I'm a social scientist with plenty of empirical research experience and understanding of the scientific method. We also know that a main effect of no difference doesn't mean there aren't specific populations that benefit from the "treatment" or who benefit under certain circumstances.

I tried a $6 vial of homeopathic allergy relief when I was about 26, after decades of suffering extreme allergies and taking prescription antihistamine medication, which made me feel addled and didn't always work that well. I'd had severe allergies since my tonsils were removed when I was 6. Given that homeopathy also has very few side effects, if any, and is cheap and available without a prescription, I figured I had little to lose by trying it. More than 20 years later, I still have no problems with allergies. I don't care what the mechanism is or what the science shows, it worked for me and it was far cheaper and better to my body and mind than what science had to offer.

I wouldn't use homeopathy to set a broken leg or as an alternative to truly necessary surgery, but I'll also say that a surgeon told me when I was pregnant that I would need to have my gallbladder out ASAP after childbirth. Baby is now 18 and I still have my gallbladder. In my view of the medical world, they are just way often wrong (and don't get me started on oncologists), know far less than they claim, and their treatments cost too much financially and are too hard on the body to justify their snooty beliefs that science is right about everything.