More poor mousies, rats and some guinea pigs as well...
There have been over 100 animal studies, clinical or laboratory controlled, evaluating the prophylactic and therapeutic effects of homeopathic doses of normally toxic substances. A collaborative effort of scientists from German research institutions and from Walter Reed Hospital performed a meta-analysis of these studies. Ref: . Linde, W.B. Jonas, D. Melchart, D., et al., "Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology," Human and Experimental Toxicology, 1994, 13:481-92. The researchers found that many of the studies were flawed in some way. However, of the high quality studies, positive results were found 50% more often than negative results. What was particularly intriguing was that researchers who tested doses in the submolecular range (potencies greater than 24x) were found to have the best designed studies and more frequently found statisticially significant results from these microdoses. Specifically, several researchers gave, usually to rats, crude doses of arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, mercury chloride, or lead. The research showed that animals who were pretreated with homeopathic doses of these substances and then given repeated homeopathic doses after exposure to the crude substance, excreted more of these toxic substances through urine, feces, and sweat than did those animals given a placebo. Several studies noted that pretreatment and treatment with potentized doses of substances different from those to which the animal was being exposed did not provide any benefit.
Researchers A.R. Khuda-Bukhsh, S. Banik, "Assessment of Cytogenetic Damage in X-irradiated Mice and its Alteration by Oral Administration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Ginseng D200," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1991, 1,4/5:254. Also Khuda-Bukhsh, A.R. Maity, S., "Alteration of Cytogenetic Effects by Oral Administration of Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Ruta graveolens in Mice Exposed to Sub-lethal X-radiation," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1991 explored the benefits of homeopathic preps to protect against radiation. Albino mice were exposed to 100 to 200 rad of X-rays (sublethal doses) and then evaluated after 24, 48, and 72 hours. Ginseng 6x, 30x, and 200x and Ruta graveolens 30x and 200x were administered before and after exposure. When compared with mice given placebo as treatment, mice given any of the above homeopathic medicines experienced significantly less chromosomal or cellular damage. Although I still don't understand how the placebo effect works in a lab mouse who doesnt know it is getting any treatment ... assuming there is a psychological component to the placebo effect.
In J. Bildet, M. Guyot, F. Bonini, et al., "Demonstrating the Effects of Apis mellifica and Apium virus Dilutions on Erythema Induced by U.V. Radiation on Guinea Pigs," Berlin Journal of Research in Homeopathy, 1990, 1:28. albino guinea pigs were exposed to small doses of X-ray cause reddening of the skin. Studies showed that Apis mellifica 7c or 9c had a protective effect and a roughly 50% curative effect on X-ray-induced redness of the skin.
In one series of my favorite studies (I have written several books on frogs and salamanders) Thyroxine 30x (thyroid hormone) was placed in the water of tadpoles. When compared to tadpoles who were given a placebo, the study showed, morphogenesis of the tadpoles into frogs was slowed for those who were exposed to the homeopathic doses. Because thyroid hormone in crude doses is known to speed up morphogenesis, it makes sense from a homeopathic perspective that homeopathic doses would slow it down.
P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, G. Kastberg, et al., "The Effect of Highly Diluted Agitated Thyroxine on the Climbing Activity of Frogs," Veterinary and Human Toxicology, 1994, 36:56.
P.C. Endler, W. Pongratz, R. van Wijk, et al., "Transmission of Hormone Information by Non-molecular Means," FASEB Journal, 1994, 8, Abs.2313.
I could go on but why bother? I hope the above series of posts on animal studies involving these preparations meets the demands of the poster(s) who were incredulous regarding their
existence. These are just a few I found easily. Many of such studies are by non-homeopaths or in collaboration with non-homeopaths and basic scientists who don't otherwise have an interest or any belief systems involving homeopathy ... at least not until they had done their research. Yet another reason "further" research needs to be done before we close the door on this interesting subject.
from Israel: 
This appears to be the modus operandi for homeopathic researchers - use ridiculously low numbers of subjects per cell and then tinker with the data to feather out a statistically significant effect. 