Scientist have the moral duty to point how stupid are pseudosciences.

This is not really a debate that I'm looking to win, I'm just frustrated, about my workmates not giving a dam about other people. Recently the sister of my friend decided to go to a witch doctor, which apparently is substantially cheaper than a regular doctor. The treatment includes blood interchange between the patient and the witch. Thanks to magical powers given by God to that particular witch you should be cure of everything. The evidences that the witch magic works are the previous patients, which are so happy that keep bringing new people. If I tell her that the witch is abusing of her faith, and its all placebo (but with a high risk of getting AIDS) then I look like and arrogant jerk, it doesn’t matter how much effort I would put on saying it in a nice peaceful way. Scientists are arrogant because they believe science is the only way to know things, that is true, for me science means to be honest, and to try to disprove yourself before making a claim. So probably i'm just arrogant, but you already know that from reading me in previous debates. If I don't say something I feel like a criminal by letting people to kill themselves in they own ignorance, and if I say something everyone else think that I'm mean even my workmates. Apparently is a very popular aptitude among scientists do let layman belief any stupidity as long as layman don't think bad about them. I think this concept should be easy to understand, If you see a child plunging a knife in a plug, is your moral duty to tell the child that he/she can get an unpleasant electrical shock? How about if the child is not one of your relatives? How about if the child becomes angry with you for saying so? You don't need to be a scientist to know that alternative medicine doesn't work, but if you have a Ph.D. It is almost guaranty that you know it. Another topic I want to bring is that I don't know what to think about my workmates making bad excuses in support of homeopathy, “you know placebo is the best medicine”, or “he was going to die anyway, alternative medicine is less painful than chemotherapy” (which is not true, if you are going to die with 95% probability the doctor will give you drugs to don't suffer, which I bet are 1000 times better than homeopathic pills. Why are they so dishonest? Well if they will be honest they may have problems with their girlfriends, just in the same way Darwin never said he don't belief God exist. Last year, I attend a motivational talk at the university from a celebrity. The provost was there, the speech was ok, except that he claim that you can change you salary by thinking about money or anything else about reality, just like the law of attraction. Every one was clapping including the provost, the speaker didn't manage to answer any question from the public... honestly, I was feeling depress, universities should stand for research and truth, not just for looking good and money, if I can think about any word which describes this situation well that word is CORRUPTION, we are all becoming too selfish looking only on our personal interest, specially our money and don't bothering about what is real and what is not, which is the main reason why universities exist. A person who don't do the right thing because is afraid of other's people reaction is a slave. I think we are all slaves. Dam if you do the right thing dam if you don't. Of course not every one is that corrupt, John Maddox, the editor of Nature, accept a paper on homeopathy, but adding a note saying that not a single reviewer belief what the article says and further investigation will be publish, The public humiliation was bad for Jacques Benveniste (author of the publication, who’s salary was paid by an homeopathic company) but it was good for the rest of humanity because it doesn’t work and we repeat the experiments showing that it doesn’t work! So after all there are still a few honest people in the world. By the way, the amount of time spend by homeopathic doctors listening their patients do have a positive impact on their health, that is all positive stuff I can say about alternative medicine. I don't want to win this debate, I don't think this is a debate and I'm not trying to humiliate you as I usually do in any other debate you already know because you post comments on them. There is anyone here who can give me a decent argument for against the motion, something that can convince me, not just the audience? Saying that demons can exist, or that we can't prof something at 100% so we should give up science doesn’t help, actually it makes it worse. From the coments in other debates, I know you come from a very advance country, and I'm sure you can convince me that this is not that tragic. I also wanted to say that pseudoscientist usually don't have any university education, they just make it all up and claim super natural powers and experience based knowledge.