Ben, it is indeed worrying that the predominant school of thought regarding strategy in CAM seems to be that it is better to insult and belittle your opponent while committing grave acts of hypocrisy rather than evidence and reason based debate.

On the one hand it’s shameless hypocrisy. But more interesting is that it demonstrates how they can only perceive the actions of others through the lens of their own values: for them, ideas can only be about money, and proving your favoured point of view. Fascinating.

“…One argument often used by defenders of homeopathy is that they are analogous to allergy shots, which involve giving a small dose of a substance in order to cure an allergy to that same substance. During one of my lectures this argument was made to me by a fellow physician who is a believer in homeopathy. Allergy shots therefore seem to follow the laws of similars and infinitesimals. Superficially this analogy may seem compelling, but a closer look reveals that it is not legitimate…”

or to this post (HoL Allergy Inquiry, evidence from SoH, Faculty of Homeopaths etc): http://breathspakids.blogspot.com/2007/03/discouraging-news-from-review-of.html#links : you can’t revisit the ‘only by the label’ quote too often!

48 Advertisements, stationery and name plates maintain a high standard of propriety and
integrity to enhance the reputation of homeopathy.
• Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority.
• No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.
• Advertising shall not be false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, extravagant or
sensational.

CAM ‘positive stories’ aka advertorials are standard fodder for local newspapers:I don’t think I’ve ever read a CAM story in our local rags that isn’t uncritically approving. As far as I’m aware, this kind of thing doesn’t come under the ASA’s remit.