The lengths this guy will go to, in the name of skepticism, really bugs me. Skeptics are open minded and Randi is not, at least not on this topic. In the area of homeopathy he is a critic, not a skeptic.
I remember watching a special on PBS a few years ago (I really wish I could remember it's name) where somebody was attempting to take up his challenge to provide some proof of homeopathy in a proper double-blind study. Of course, they didn't prove any of homeopathy's claims BUT there were still significant differences between the reactions to homeopathic remedies and the reactions to placebos.
What I got from that special was that it seemed like SOMETHING was happening there. It isn't well understood but people are still attempting to take those observations and use them to form hypotheses that can be tested. Neither the hardcore pro or anti side of the debate has been able to prove their point to any degree of credible certainty.
I keep hearing claims that homeopathy isn't science. Geez... that sure sounds like science to me. It may or may not go anywhere but, to me, the people who say that it isn't science aren't really paying attention.
The only people who are being unscientific (or non-skeptical) about it are those who insist on taking hardline positions on the topic.