001. what BUC had posted, my comment, and their answer:
002.a. BUC tells us, by way of AANMC, that naturopathy is a "science-based education and clinical training" containing the therapies "listed". Yet, on that list was [this is the list below]:
HOMEOPATHY. So that's minimally a 'science subset homeopathy' claim.
002.b. I then asked:
"why is homeopathy on the list if you are 'science-based'? For starters..."
002.c. the response was:
"it’s something that is required to teach by accreditors and state law. It’s then up to the doctors if they want to make it part of their practice."
hmmm. STATE LAW requires that BUC teach homeopathy? Huh? And accreditors? It's true, in a naturopathy-designed kind of way because NATUROPATHS WROTE the bloody state law and ARE the accreditors. So, naturopathy CONSTRUCTED the homeopathy-within-naturopathy requirement yet BUC seems to indicate 'we are forced to by laws and by accreditors'. Slippery. Political.
and I'd argue this: you MUST do homeopathy classes to get an ND, which includes practicing it clinically during that time. And you MUST pass the NPLEX what tests homeopathy in its part two. That test labels homeopathy "clinical science." So, to be a naturopath you MUST become part of a cabal that claims, basically, 'science subset nonscience' as a general pattern of thinking.
003. and at bastyr.edu, we're told:
by Bastyr's ND Robbins, of the Bastyr clinic, that homeopathy works;
by Bastyr in their course "HO6305 Homeopathy 1" that "emphasis is placed on the integral relationship of homeopathy to naturopathic practice" [BTW, synonyms for integral include "inherent" and "necessary";
004. so don't be confused:
homeopathy isn't science-based, it is baked in to naturopathy, its unavoidable in terms of obtaining and ND, and they will LIE.