Elena,

No apologies are required. I didn't expect you to supply that information. I could see from your previous posts that that would be impossible. I was just saying that, in the absence of such information, it is impossible to decide whether or not the homoeopathic treatment is helping (in your third case) or curing (in your first two cases). And, yes, even if you could supply the information, it would still just be anecdotal evidence which we know to be unreliable.

Also, two points:
I live in Australia, not the UK. In Australia, homoeopathy is hardly ever used. I am not concerning myself with cost but about evidence for effectiveness. I think this is very important.
And I hardly ever get angry, but I am concerned when there is clear evidence for effectiveness of some conventional treatment - for example, vaccinations - and alternative treatments, such as homoeopathy, are promoted for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In these cases people can be harmed. This concerns me, but I don't much is achieved by getting angry.

As for proof, meaning total 100% proof, there is rarely any such thing. Science rarely establishes 100% proof. Science is all about probabilities. But these probabilities are based on evidence. If there is no evidence for something, we have to initially assign a probability of zero. As more and more evidence accumulates, the probability goes up, but very rarely up to 100%. I like to keep an open mind on everything but I will not actually take anything "on-board" unless and untill the evidence starts accumulating.

Finally, just to be clear, there is plenty of things that I think are wrong, and sometimes badly wrong, with conventional and pharmaceutical organisations and treatments. I do not champion their causes. If I am "for" anything, I would say, I am a "for" evidence-based medicine..

regards,
BillyJoe