Two 2010-11 Accounts of Homeopathy: WSOCTV.com [uncritical endorsement], The Telegraph [uncritical dismissal]

here, I cite from two media sources regarding homeopathy.  One endorses homeopathy uncritically, by -- yes, you guess it -- citing an AANP naturopath [see 001., below]; and the other cites a study that dismisses homeopathy, a study that uncritically tries to salvage specific-to-homeopathy benefits [see 002., below]; then, I remind that the naturopathy crowd claims, quite falsely, that homeopathy is science [see 003., below]:

001. Charlotte, N.C.'s WSOCTV.com states in "Homeopathy Insight" (2010-11-18)[vsc 2010-11-19]:

"homeopathy is a form of complementary and alternative medicine based on a premise called the 'principle of similars' or 'like cures like.' According to homeopathic theory, any substance (plant, animal or mineral) that causes illness in a healthy person will cure a person who is sick with that same illness when given in extremely dilute doses [...] common reasons for use include: allergies, flu, asthma and childhood diarrhea [...] Judy Fulop, N.D. [(NCNM)...] naturopathic physician with Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago. IL, says [...] it takes many years of study to learn about the various remedies [...and] homeopathic remedies can be used to relieve some of the side effects of illness or treatment [really?]."

Note: ND Fulup's work bio. states [vsc 2010-11-19]:

"Judy's philosophy is built on the principles of naturopathic medicine: support the healing power of nature [HPN]."

Being that she is an NCNM graduate, you can decode HPN here, which is the science-ejected sectarian concept central to naturopathy: life force falsely claimed as science.  Oh how they love to not be transparent, and to falsely label.

At AANMC, we're told [vsc 2010-11-19]:

"Dr. Fulop is currently the vice president of the Illinois Naturopathic Medical Association and chairperson of the Legislative and Legal committee working on ND licensure in Illinois. She introduced House Bill #1591 and Senate Bill #1758 in the Illinois legislative process. She is a board member of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, chair of the Scientific Affairs Committee, and member of the Public Affairs committee."

002. the Telegraph's Laura Donnelly writes in "Homeopathy Works - But It is Talking, Not Tinctures that Helps Patients" (2010-11-14)[vsc 2010-11-19]:

"homeopathy can reduce the symptoms of disease, but it is the consultations not the remedies which are responsible, a new study has found [...] it made no difference whether the solution they received was a genuine homeopathic tincture prescribed to treat rheumatism, or a placebo [...] those who had a series of five consultations with a homeopathic doctor experienced 'significant clinical benefits,' - whether the tincture they received was a specially prepared 'homeopathic' remedy used to treat rheumatism, or a placebo. Patients given exactly the same remedies without the consultations did not gain the improvements [...] Dr Sarah Brien, the study’s lead author, said that while previous research had suggested homeopathy could help patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the study provided the first scientific evidence to show such benefits were 'specifically due to its unique consultation process.'"

Note: so, the reporter repeated the spin of the study's author, that there's something UNIQUE to the homeopathic encounter though the pill is inert.  But, Edzard Ernst says it best, in the same journal issue that that homeopathy study was published within, in "Homeopathy, Non-Specific Effects and Good Medicine" (2010-11-13):

"in this issue, Brien et al. report the findings of a five-armed randomized controlled trial, which was aimed at differentiating between the effects of homeopathic remedies and patient consultations. The authors demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are placebos and show that 'the benefits of homeopathy are attributable to the consultation' [...] homeopathic remedies  [...] are biologically implausible, and the 150 published trials collectively fail to indicate clinical effectiveness [...yes,] patients benefit from a long and empathic encounter with a homeopath but not from the remedy [...yes,] the effective element is not specifically homeopathy but the therapeutic relationship in general [...so, overall] homeopathic remedies are ineffective and empathetic therapeutic encounters are helpful [...] we should discard the ineffective and adopt the helpful. If we do this, we must tell our patients that homeopathic remedies are both implausible and ineffective. Thus, they cannot be recommended."

Yes, there's NOTHING UNIQUE to the homeopathic encounter and the pills are inert.

003. meanwhile, naturopathy labels homeopathy a science, e.g. the Division of Health Sciences at the University of  Bridgeport has a naturopathy degree that requires homeopathy [vsc 2010-11-20].  Here's my take on this massive mislabeling:

science  -------------- naturopathy  ---------------  homeopathy

subset                                              subset              

Note: homeopathy is truly science-ejected, at that tertiary level of the above.  Naturopathy, at that secondary level, is itself science-ejected essentially due to 'that which is essentially naturopathic.'   It is sad to think about all the people, both students and patients, that naturopathy is mindfucking with their cultic homeopathy penchant.

Gushing Over the Blood Type Diet at The Telegraph, and then Actual Science:

here, I cite from a recent Telegraph article promoting naturopath D'Adamo's Blood Type Diet [BTD; see 001., below]; then I cite heavy-weight criticism of the whole apparent woo [see 002., below]:

001. Walden, C. (? ?) states in "The Blood-Type Diet: Weight Loss Need Not Be in Vein" (2010-06-16):

"ever since Cheryl Cole put her steadily dwindling figure down to the blood-type diet 'Eat Right For Your Type', British women have been pulling up their sleeves and baring their veins to nutritionists all over the country. First advocated by Peter D'Adamo, a naturopathic physician who believed he had found a link between a person's blood type and the foods their bodies would best be able to digest and absorb, the blood-type diet claims to be as much about health, energy and longevity as it is about weight loss [...] Carole Symons, a medical herbalist and nutrition adviser [...states] 'the future is clearly in the more accurate science of nutrigenomics' [...] this new science involves studying the effects of food on our genes in order to understand the relationship between nutrition and health [...] having ascertained that I'm blood type A Rhesus negative, she makes a few preliminary diagnoses [...] generally speaking, type As should stick to vegetarian-based diets; Bs to a varied diet of meat, grains, dairy and vegetables; ABs should be mainly vegetarian, with occasional meat, fish and dairy; and Os should stick to meat-based diets."

Note: how the article promises 'more accurate science.'  The author apparently doesn't have any medical or scientific credentials.  Her bio. at the Telegraph states "Celia Walden is a novelist and commentator who writes caustically about many troubling aspects of modern life, from male grooming to talkative taxi drivers."  I guess the hair and the punning balance out the whole thing.  Deep.

002. criticisms of the BTD, which are not hard to find even for a novelist, include:

002.a. the Mayo Clinic states "there's no scientific evidence to support the so-called 'blood type diet.'" 

002.b. Wikipedia states:

"the consensus among dietitians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence [...and] another criticism is that there are no clinical trials of the Blood Type Diet. In his first book Eat Right 4 Your Type, D'Adamo mentions being in the eighth year of a 10 year cancer trial, but the results of this trial have never been published."

Note: sounds like a long wait for a train that ain't coming.

003. it's interesting when journalists don't adhere to journalistic standards, and instead become acolytes.