Popular Science: Homeopathic "Total Nonsense" and Reckless Advice

here, some excerpts and some big quibbles: 

001. @popsci.com, Sara Chodosh writes [painfully] in "Homeopathic and Natural Remedies Aren’t the Same Thing — and Only One of Them is Total Nonsense" (2018-04-23):

"in reality, though, it exemplifies an old adage: What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine [...]";

how can this adage be old if alternative medicine is really a phenomenon of say the later half of the 1900s?  It may actually be as new as Tim Minchin and not old in any sense therein.

"but let’s be clear about one thing: natural remedies and homeopathy aren’t the same thing. Naturopathy, while not scientifically proven, is mostly based around using plants to treat diseases. Some of those remedies work, and on principle we can’t dismiss a treatment simply because it comes from nature. However, we can certainly dismiss all of homeopathy [...] this is why nearly all naturopathy is benign at best today [...]";

let's be clearer, Sara.  Homeopathy is WITHIN naturopathy.  Like the North American ND licensure exam that states in "NPLEX Examination Overview": "the Part II – Core Clinical Science Examination (CCSE) is an integrated, case-based examination that consists of approximately 80 case clusters (400 items) which cover the topics of diagnosis (physical, clinical, and lab diagnosis, and diagnostic imaging), materia medica (botanical medicine and homeopathy), other treatment modalities (nutrition, physical medicine, health psychology, and research), and medical interventions (emergency medicine, medical procedures, public health, and pharmacology)."  So, therein, 'naturopathy subset homeopathy' falsely claimed to be a clinical science.  So I take exception to Sara's language: "naturopathy while not scientifically proved" is actually "naturopathy the unethical pseudoscience."  And naturopathy is not "mostly based around using plants", that's herbalism, a component of naturopathy.  Naturopathy is centered upon a metaphysical construct: see their oldest school for naturopathy's beliefs in vitalism, supernaturalism, teleology and kind.  So, again, I take exception to that false dichotomy of naturopathy as plants, and homeopathy as something else.  And I do totally agree with the dismissal of homeopathy.  And just to emphasize that that herbalism is as inert as homeopathy generally speaking [the strong things are banned, like ephedra and chaparral were], isn't it interesting that naturopaths pose homeopathy and herbalism as equal generally speaking in terms of efficacy in their cornucopia.  What does that say about herbalism!  And definitely naturopathy is NOT benign, in terms of their falsehoods.

"the European Academies’ Scientific Advisory Council [...] concludes that 'there are no known diseases for which there is robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathy is effective beyond the placebo effect' and that 'the claims for homeopathy are implausible and inconsistent with established scientific concepts' [...]";

hear, hear.

"it’s also possible that some homeopathic remedies could hurt you, not because water has memory but because no one really regulates herbal supplements [...they're] unregulated remedies [...] unlike a drug like aspirin, a homeopathic pill doesn’t go through testing to make sure that it actually contains the thing it claims to in the amounts listed on the label [...] the important difference between those drugs and natural or homeopathic remedies is that pharmaceuticals are regulated [...] natural remedies aren’t regulated by the FDA either, but they do tend to be safer than homeopathics—they’re not diluting down the active ingredient, so they don’t use poisons as headache cures. That doesn’t mean the garlic or ginkgo biloba or St. John’s wort or palmetto or chondroitin or echinacea you’re taking will do what they’re supposed to. They usually don’t [...] not every homeopathic manufacturer is as dangerous, but here’s the thing: none of it works. So don’t take the chance [...]";

ok, Sara.  First you'd said herbs are not homeopathy and now you're saying 'herbal supplements subset homeopathy'.  Which is it?  It is true that DSHEA from 1994 excludes herbs and supplements from testing, and the FD&C Act of 1938 exempts homeopathy.  But perhaps I quibble.  And we're warned not to take things that aren't tested for purity.  And I agree. 

"maybe turmeric doesn’t help with achy knees. But if you think it does, and it’s not causing other problems, who cares? [...] don't let your love of plant-based wellness interventions make you bristle when you hear arguments against homeopathy, because they are not one in the same [...]";

ah, Sara, you'd said that all this stuff is unregulated and now you're saying unregulated herbs are ok but not unregulated homeopathics?  Why?  What's the difference?  YOU don't know what's in them.  It's a gamble. They're ALL mysterious in terms of what's in them and therein just as equally potentially dangerous.  You should not be giving such advice.  And the logical inconsistency is disturbing.  It's nonsense, literally.  A better article is at Consumer Reports, "How Natural Doctors Can Hurt You" from Feb 2018.  It lacks reckless advice.