The question is not only does homeopathy work but do arguments A, B and C that conclude that *homeopathy doesn't work * work.

You could argue that every argument against homeopathy that differs from the argument that meta studies showed that it doesn't work is pointless. If you however read an average skeptic, skeptics often make idealist arguments based on whether something violates the physical laws as the skeptic understands the physical laws.

Do you argue that any argument that isn't based on whether a study fund that a process works is flawed?