Friday, March 13, 2015

North American Naturopathy's Deafening Silence on Science's 2015 Complete REJECTION of Homeopathy

here, some quotes from major publication outlets regarding the final-final-final science ejection of homeopathy [I'm sure there will be another 'final'...; see 001., below]; then, I checked to see if North American naturopathy has responded [see 002., below]; then, I look at what NA naturopathy still says quite FALSELY about homeopathy [see 003., below]:

001. there is much being published in the US and UK on the recent Australian mega-review of homeopathy:

001.a. Edzard Ernst writes at The Guardian in "There is No Scientific Case for Homeopathy: The Debate is Over" (2015-03-12):

"the promotion of homeopathy is not ethical. Homeopathy not effective for treating any condition, Australian report finds. Now, the internationally highly respected Australian National Health and Medical Research Council have conducted what certainly is the most thorough and independent evaluation of homeopathy in its 200-year-long history. Already their preliminary report had confirmed that homeopathy is nothing other than treatment with placebos [...] the Australians then considered this evidence carefully and have now published their final report. It arrived at the same conclusion as the previous document [...] personally, I would go another step further and remind pharmacists who sell homeopathic remedies to the unsuspecting public that it is unethical to pretend they are more than placebos [...] after 200 years of fruitless discussion, we finally have, in the Australian evaluation, a comprehensive, transparent and evidence-based review from a panel of experts who are competent and free of conflicts of interest as well as a government that is determined to abide by the advice thus generated. Let’s hope that others will now follow suit [...]";

hear, hear.



001.b. there's Sydney Lupkin at ABC News who writes in "Health Homeopathy Doesn't Work, Major Australian Study Concludes" (2015-03-12):

"homeopathic medicine doesn't work, according to a major Australian study.  The country's National Health and Medical Research Council considered 1,800 studies, narrowing them down to 225 that met certain criteria, and concluded that homeopathy didn't work better than a placebo. Even if a study claimed it was effective, the council found that that study was of poor quality.  'From this review, the main recommendation for Australians is that they should not rely on homeopathy as a substitute for proven, effective treatments,' said the council's CEO, professor Warwick Anderson [...]";

001.c. there's Jessica Firger at CBS News who writes in "Do Homeopathic Remedies Really Work?" (2015-03-11):

"the new report from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in Australia reviewed hundreds of published studies testing the effectiveness of homeopathic treatments, and found no reliable evidence that any of them really work. In the report, the council finds studies on homeopathic remedies were typically poorly-designed and scientifically flawed, and their findings inconclusive at best. In most cases, the review found homeopathic remedies worked no better than a placebo, or the findings were too flawed to be conclusive [...] the NHMRC reviewed prior studies conducted by independent and government organizations. The NHMRC also examined reports from homeopathy interest groups, as well as clinical practice and government guidelines for homeopaths. The only studies included in this analysis were those that compared people who received the homeopathic treatment versus those who did not. In their analysis, the researchers determined that a large number of the studies were flawed and many had findings that were not reliable [...]";

001.d. and so on.

002. now, I keep news.google.com notifications going daily and if something regarding naturopathy is published through a major outlet, I'll likely know as soon as it happens.  What has been written online publicly about this rejection of homeopathy, a major therapy in naturopathy:

002.a. nothing.

002.b. well, here's a screen capture, of what lists this morning:



Note: again, NOTHING from naturopathy.  Meanwhile, the AANP states homeopathy is a "medicinal science" and the CAND overall says homeopathy is categorically "science-based."  The silence is DEAFENING.

003. and when I go to AANP and CAND, I find:

003.a. at AANP, naturopathic.org:


nothing about this.  And they didn't make any statements about last year's preliminary finding by NHMRC.  And all the while AANP tells us homeopathy is therapeutically "powerful."

003.b. at CAND, I find:


nothing new about this.  All the while CAND tells us homeopathy is therapeutically "powerful."

004. the North American naturopathy racket marches on!!!


Post a Comment