here, I cite from the homeopathy pages of naturopathicfoundations.ca [see 002., below] after I mention the NDs at that practice [see 001., below]. Then, I remind the reader that homeopathy, per the recent UK evidence check, is utter nonsense [see 003., below]:
001. the NDs at naturopathicfoundations.ca include:
Lloyd, I.R. (ND CCNM 2002), Konstantinou, T.F. (ND CCNM?), Rouchotas, P. (ND CCNM 2004), Rozendaal,E. (ND CCNM 2009), Smrz, D. (ND CCNM) [as of 2010-06-28].
002. naturopathicfoundations.ca states, regarding homeopathy, by way of several web pages:
002.a. in "Homeopathy: Philosophy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:
"homeopathy. Homeopathic Medicine is an 'energy' system of medicine that recognizes that our body is dense fields of energy [naturopathicfoundations.ca explains elsewhere that this is a vitalistic / "vital force" type explanation]. Symptoms or diseases will manifest when there is a disturbance to the body's energy field [...] the philosophy of homeopathy is: [#1] like cures like. The healing response is stimulated by giving sick people extremely diluted forms of natural substances that cause the same symptoms when given to healthy people in a larger dose [etc.]"
Note: so, we're told by the NDs at naturopathicfoundations.ca that naturopathy's homeopathy is premised on the science-ejected vitalistic, and "like cures like."
002.b. in "Homeopathy: Uses of Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:
"uses of homeopathy: [#1] acute conditions are aided by stimulating and speeding the healing process of the body; [#2] chronic conditions often affect the physical, mental and emotional aspect of a person. The ability of homeopathy to work on all these levels provides hope, support and valuable treatment options; [#3] psychological imbalances respond well to homeopathics even if they are due to intense trauma [etc.]."
Note: these are claims of efficacy.
002.c. in "Homeopathy: Deciding on a Remedy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:
"deciding on a remedy: [#1] homeopathic remedies are gentle and very effective [...#4] remedies may work very quickly, especially with acute conditions [etc.]."
Note: again, claims of efficacy.
002.d. in "Homeopathy: Homeopathic Remedies" [vsc 2010-06-28]:
"homeopathic remedies [...#3] are highly dilute solutions that contain the energetic vibration of its source, not crude materials. For example, a 12X remedy has been diluted so that one part of the original substance is mixed with nine parts water or alcohol and then shaken vigorously (succussed). This solution then undergoes a series of 12 dilutions using the same 1:9 ratio; [#4] the effectiveness, potency and ability of the remedy to get deep within the body increases as the remedy becomes more dilute."
Note: again, the vitalistic science-ejected is called upon as the premise for homeopathy's action. Efficacy is increased, they claim, by dilution of the "remedy."
002.e. in "Homeopathy: What You Can Expect" [vsc 2010-06-28]:
"what you can expect: [#1] symptoms often disappear in reverse order to their original appearance; [#2] healing progresses from more important organs to less important ones; [#3] healing progresses from the top of the body downward; [#4] the body seeks to externalize disease, keeping it to more external locations; [#5] symptoms lessen in intensity, you feel better and your mood and energy improves; [#6] initially, the symptoms that you have may aggravate for 24 - 48 hours. If you have any questions about your reaction to your homeopathic remedy, please call your naturopathic doctor [Hering's Law or the Law of Cure]."
Note: the idea of ADIO, "above down, inside out" aka the two fake laws above, is bunk.
003. meanwhile, back in reality, the 2010-02-08 evidence check that was published by the UK's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded:
"by providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine [when it ain't!].To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products [...] it is unacceptable for the MHRA to license placebo products—in this case [homeopathic] sugar pills—conferring upon them some of the status of medicines [...] for patient choice to be real choice, patients must be adequately informed to understand the implications of treatments. For homeopathy this would certainly require an explanation that homeopathy is a placebo. When this is not done, patient choice is meaningless [in other words, it is unethical because it cannot lead to informed consent...] we argue that the provision of homeopathy on the NHS, in effect, diminishes, not increases, informed patient choice [...] we conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science [...] we consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible [...] there has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious."
Note: so, in sum, naturopaths are unethical for use of homeopathy -- period. Now, I left ND school in 2002 particularly because I refused to participate in naturopathic unethical sectarian pseudoscience, including homeopathy. That school STILL labels naturopathy "science" and within that, there is huge amounts of homeopathy. But, then again, what's to be expected from a school that labels the hugely science-ejected for decades "science"? My current timer for all this is titled "15 Fraudulent Years On." That is, 12 years ago I started at UBCNM, after a few years of science-prerequisites.
004. meanwhile, naturopathy persists in labeling homeopathy a "science", particularly on their NPLEx licensure exam!
