001. Paul Jump reports, at timeshighereducation.co.uk, in "Offering Homeopathy Waters Down University of Toronto’s Reputation, Critics Claim" (2015-08-27):
"it is probably fair to say that only a vanishingly minuscule concentration of scientists believe that homeopathy is effective [...]";
yes, the limping zombie corpse still roams the town at night.
"[the] employee health plan [of] the University of Toronto has also decided to add naturopathy, acupuncture and osteopathy [as well as homeopathy] to the treatments available on its plan in 2015-16 [...]";
"Jen Gunter, a Canadian obstetrician and gynecologist who highlighted the issue on her blog earlier this month, writes that it is 'hard to reconcile homeopathy being covered…at a place of employment with a medical school and department of physics' [...]";
well, as I'd stated when covering naturopathy in Episode 010 of the Naturocrit Podcast recently, 'higher education ain't so high or ethical.'
"Jim Woodgett, director of research at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, a medical research institute affiliated with Toronto [...asks] 'how many employees asked for coverage and was the pseudoscientific nature of homeopathy explained to them? [...] Toronto should be setting a clear example, not legitimizing bogus methods that can cause real harm through delay of effective therapy [...] homeopathy has thrived because it stays below the medicinal radar [...] but it’s well past time that it is shown for what it is — an 18th-century fairy tale' [...]":
good question, great labeling.