Homeopathy - ND Cates vs Richard Dawkins:

here, I compare two competing positions regarding homeopathy: an ND who graduated from NCNM who claims that homeopathy mightily works [see 001., below]; an eminent scientist who clearly disagrees, but [generously!] proposes an experimental design which would appropriately test homeopathy [see 002., below]:

001. Cates, T.H. (ND NCNM 2000) states in "Homeopathy Basics" (2010-02-24):

"below are some common questions a curious consumer may ask a retailer regarding the most effective ways to take advantage of homeopathy’s healing properties [...Q] do scientific studies support the use of homeopathic prescriptions? [A] Because of the unique method in which homeopathic remedies are selected, standard scientific studies do not often adequately portray the true efficacy of homeopathy ['excuse' alert!]. Despite this fact, studies have shown ['cake and eat it too' alert!] long-term treatment with homeopathy can reduce disease severity and improve quality of life in patients with a variety of acute and chronic diseases [...] homeopathy is a gentle and effective way to enhance a person’s immune system [while NO SUCH  EFFECT has ever actually been reliably measured!] and treat acute illnesses such as the flu ['delay appropriate care' alert!...] homeopathy can provide great immune support and relief from various health concerns ['panacea' alert!...] homeopathy can help individuals enhance wellness and overcome illnesses."

Note: so, we have the 'you can't science it' and a simultaneous 'but science supports it' irrationality.  We have the promises of 'broad efficacy', that homeopathy treats / cures.  ND Cates is a member of HANP.

002. Richard Dawkins writes in "The Trouble With Homeopathy" (2010-02-24):

"if homeopathy really worked, it should be easy and cheap to demonstrate it [...] I am personally convinced that homeopathy doesn't work. The best way to test any proposed therapy is the double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial (DBCRT) [...] homeopathy is eminently eligible for, indeed vulnerable to, double blind testing [so excuses about it not being science-able are complete bullshit...] here's my experimental design [which I won't detail here...overall] if experiments as carefully controlled as this one reliably and repeatably showed that the extremely diluted homeopathic substances were effective, what should we conclude? [...IMAGINE!] it would mean that a hitherto unknown principle of physics had been discovered [...] the homeopath [or naturopath!] who made such a stunning discovery should receive the Nobel Prize for Physics, as well as the Nobel Prize for Medicine. With such a holy grail in view, shouldn’t homeopaths [and naturopaths!...] be beavering away, night and day, in the laboratory to demonstrate the effect? And are they? No. They are much more interested in taking money off patients who believe in the treatment because – like any placebo – it sometimes seems to work [...] until homeopathy is demonstrated to work (which it almost certainly will never be) it should not be supported by the NHS [hear, hear]."

Note: Richard Dawkins is an actual scientist.

003. as far as I know, no AANP or CAND school is directly scientifically investigating naturopathy's absurd claims, such as:

003.a. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that there is a vital force;

Note: while vitalism is science-ejected.

003.b. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that there is spirit;

Note: while supernaturalism is outside the boundaries of science.

003.c. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that homeopathy actually works.

Note: while naturopathy labels homeopathy a clinical science / health science, upon the preponderance, homeopathy is truly "useless and unethical".

004. overall note:

Naturopathy has taken millions of dollars from people in tuition [e.g., I have six-figure debt due to their ruse], and from the NCCAM to selectively study its methods [what a WASTE!].  Dawkins proposes a very simple and rigorous experimental design.  And yet, North American naturopathy is not actually doing the ESSENTIAL SCIENCE which is necessary to establish the actuality of the 'essentially naturopathic'.  All the while, naturopathy is not afraid to label their claims science, hugely. 

This is why my collection of [false] claims / labels by naturopathy that they are science [when they are not] is called "the science that ain't science".