Evidence to the contrary. There have been five meta-analyses Kleijnen and Knipschild which looked at 107 research papers. Boissel and Cucherat looked at 15 studies. Linde Analyzed 89 studies. Two Mathie analyzed 93 studies the other 32. All meta-studies concluded that evidence of clinical trial went in favor of homeopathy rather than placebo. That is my only and final comment on the matter :)))
The very first problem with this idea is that it sweeps under the rug all of the experience of millions of people whose disease they no longer suffer from. In other words science adapts theory to experiment. The critics adapt the other way around. It cannot work because there is nothing in it. This argument has repeated itself over and over in the last 100’s of year. For example when Christopher Columbus said the earth is round, scientists said it could not be because we would fall off of it when going around the world. The same elementary argument was given the Galileo, Newton etc… today Prof Luc Montagnier and anybody else who does not fit the mold.
Miasm are a method of classification. In the case of homeopathy, the similarity of the symptoms of a remedy to the disease classifies both at the same time. Like cures like. So Belladonna belongs to the acute miasm, right? One takes belladonna not because of the acute miasm but because of the similarity of it to the illness. Therefore, one cannot clear a miasm because the miasm is an abstraction. One cannot take Carcinosinum to clear cancer. Though I know some people do that it does not make sense at all once we understand that what a miasm is.
Lastly, people know three miasms but today I could not work with less than 18 miasms. There is a very practical aspect to that number. The table of elements has 18 columns that represent 18 stages or 18 miasms.