Comment The real shame of homeopathy is its origins (Score 1) 447
One of the first "homeopaths", cited extensively by modern practicioners, was Samuel Hanneman. And Samuel did _research_ in medicine. Rather than merely citing from leaned tracts, he investigated local practicioners and conducted experimented. Many of his his claims have turned to be misguided, such has his "law of similars". But his dedication to actual experimentation and verification of treatment was exceptional in his time. He was not, perhaps, a _great_ scientiest. But his claims about modest doses of dangerous substances being used to treat related illness was key to the development of vaccination for infectious diseases, and to desensitization for treating allergies. And his study of "miasms" was surprisingly close to the later discovered theories of infectious diseases: he lacked the microscopes and later, more sophisticated chemical tools to research it much further.
So please do give credit to the originator of the field, much as one gives credit to religious prophets whose ideas have been perverted. Perhaps much like one can give credit to Isaac Newton's early work in mathematics and optics and ignore most of his later, confused work in alchemy. If only the very followers of his work would understand the beginnings of scientific testing and methodology in his work and carry on from that, they might be much more helpful to their clients.