here, I cite from two media sources regarding homeopathy. One endorses homeopathy uncritically, by -- yes, you guess it -- citing an AANP naturopath [see 001., below]; and the other cites a study that dismisses homeopathy, a study that uncritically tries to salvage specific-to-homeopathy benefits [see 002., below]; then, I remind that the naturopathy crowd claims, quite falsely, that homeopathy is science [see 003., below]:
001. Charlotte, N.C.'s WSOCTV.com states in "Homeopathy Insight" (2010-11-18)[vsc 2010-11-19]:
"homeopathy is a form of complementary and alternative medicine based on a premise called the 'principle of similars' or 'like cures like.' According to homeopathic theory, any substance (plant, animal or mineral) that causes illness in a healthy person will cure a person who is sick with that same illness when given in extremely dilute doses [...] common reasons for use include: allergies, flu, asthma and childhood diarrhea [...] Judy Fulop, N.D. [(NCNM)...] naturopathic physician with Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago. IL, says [...] it takes many years of study to learn about the various remedies [...and] homeopathic remedies can be used to relieve some of the side effects of illness or treatment [really?]."
Note: ND Fulup's work bio. states [vsc 2010-11-19]:
"Judy's philosophy is built on the principles of naturopathic medicine: support the healing power of nature [HPN]."
Being that she is an NCNM graduate, you can decode HPN here, which is the science-ejected sectarian concept central to naturopathy: life force falsely claimed as science. Oh how they love to not be transparent, and to falsely label.
At AANMC, we're told [vsc 2010-11-19]:
"Dr. Fulop is currently the vice president of the Illinois Naturopathic Medical Association and chairperson of the Legislative and Legal committee working on ND licensure in Illinois. She introduced House Bill #1591 and Senate Bill #1758 in the Illinois legislative process. She is a board member of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, chair of the Scientific Affairs Committee, and member of the Public Affairs committee."
002. the Telegraph's Laura Donnelly writes in "Homeopathy Works - But It is Talking, Not Tinctures that Helps Patients" (2010-11-14)[vsc 2010-11-19]:
"homeopathy can reduce the symptoms of disease, but it is the consultations not the remedies which are responsible, a new study has found [...] it made no difference whether the solution they received was a genuine homeopathic tincture prescribed to treat rheumatism, or a placebo [...] those who had a series of five consultations with a homeopathic doctor experienced 'significant clinical benefits,' - whether the tincture they received was a specially prepared 'homeopathic' remedy used to treat rheumatism, or a placebo. Patients given exactly the same remedies without the consultations did not gain the improvements [...] Dr Sarah Brien, the study’s lead author, said that while previous research had suggested homeopathy could help patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the study provided the first scientific evidence to show such benefits were 'specifically due to its unique consultation process.'"
Note: so, the reporter repeated the spin of the study's author, that there's something UNIQUE to the homeopathic encounter though the pill is inert. But, Edzard Ernst says it best, in the same journal issue that that homeopathy study was published within, in "Homeopathy, Non-Specific Effects and Good Medicine" (2010-11-13):
"in this issue, Brien et al. report the findings of a five-armed randomized controlled trial, which was aimed at differentiating between the effects of homeopathic remedies and patient consultations. The authors demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are placebos and show that 'the benefits of homeopathy are attributable to the consultation' [...] homeopathic remedies [...] are biologically implausible, and the 150 published trials collectively fail to indicate clinical effectiveness [...yes,] patients benefit from a long and empathic encounter with a homeopath but not from the remedy [...yes,] the effective element is not specifically homeopathy but the therapeutic relationship in general [...so, overall] homeopathic remedies are ineffective and empathetic therapeutic encounters are helpful [...] we should discard the ineffective and adopt the helpful. If we do this, we must tell our patients that homeopathic remedies are both implausible and ineffective. Thus, they cannot be recommended."
Yes, there's NOTHING UNIQUE to the homeopathic encounter and the pills are inert.
003. meanwhile, naturopathy labels homeopathy a science, e.g. the Division of Health Sciences at the University of Bridgeport has a naturopathy degree that requires homeopathy [vsc 2010-11-20]. Here's my take on this massive mislabeling:
science -------------- naturopathy --------------- homeopathy
Note: homeopathy is truly science-ejected, at that tertiary level of the above. Naturopathy, at that secondary level, is itself science-ejected essentially due to 'that which is essentially naturopathic.' It is sad to think about all the people, both students and patients, that naturopathy is mindfucking with their cultic homeopathy penchant.