Seeing as I made a list of what lesser scholarly inclined would call “evidence for homeopathy“, I find it only fitting to also provide a a few studies that show no effect of homeopathy. These are only a few, you can find tons more on pubmed, or wikipedia.
Note, that many of these are meta studies which means it’s a study of several other studies (usually some poor ones). This means there will often be some weak results saying there is an effect other than placebo. This is caused by poor studies (methodological flaws, insufficient randomization, ineffective blinding, confirmation and publication biases, etc..) that are “averaged” into the results of the meta study.
A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy (link)
“In conclusion, the hypothesis that any given homeopathic remedy leads to clinical effects that are relevantly different from placebo or superior to other control interventions for any medical condition, is not supported by evidence from systematic reviews”
Homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments (link)
“The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition”
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects (link)
“This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects”
Clinical trials of homoeopathy (link)
“At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias”
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials (link)
“the results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition”
Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy (link)
“There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies”
Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy (link)
“We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.”
The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture (link)
“While the methodological quality of the trials was highly variable, the majority had important shortcomings in reporting and/or methodology.”
Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach? (link)
“Contrary to many claims by homeopaths, there is no conclusive evidence that highly dilute homeopathic remedies are different from placebos. The benefits that many patients experience after homeopathic treatment are therefore most probably due to nonspecific treatment effects. Contrary to widespread belief, homeopathy is not entirely devoid of risk. Thus, the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies, beyond the beneficial effects of placebos, do not outweigh the potential for harm that this approach can cause”
Efficacy of homeopathic arnica (link)
“The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials”
A systematic review of the quality of homeopathic pathogenetic trials published from 1945 to 1995 (link)
“The central question of whether homeopathic medicines in high dilutions can provoke effects in healthy volunteers has not yet been definitively answered, because of methodological weaknesses of the reports”
Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment (link)
“Our analysis of published literature on homeopathy found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer care”
Homeopathy for chronic asthma (link)
“here is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma”
Homeopathy for dementia (link)
“In view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia”
Homoeopathy for induction of labour (link)
“There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction”
Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study of homoeopathic prophylaxis of migraine (link)
“Overall, there was no significant benefit over placebo of homoeopathic treatment”
Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy (link)
“The results of the available randomized trials suggest that individualized homeopathy has an effect over placebo. The evidence, however, is not convincing because of methodological shortcomings and inconsistencies.”
The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers (link)
“There is no indication that belladonna 30CH produces symptoms different from placebo or from no intervention”
Comparison of homeopathy, placebo and antibiotic treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cows (link)
“Evidence of efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond placebo was not found in this study”
Homeopathic Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness after long-distance running (link)
“Homeopathic Arnica 30x is ineffective for muscle soreness following long-distance running”
I just had to include this. not often the conclusion and title are identical 
