To start with, let me give you an interesting link to take a look at:  http://www.quackwatch.com
This is a fairly interesting site managed by people who want you to believe I am a quack.  Their articles are quite convincing.  In fact, I read several of their articles and found that I agree with most of their statements.  However, when it came to their article on homeopathy I found it to be quite misleading. 

  The easiest way to pooh-pooh something is to tell mostly the truth about it, but to also introduce some seemingly minor wrong facts which in the end totally negate all of the truth that was said.  Nonetheless, the reader minimally knowledgeable about the subject will see most of the true facts, recognize them as truth and be impressed.  They will usually miss the small lies and will totally fall under the power of the flawed argument. 

This is what Dr. Barrett did with homeopathy.  He gives accurate history, theory and scientific facts, then tells some small untruths about research and makes a completely incorrect conclusion. 

I wrote to Dr. Barrett the following message: 

I looked through your site.  Most of the info you have is quite valuable 
and I tell my patients the same things.  Unfortunately, some of it must 
be wrong and I would have a very hard time figuring out what exactly is 
wrong not being educated in most of the subjects you discuss.  The 
reason I am saying this is because while your article on Homeopathy is 
mostly factually correct, its conclusion is totally wrong. 
I can say this because I am an expert on the subject.  I am also a board 
certified internist.  In fact, I teach conventional medicine to lay 
homeopaths.  Therefore, I like to think of myself as one who really 
understands both sides of this particular issue. 
Check out my site @ http://www.demystify.com 
Here you will find my whole book, my CV and just about anything about 
myself that you would ever want. 
In a few days I will hopefully have a place to put links on my site, 
then I intend to link to your site.  The purpose of the link will be to 
demonstrate to general public how you and your colleagues in quack 
busting community operate:  present mostly correct information with only 
seemingly minor misstatements followed by a completely wrong conclusion, 
thereby misinforming the public.  We could have a lively debate.  I am a 
scientist, and you will not have such an easy time proving me wrong as 
you would people who don't understand logic. 
Are you up to it? 
I will not call you names, I will not accuse you of being in collusion 
with the AMA or the drug companies ( in fact I have very little against 
either).  My only goal is to provide information to people and allow 
them to make an informed decision.  If you want the same, make some 
space on your site and lets have a debate.  This letter and your reply 
will be posted on my site. 
Jacob 

I did not get any answer for about two years.  Then I got a few emails from some people from Quackwatch's bulletin board participants.  At first there were some questions about Homeopathy, particularly how it can be proven.  I explained to them that nobody knows how it works but there are studies to prove that it does.  This opened a barrage of abusive insulting emails calling me a quack and demanding proof.  It appeared that many participants of their bulletin board were involved.  These emails were very emotional in nature and I had a hard time introducing logic into the conversation.  Finally I said that if they want to discuss science I would more than happy to do so and that we should discuss a particular article from a proper medical journal that seems to prove that homeopathy works.  I offered to fax the article to one of the people who seemed to have some logic left in him and then discuss it on line.  He agreed and I promptly faxed the article on the use of Homeopathy in influenza.  Following this all communication from the quackwatch list seized.  I tried to contact the people I was corresponding with, but none of them responded to my messages.  This was rather interesting.  I can't believe all of them suddenly decided to not talk to me.  I think they are all a single person trying to make it look like there is a discussion going on.  My God!  The lengths these people will go to to try to discredit something they hate for some reason!

Several years after writing the above I discovered this web site devoted to discrediting the "quackbusters".  It is a must see:
http://www.quackpotwatch.org

The following is here because I have not figured out where to put it yet.

Here is an interesting question:  What is less expensive in the long run, conventional medicine or homeopathy?...  My patient sent me this article via email:

Homeopathy May Reduce Health-Care Costs 
 
NEWTOWN SQUARE, Pa.--(BW HealthWire) via NewsEdge Corporation -- --Physicians 
using homeopathy may help America cut health-care costs-- 

This possibility emerges from an article published in the November/December 
issue of the Archives of Family Medicine(1), which reported that physicians 
using homeopathy spent more time than the national average with each patient, 
but ordered fewer tests and prescribed fewer conventional medicines. 

The authors--Jennifer Jacobs, MD, MPH, Edward H. Chapman, MD, DHt, and Dean 
Crothers, MD -- also found that patients who see homeopathic physicians are 
younger, more affluent, and more likely to be seeking treatment for a chronic 
condition than those seen by a cross-section of general and family-practice 
physicians. 

The authors surveyed 27 physicians who specialize in homeopathy, soliciting 
information about their patients. They compared these findings with national 
statistics on patients treated by general and family-practice physicians. 

Their findings complement data published in France, where 40% of the 
physicians use homeopathic medicines in their daily practice. Their 
homeopathic prescriptions are covered by the government-backed health system. 

According to a 1991 report published by the French government, the total 
costs associated with homeopathic care per physician were about half those 
associated with conventional physicians. On a per patient basis, homeopathic 
care cost 15% less. 

Per-patient savings for homeopathic care were less dramatic than total 
savings because homeopathic physicians in France spend more time with each 
patient and therefore see significantly fewer patients. The French government 
also found that the longer a physician uses homeopathy, the more savings 
seen. 

A 1996 French report on prescription costs found that homeopathic medicines 
account for 5% of all medicines prescribed in France, though they represent 
only 1.2% of all drug reimbursements due to their lower cost per 
prescription. This report also noted that patients under the care of 
homeopathic physicians take many fewer sick days--3.5 times fewer--than those 
under the care of conventional general practitioners. 

"When our study is matched with French-government reports, we can see the 
possibility of remarkable cost-savings associated with the practice of 
homeopathy," says Jennifer Jacobs, MD, MPH, one of the authors of the 
Archives article. "This possibility is underscored by the fact that 
homeopathic physicians in America often treat chronic problems, such as 
allergies, arthritis, and digestive problems, which tend to be costly to 
treat in conventional ways." 

The popularity of homeopathy is increasing in the United States, according to 
an article in the Nov. 11 issue of the Journal of the American Medical 
Association. The JAMA article reported that there had been a five-fold 
increase in the use of homeopathy in seven years. Of the adults responding to 
a survey, 3.4% used homeopathy in 1997, up from .7% in 1990. 

The study by Jacobs, Chapman and Crothers was funded by Boiron Research 
Foundation, which supports studies related to homeopathy at major research 
centers throughout the world, including at the National Center for 
Complementary and Alternative Medicine under the National Institutes of 
Health, at the University of Washinghton, and at the University of 
California-UCLA. 

(1) Jennifer Jacobs, MD, MPH; Edward H. Chapman, MD, DHt; Dean Crothers, MD.: 
Patients Characteristics and Practice Patterns of Physicians Using 
Homeopathy. Archives of Family Medicine, 1998; 7: 537-540