathy, certainly the absence of it in the present one.

At this point someone suggested homeopathy. I now use homeopathy and now get tonsillitis about twice a year. On starting the course, the symptoms disappear within 2-3 days, as compared to close to 6 days with the stronger dose of allopathic medicine. I have been told by the doctor that if I complete a proper course for 2 months even the biannual attacks of tonsillitis should disappear but frankly I couldnt be bothered taking pills when I am not suffering from anything.

You could dismiss this as anecodtal. However, the basic premise of your argument is that homeopathic medicine cures the symptoms and not the disease. However, in this case allopthic meds failed to cure either. And it could be argued that in this case alopathic medicine could be the placebo effect. And I havent blamed fate for homeopathy not working becuase it has worked every time.

So what would you suggest? Homeopathic may be fudgy. But it works for me. And 62% of Indians. There must be a reason for that. People are skeptical of modern medicine and the side effects.