One of the dangers of being a skeptic is receiving the ire of those lacking a sense of rationality. Make no mistake, by pointing the finger at unscientific shenanigans, you’re most likely going to hear about it. Not by those who’ve been fooled into believing the nonsense, but by those who’ve dedicated themselves to that nonsense and, even more likely, by the people who are selling it. Such is the case with the proposed Canadian Bill C-51, which according to some will “criminalize activities like picking dandelions, drying herbs, or even giving homeopathic medicine to your own child(sic)!”

Link.

Well, if you’ve read the linked article at this point, you’re likely terrified. “Big Pharm” is at it again, demonizing our heroic naturopaths and trampling on our rights to pick dandelions. The only problem is, that’s not what the bill proposes, nor is that bit of fear-mongering anywhere in touch with reality.

In fact, nearly all of the provisions of the bill are already in place for pharmaceuticals. The bill merely widens the scope to which the provisions apply. Namely, any “therapeutic agent” marketed/distributed to the public. That includes pharmaceuticals, “natural” medicine, homeopathy and supplements. Hardly what I’d call a conspiracy orchestrated by the pharmaceutical companies.

Specifically, Sections 10 and 11 of C-51 demand for authorized clinical trials to support the claims and safety of any “therapeutic agent” before it can be sold or advertised. Drug companies already do this, while Naturopaths and Homeopaths do not. Subsections 23.1(1-3) contradict the claims that government goons plan to trample over your flower-picking rights by establishing that, quote: “If the place referred to in subsection 23(1) is a dwelling-house, an inspector may not enter it without the consent of the occupant except under the authority of a warrant.” A warrant, thus, would be required for agents to enter your house (which is already the case pre-C-51).

Feel free to read the rest of the bill here, and compare it to the terror-laden claims of the naturopaths. In truth, I believe this is exactly what they, along with homeopaths, have wanted: To be classified as bona-fide medicine. What they’re opposed to, it seems, is the requirement to play by the same rules as the rest of medicine: To undergo clinical tests, to avoid false claims, and to otherwise be at the full mercy of the scientific method. I realize that I, myself am now indulging in a little bit of conspiracy theory, but I presume they know exactly what the clinical tests would find.