001. in "The FDA and Homeopathy: Can the Agency Bring Medicine Out of the 1700s?" (2015-08-17) we're told [my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"the pseudoscience of homeopathy [...] although the FDA has jurisdiction over homeopathic products, it has to date essentially given homeopathic drugs a pass, and has not required them to demonstrate they are safe and effective [...while] a recent exhaustive study by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which assessed more than 1,800 papers on homeopathy, reached this unambiguous conclusion: the review found no good quality, well-designed studies with enough participants to support the idea that homeopathy works better than a placebo, or causes health improvements equal to those of another treatment [...]";
yes, insanity. And another nail in homeopathy's uber-nailed coffin.
"the late 1700s [...] it was in this prescientific era that Samuel Hahnemann developed homeopathy [...] homeopathic drugs are often diluted to such an extent that not even a single molecule of the supposed active ingredient remains in the product. It is impossible -- if we accept modern science -- for the 'active' ingredients in these drugs to have any effect [...they are] essentially inert [...]';
that's what the science says. Naturopathy, particularly the AANP, states otherwise. The AANP and kind would have us believe homeopathy is "powerful" and a "medicinal science."
"no homeopathic drug has been shown to stimulate the immune system to combat a specific disease and, as indicated, the drugs are so diluted their only possible stimulation is to the purses of homeopathic manufacturers [...] homeopathic manufacturers can currently mislead the public, tiptoeing around outright fraud [...]";
"if the agency were rigorous in its application of science, it would require homeopathic manufacturers to prove, through controlled double-blind drug studies, that their products actually are safe and effective [...]";