Thank you for your considered comments Mr McCabe. I will now comment on them to the best of my ability. Apologies in advance for what will be a length post.
Well I would make no claims about the quality of my writing and fully accept it is not one of my strong points. I think it is fair to say that Goldacre is often paid for his writing, a reasonable indicator of quality, while I receive no money for my blog (not even from big pharma).

I do regret slightly choosing that particular moniker and may change my identity at some point in the future. However, I do think the virtues of anonymity outweigh the drawbacks. While I am anonymous it means that my ideas must be attacked rather than my profession or actions. I am a big believer in the concept that it is ideas that are important, not the individuals behind them. This is why I prefer to take cover behind a pseudonym.
Well I think the arrogance of homeopaths is typified by the complete failure of them to accept the possibility that homeopathy does not work. It is very easy to design experiments with a possible outcome showing a failure of homeopathy to work but homeopaths won't carry out these experiments or won't acknowledge negative results when they are carried out. It seems that nothing can convince a homeopath that homeopathy does not work any better than a placebo. This is arrogance. This leads to the belief of some, possibly most, homeopaths that it can substitute for conventional medicine in the case of serious disease and that homeoprophylaxis is effective.
I resent the accusation that it is akin to racism or bigotry because it is the ideas and actions I attack. Rarely the individuals and only if they are behaving stupidly dangerously. Unlike humanity, not all modes of healthcare are created equal. Science is not democratic, it relies on evidence to prove or disprove theories and does not tolerate wishful thinking for long.
It's not simply a case of disagreeing with your beliefs. It is that science and healthcare should not be based on belief or on prejudice but on evidence. Objective evidence. Not the subjective interpretation of anecdote that homeopathy seems to solely rely upon. The human mind is capable of wonderful acts of self deception and these have to be avoided when investigating matters of science. This isn't a philosophical debate outside the realm of science as you are trying to paint it. This is a debate about whether or not homeopathy works once you strip subjectivity from investigations and the weight of evidence so far says that it does not work. For homeopathy to work its proponents have to create mystical, if not mythical, properties of water, and flatly reject current biochemical explanations of disease. Have you not heard the phrase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'? If homeopathy did work then frankly it would be wonderful. Disease could be prevented and treated for minimal costs, scientists would have tremendous fun redefining theories and homeopaths could bask in the satisfaction of knowing that they had provided a great gift to humanity. Sadly wanting something to be so does not make it so and healthcare is constrained by rising costs, the slow progression of knowledge and the deadly Darwinian evolution of antibiotic resistance.