> if it was homeopathic, we can be quite certain that it was doing nothing at all.
From TFA:
>several recent peer-reviewed studies have shown that at least one of the active drugs in four-marvels powder, quercetin, exhibits anti-inflammatory activity.
Dismissing all traditional treatments without using research is just as woo-ey as blindly accepting them.
Whoops. I misread 'naturopath' as 'homeopath'. When you dilute something 10e60-fold, I'm comfortable dismissing it, and it's not woo-ey at all. But that wasn't the case here.
I didn't mean to imply that traditional treatments can't contain active ingredients that can be useful -- they surely can, and are the source of many drugs.
> the NPLEX (Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations), which is required for naturopaths to be licensed in the 16 states in the U.S. and 5 provinces in Canada that license naturopathic physicians tests naturopaths on homeopathy
> Then there’s the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP). If you take a look at its blog and search it for the word “homeopathy, you’ll rapidly see that the largest “professional” organization of naturopaths not only embraces homeopathy but defends it against attacks.
Actually if it was homeopathic we really can be certain that it would do nothing at all. Maybe the person you were responding to didn't quite state it clearly. I don't believe either that commenter or the article refereed to it as a homeopathic remedy.
I won't get into why a homeopathic remedy can't work. It should be pretty obvious just based on what homeopathy claims
From TFA:
>several recent peer-reviewed studies have shown that at least one of the active drugs in four-marvels powder, quercetin, exhibits anti-inflammatory activity.
Dismissing all traditional treatments without using research is just as woo-ey as blindly accepting them.