I think I do understand your argument... However I beg to differ:
i) There needs to be counter-arguments based on scientific facts. Actually, even by your little clause ("Unless of course you have an advanced degree or knowledge at expert level in the field") I think I may qualify to be able to counter those pseudo-scientific 'factoids';
iii) There are some on the left, amongst which I think it is reasonable to include Paul Zambereka (Sp?) - who are taken in, given the assumption that these are honest basically - it is necessary to counter their arguments. Now you could argue they are dishonest manipulators.. I have no evidence to that extent;
iii) Taken one step further - the logic of your argument would be to ignore counter-arguments posed to the left. I am sure that is what you intend at all! But is that not he logical sequelae?
Equally Cordially, Hari Kumar