BCNA: Homeopathy is Scientific This 2015 [aka Let's Continue to IGNORE Science...]

here, I cite from a recent British Columbia Naturopathic Association post regarding a naturopath's 2012 Huffington Post article:

001. the 2015-04-10 BCNA Facebook post is:
.

.
002. the 2012 HuffPo article by ND Stanclift, "You're What Kind of Doctor?", states:

"you're what kind of doctor? [...] I get this question all the time [...] I still hear it from other doctors, too [...]";

well, doesn't' sound like naturopathy is in any way in the cultural consciousness.  Let the false equivalencies begin.

"my profession is rather small, and we're yet to be licensed in every state [...]";

ah, the 'of-the-professions' claim.  And amazingly Idaho just delicensed naturopaths.  And they haven't mentioned a word of it at naturopathic.org.

"[and the ND speaks of] the misconceptions around what we do [...] licensed naturopathic doctors have scientific medical training [...requiring] a bachelor's degree and a competitive GPA in scientific prerequisites [...and] we learn all the basic medical sciences like anatomy, pathology, and biochemistry [...]";

science, science, science.  Well, that's JUST NOT TRUE, categorically speaking.  To state that naturopathy is a subset of science is truly the misconception.

"naturopathic medicine is not the same thing as homeopathy [...] homeopathy [...] scientifically, we don't know why it works, because the doses are so small [...] our treatments with patients might include [...] homeopathy. So homeopathy can be part of an ND's treatment plan, but it's not the only tool in the shed";

actually, scientifically speaking, homeopathy DOESN'T WORK.  And you'd promised science as a BASIS.

"naturopathic medicine is [...] based on our six principles [...]";

ah, the 'here unmentioned' naturopathic principles that are either science-exterior when they are particular to naturopathy, and also mundane in comparison to regular medicine when similar to medicine.