here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post piece by homeopath Dana Ullman [see 001., below]:
001. Ullman writes in "Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously" (2011-01-30):
"Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, has surprised the scientific community with his strong support for homeopathic medicine [...] most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used. Most clinical research conducted on homeopathic medicines that has been published in peer-review journals have shown positive clinical results [...] Montagnier [...say] 'high dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules' [...] electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects [...] although skeptics of homeopathy may assume that homeopathic doses are still too small to have any biological action, such assumptions have also been proven wrong [except for the fact that they have been proven RIGHT]."
Note: it is interesting to see someone so adamant about sugar pills. It is quite interesting. I think Montagnier has gone off the science reservation, so to speak, much like Pauling did. Separating out Ullman's sophistry [which he is quite good at, actually], quality evidence does not exist that homeopathy works. It is so irrational, in fact, that it is labeled implausible. And that's based upon ALL the evidence.