In an excellent article, Lionel Milgrom PhD discusses the new development of a narrow minded “scientism” movement that is opposing homeopathy. He distinguishes real science from scientism as he says scientism is a narrow minded belief system and unscientific.
The article is extremely well written in both an accessible and academic style. It provides an insight into a “draconian approach” to medicine and homeopathy. It also points out that some of the main opponents of homeopathy, (who have financially benefited from their opposition) are also academically bereft. The article is an important read as to what is happening in the UK and around the world.
Lionel Milgrom comes with a strong expert background in science but at the same time has fully embraced homeopathy. He has been in practice as a professional homeopath (LCH, MARH, RHom) for over a decade. He has also had a parallel career as a research scientist for well over 30 years, with over 70 academic papers published in leading chemistry journals (BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC). Lionel also writes and comments about science and been a sometime broadcaster on the subject.”
He goes onto say that scientism is
Best described by British geneticist Professor Steve Jones as part of a, “….broad church full of narrow minds trained to know even more about even less.”,
Milgrom describes how two individuals have purposely promulgated unsubstantiated opinions about homeopathy as fact:
Nevertheless, Baum and Ernst continuously assert the results of homeopathic prescribing lack efficacy beyond a placebo response.  Closer examination of this claim reveals that it is based on just two systematic reviews, both by Ernst: [25, 26] as if his are the only … studies, and that those of others [21, 22, 24, 27-29] should be discounted. But vaunting hubris aside, Baum and Ernst are just plain wrong: by end of 2009, 142 RCTs of homeopathy had been published in peer-reviewed journals. In terms of statistically significant results, 74 of these trials were able to draw firm conclusions; 63 were positive (patients given a homeopathic medicine improved significantly more than the comparison group given either an inactive placebo or established conventional treatment), and 11 were negative (no significant difference was seen between the action of the homeopathic medicine and the comparison group). 
Fortunately, their scientific ‘fundamentalism’ is not shared by all in medicine. Thus, top UK cancer clinician Karol Sikora (around 60% of whose patients use some form of CAM as adjuvant therapies) roundly excoriated attempts by what he calls ‘inexperienced’, ‘armchair physicians’, to tell him how to do his job, while at the same time excoriating their attempts to rid the NHS of its CAM services as ‘Stalinist’.