Naturopathy and homeopathy: A defence against multinational capitalism.

Ayurvedic medicine – A rejoinder of faith and freedom.
August 8, 2021
Anger management and yoga: Towards a more holistic approach to offender managing.
August 8, 2021

Naturopathy and homeopathy: A defence against multinational capitalism.

Example alternative therapies dissertation topic 5:

Naturopathy and homeopathy: A defence against multinational capitalism.

Variously described as ‘quackery’ (Wahlberg, 2007) and lambasted as a consequence of ‘scientific evidence not support[ing] claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease’ (American Cancer Society, 2008), this dissertation presents a vigorous defence. Using first hand evidence, it questions the validity of quantitative studies within main-stream health studies that have criticised alternative therapies, noting that the latter have a rich literature of qualitative data pertaining to the success that they can bring. In further suggesting that the debasing of alternative medicine is part of a wider pharmaceutical-inspired conspiracy against natural remedies, this dissertation looks specifically at natural healing techniques used in late 19th century Germany.

Suggested initial topic reading:

  • American Cancer Society (2008). ‘Naturopathic medicine’. American Cancer Society. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicine.
  • Myers, S.P., Bensoussan, A., O’Connor, J., Paul-Brent, P.A., Baker, D.G., Wohlmuth, H. and Cheras, P.A. (2005). ‘A review of reviews of the benefits of naturopathy and Western herbal medicine’. In, Lin, V., Bensoussan, A., Myers, S.P., McCabe, P.J., Cohen, M., Hill, S. and Howse, G. (eds), The practice and regulatory requirements of naturopathy and Western herbal medicine. Bundoora, Vic: School of Public Health, La Trobe University, pp. 68-96.
  • Wahlberg, A. (2007). ‘A quackery with a difference – New medical pluralism and the problem of ‘dangerous practitioners’ in the United Kingdom’. Social Science & Medicine, vol. 65(11), pp. 2307-2316.