FTC on Homeopathy at JAVMA's avma.org

here, two differing opinions on homeopathy, science and 'science sucks'.  Guess which opinion is from a homeopathy purveyor:

001. JAVMA News states, in "FTC Scrutinizing Homeopathy Claims" (dated 2015-11-15):

"Michelle Rusk, senior staff attorney in the FTC advertising practices division, said in a public hearing Sept. 21 on over-the-counter homeopathic products that advertisements lauding the health benefits of medical products need to be based on competent, reliable, and rigorous scientific support [...] Kathleen Dunnigan, senior staff attorney for the national advertising division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, also advocated in the hearing that health performance claims, including those on product labels, be backed by scientific evidence [...] presence in the homeopathy pharmacopeia alone is insufficient, she said [...] 'generally speaking, homeopathic provings, in vitro studies, and animal studies are also not considered on their own to be competent and reliable scientific evidence' [...] Paul Herscu, director of the New England School of Homeopathy, argued during the hearing in favor of the types of [those] trials used by homeopaths [...he said] 'while randomized control trials have propelled science forward and propelled medicine forward, it is, in a sense—and this is not a homeopathy comment, it is a scientific comment—it is a blunt, vague instrument [...] it does not correspond to reality very well";

really.  The irony is killing me.  If anything doesn't correspond to reality, it's...