Why is homeopathy derided?

REAL CURE. GENTLE CURE.
Just check out the news on the web about homeopathy. Chances are nine out of ten times the report will be adverse. Things like "homeopathy is nothing more than placebo", "homeopathy does not stand up to scientific scrutiny" or more uncharitably, Homeopathy is bull shit!".

I do not understand one thing. The masters of homeopathy never said homeopathy was pure science. Homeopathy is science and art. It is both. It is philosophy. Then why is it being judged on the yardstick of pure science? I would advise the adherents of allopathy to stop attacking. They don't know the abc of homeopathy. Have they read the basic books on homeopathy. No!

Homeopathy was a rage in the United States in the nineteenth century. More and more homeopathic hospitals were being built. The brightest minds were opting for homeopathy as an career. Kent, Von Lippe and H. C. Allen were national figures. The decline of homeopathy began in that country because the homeopathy case-taking (if properly done) takes a long time. A homeopathic physician at best see ten to fifteen patients every day. Allopathy scored over it as a allopathy physician takes at most ten to fifteen minutes per patient. So he can see more patients and earn more money. The general public too was attracted by the quickness. It is another point that allopathy most of the time palliates or suppresses a disease, which emerges in a new form in another part of the body. In contrast homeopathy cures. Most people don't understand this. The homeopathy has no millionaire doctors and multi-billion dollar drug firms to educate the public and publicize it.

The very fact that despite all this it survives today and is increasingly thriving is proof of its utility. It is said when the best doctors give up on a case that the patient goes to a homeopathic doctor as a last desperate attempt to be cured. Homeopathy never fails them. For chronic diseases, there is no other system of medicine but homeopathy.

In India, the government has a separate department of homeopathy and actively encourages its spread. The country's homeopathic colleges give forth thousands of homeopaths every year. Are they all fools. Would all this happen if homeopathy was nothing but placebo? Remember that the Indian culture is one of the oldest in the world. If Indians have embraced homeopathy as its own, there must be much more in it than what some allopathic physicians with narrow intellect and closed mind say it is.

The great Germans Hahnemann (founder of homeopathy) and Count Boeninghausen, great American homeopaths Adolph Lippe, Constantine Hering, Kent, H. C. Allen, English homeopath Clarke. All great homeopaths of the nineteenth century. Were they all quacks? Those who belittle homeopathy; have they heard of them? Have they read their works? I would advise them to do so before they say a word about homeopathy.

The present masters of homeopathy. Flemish Kockelenberg, Dockx, Greek Vithoulkas, American Roger Morrison, Canadian Andre Saine, Dutch Van Zandvoort and Jan Scholten, Indian genius homeopath Rajan Sankaran. Are they all fools? Or quacks? Or tricksters? Mere peddlers of placebo?

Think again ladies and gentlemen, who pass adverse comments on homeopathy. You have a lot to learn.

Related
-- WHO speaks against Homoeopathy: Is it justified?
-- Lovers of Homoeopathy: Now is the time to act
-- WHO advice against Homoeopathy: Another attempt to deride ...
-- IGNORAMUSES AND VESTED INTERESTS IN BRITAIN: STAY OFF HOMOEOPATHY