here, I cite from a great post about homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:
001. Grant Jacobs writes at Code For Life in "Message to Otago Daily Times: Homeopath is Not a Sound Career Option*" (2011-02-21):
"why on earth has the [...] Otago Daily Times [...] presented an homeopath in one of it’s on-going series of snapshots of people in different careers [...without] critical questioning? [...without] critically judging what they present [...] should a journalist not question the creditability of homeopathy in questioning a homeopath? Should this even be offered as a sound career option on a careers page? [...he says] yes to the first, no to the second [...because it is] nonsense [...] homeopathic remedies contain none of the proposed active ingredient in them. Nothing, nada, nil [...they're] completely diluted [...it's] a ruse [...] homeopathy is a sham. It’s utter bunkum [...] any homeopath presenting their remedies as having an effect beyond placebo is outside of good business ethics, never mind medical ones [...it's] a historic quackery [...] homeopathy is bunk."
002. well, a couple of things:
I totally agree that homeopathy is junk.
you can criticize homeopathy based on its plausiblity, and also based on quality studies: it can't work, and not surprisingly it doesnt' work, respectively.
it is, for me, one of the most troubling things within North American naturopathy.
notice who sponsors North American naturopathy's textbooks, which are huge sources of homeopathy proponentry!
the so-called "science-based profession" that labels homeopathy a science, to this day.