The Bell Tolls for Homeopathy: Time for Change in the Training and Practice of North American Naturopathic Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North American naturopathic medicine is a distinct form of practice that is woven into the larger fabric of integrative medicine; in a number of US states and Canadian provinces, naturopathic doctors enjoy a wide scope of practice, including the ability to make diagnoses, order tests, use medical technology, write prescription drugs, and perform minor surgeries. However, the basic premise of naturopathic medicine and its guiding principles-considering the whole person and supporting healthy lifestyle behaviors-is the unifying approach in clinical practice. In the 1970s, homeopathy-considered in many circles to be a hypothesis-driven, fringe form of alternative medicine-became embedded into the training and practice of North American naturopathic doctors. Since the earliest days of its theory (circa 1800), homeopathy has escaped, and continues to escape, biological plausibility; however, the persistence of this modality (and the insistence by both its consumers and practitioners that it provides benefit) speaks to the role of expectations, beliefs, values, agency, context effects, and the placebo-at-large. It is our contention that the progression of professional naturopathic medicine in the 21st century requires a major transition in how it approaches the subject of homeopathy. We propose that students should be encouraged to critically analyze the tenets of homeopathy, its lesser known history, and the idea of homeopathy as a biomedicine that simply awaits untold chemicophysical mechanisms. Furthermore, the modality of homeopathy should be incorporated into the larger context of placebo studies, narrative medicine, ethics, and psychotherapeutic techniques.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".