) Mind, to which they attribute cures, does not have any quantifiable active ingredient. So, bringing mind to explain cures turns out to be a self-defeating argument for them. (2) Homoeopathy benefits not only ordinary mortals, but also celebrities, babies, animals and plants. Cures in all these cases can not be attributed to power of mind. (3) Cures by power of mind are stray intrusions into our day-to-day life giving us a glimpse of mind-matter duality realized by yogis and saints. Even accepting mental cures it is unreasonable to say that only the patients cured by homoeo-medicines (and not by main stream medicines) had the capability to invoke this duality principle. (4) Skeptics argue that a patient thinks that homoeopathic pills will be curative and that thinking cures him/her. The point is, such an effect was expected to be much stronger for pills of mainstream medicines. For, qualification of doctors, glamour of testing gadgets, medicines etc. all go in favour of the main stream. So, diagnosis, prescription etc. would have been irrelevant issues. But, the reality is different. (5) Nobody depends on placebo for curing his/her own illness. It implies that nobody ‘really’ believes in placebo-cure. We appreciate the limit posed by Avogadro number. But, we are not in favour of bluntly denying the two-century old homoeo-system of medicine. Rather, we may proceed with serious investigation on the fundamental question of homoeopathy: Wherein lies the medicinal value of potentised homoeo-medicines? In other words, how one of such medicines differs from another? Chemical presence of the original medicinal substance (with which potentisation starts) is ruled out. So, chemical test for identifying these drugs will be of no avail. So, it is the need of formatting suitable scientific technique which can strongly fight this two century old challenge.