Scientist Schwarcz vs Homeopath Malthouse

here, some snippets from Canada regarding what science says about homeopathy and what homeopaths refuse:

001. at the Toronto Star, we're told in "Re: Homeopathy an effective alternative, Letter March 16":

"Joe Schwarcz, Director, McGill Office for Science & Society [...writes that homeopath] Dr. Stephen Malthouse's ungracious letter requires a response [...his] boorish remark that the McGill Office for Science and Society should not exist [WHEN] his letter is a shining example of why there is a continuing need to interpret science for the public in an evidence-based fashion, which is exactly why the office was established [...]";

hear, hear.  And here we go! I may have went to college for 11 years but I had to look up "ungracious" to be certain about what Dr. S. is emphasizing.  So, it is "not graceful or elegant [...] not polite or friendly."  I believe there is a homeopathic remedy for that!  Perhaps depending on what side of the bed you sleep on and which of your shoes you wear down faster.  Repertorize!

"'there is no doubt that homeopathy works' he maintains. That may be his opinion but not that of many in the scientific community [...]";

you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own...Private Homeopathy Idaho.

 "last week [...] a report from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council [...] was the most damning analysis of homeopathy ever compiled [...]";

because they did such a thorough job! 

"the science of homeopathy is non-existent, just like the molecules it is supposedly based upon [...]";

yet, as I've pointed out so often, naturopathy continues to label homeopathy "powerful" and "science."

002. the AANP's science refusal:

here's their "powerful" (2014 archived) and here's their "science" (2015 archived) false labels.

003. the CAND's science refusal:

here's their "powerful" and here's their "science" false labels.