How Should a Supporter of Homeopathy Combat the Arguments of its Skeptics on Social Media?

A good example of a method to combat the skeptics' arguments can be read in the comment section of the Jerome Burne article of April 28, 2014 "Homeopathy and the Threat of Endarkenment" Read it HERE

I particularly liked the comment on May 17, 2014 at 10:07 p.m. by Janice, a staunch supporter and user of homeopathy. I have included it below:

"Hats off to all who have written at length to counter the fallicious claims of sceptics who attempt to hi-jack every debate at the mere mention of homeopathy. It is clear that the agenda is attack homopathy rather than engage in the actual debate. Sometimes we humour them and respond to their repetive lies with facts. We know it’s pointless but I suppose a sense of morality comes into play when we encounter lies about alternative medicine and always from the same unqualified people.

I think now would be a good juncture to turn back to the original discussion. I ended up here in the first place as a result of breaking news about yet another failure of a trialled drug which prompted me to renew my research into the many problems with RCT’s. There are clearly problems. I believe that AllTrials was set up to camplaign for more transparency in drug trials-which is something we all want. Clearly hidden data and financial interests have sought to hide dangers and resulted in deaths. We know with 100% certainty that pharmaceutical drugs have dangerous side effects which can be fatal. No-one disputes this fact.

The question Jerome poses is simple-why don’t these sceptics direct their crusade against pharmaceutical companies when the evidence is overwhelming that their methods of testing are faulty and as such result in hundreds of thousands of unneccessary deaths?

It is an interesting question. Homeopathic remedies have not been shown ANYWHERE EVER to directly cause harm to ANYONE. This is in direct contrast to pharmaceutical drugs.

No sceptic actually answers the question. Why the blogs, the twittering, the websites and campaigns against homeopathy when then there is no evidence that homeopathic remedies cause harm?

It is curious indeed. The sceptics will respond by saying that they are campaigning as well for transparency in drug trials. But there is no where near the vitriol or enthusiasm exhibited towards this latter campaign as there is against homeopathy-despite the fact that the latter-pharmaceutical drugs-have been shown to do great harm.

I have no wish to keep going round in circles with the sceptics debating the efficacy of homeopathy. I don’t actually care what sceptics believe about it. I am confident in my experience of receiving and practicing homeopathy that it has helped me and others in ways that are life-changing. That is more important to me than what the pharmaceutical companies come up with in trials. Even in the highly unlikely event that they ever come up for some water-tight trial. I personally don’t want to take toxic substances. Since I began using homeopathy, I haven’t had the health problems I used to have. And that’s thanks to a homeopathy clinic in an NHS hospital and being treated by a medical doctor. And yet the sceptics on here have the audacity to call such people quacks.

I have no issue with people who question homeopathy; granted it is not something that fits neatly into current mainstream thinking in healthcare in the UK-which is pharmaceutically based. But is this a problem? For sceptics yes, for homeopathy users no.

So where do we go from here in this debate? I guess it’d be good to hear from a militant sceptic as to why all the blogging with bells on about homeopathy but such great paucity of commentary from these same people when it comes to the failings of pharmaceutical drugs. The sceptic fervour against homeopathy is quite a phenomenon in itself. The devotees of this particular crusade are so ferverent in their campaigning that they would make an evangelical preacher blush. As Jerome has stated:

“The “endarkenment” point, however, turns out to be very enlightening. It explains why those bashing homeopathy and other CAM practices are so rude and aggressive. They are engaged in a crusade. Armies of the light battling against forces of darkness. This, ironically, puts them in an ideological or even religious camp rather than a scientific one. Hear hear!"

Another post by Janice on 5/19/14 (also quoted below) is HERE

"Maria-I’m sure your husband Alan Henness will appreciate you posting on his behalf. I haven’t posted any defammatory lies about Alan. I have given my opinion that he seems obsessive to the point of religious mania about homeopathy and I have linked to a leaflet for one of his ‘talks’ where he sets out his plan to attack homeopathy via ASA and the MHRA. He regularly calls individual alternative medicine practionioners “loons” and every derogatory name imaginable. And yet he cries out “how dare you!” when someone does it to him. The hypocrisy is unfathomable!

Jerome concludes that sceptics (and I think it’s safe to say that Alan is one) are more in an idealogical or religious camp that a scientific one- I am of the same opinion-which I have expressed in various ways. I don’t believe it is defamatory to express my opinion.

I have questioned why he is involved with a website that promotes the right to choose to die but at the same time campaigns to limit people’s choices in healthcare. He hasn’t answered. Not of that is defamatory. The fact that I know he has no qualifications in homeopathy-because he himself has said so-has led me to the opinion that he is uneducated on that particular discipline. That’s just my opinion and anyone is free to argue differently.

And finally I would question why you are involved in the campaign for the right to choose to die but at the same time campaigning to limit people’s choices in healthcare? The two campaigns which both you and your husband are engaged in seem incompatible on a moral level. Your campaign against alternative medicine and subsequent efforts to make it unavailable to the public does not indicate that you believe people should have choice in these matters.

Either you believe that people have the right to choose how they want to manage their health (including how they die) or you don’t. Which is it? Or is it just the case that you believe that people should have the right to choose how they manage their health (including how they die) so long as they choose the bits that you agree with?"