Conclusion This thread remains quite informative for new understanding about how those who believe in homeopathy will do everything they can to ignore what doesn't support their case. So thanks to all. It is concluded that there is a chronic stupidity held by some for thinking that the more potent homeopathic dilutions contain any active ingredient. No justification for the molecular presence of actual active ingredient in the dilutions has been provided, only for the presence of other non-water molecules (such as natural pollutants etc), which is not disputed. Instead the "believer" simply returns to their claim of having provided "6 justifications" despite repeated efforts to show why their thinking is flawed. The "believer" fails to address those flaws, and thus confirms, repeatedly, that they are a Troll. The next thing the "believer" does is remove homeopathy from the remit of science, and claim that all scientific studies of homeopathy are flawed as they are not "individualised", and that the studies did not give remedies in the manner given in practice. What the "believer" fails to realise is that this therefore suggests that the efficacy in homeopathy is not in the remedy but in the "making the patient feel special", or "bedside manner" of the practitioner, which would go some way toward explaining why homeopathy works no better than a placebo. This will be lost on the "believer" because it does not paint homeopathy in a positive light. They will ignore the point, and likely just point to their "6 justifications" again, or again argue why science is not how homeopathy should be examined. The "believer" will also point to studies that appear to show the efficacy of the homeopathic remedies, although they won't have the necessary controls in place to show whether or not the efficacy is superior or not to that of a placebo. But, because these studies show an efficacy, the "believer" will claim these studies to be appropriately done. The "believer" will likely also point to studies that show a negative outcome as being "inappropriately done". The "believer" will thereby attempt to put homeopathy outside of that which can show it to work no better then placebo, and due to the lack of active ingredient (to which they will continue to bleat back to their "6 justifications") that homeopathy is nothing but placebo. However, disliking this conclusion when it is reached by some, the "believer" will try to argue that the efficacy being due to a stimulus response must mean that it is not a placebo. Alas, this starts from the false premise that there is any active ingredient with which to provide said stimulus (to which the "believer" might start to head down the pathological water science route to come up with a further explanation beyond their flawed "6 justification"), but also does not address the issue that the remedies work no better than a placebo. This will be lost on the "believer". In fact any argument against homeopathy will simply not be addressed by the "believer", such is their strong tendency toward dishonest and Troll-like behaviour. Hope you will agree on it. Thanks.