Homeopathic medicine is a discredited theoretical explanation for a phenomenon that empirical testing shows does not exist. For 'homeopathy' to be right, it would need the to become 'right' twice - first: new data would need to begin existing, and then second: the homeopathic mechanisms would need to become the most plausible explanation for that data
>empirical testing shows does not exist..
But what are the incentives of those who did those tests? That should be said in the same breath as you say "empirical testing/evidence".