Let us now consider, individually, a few of the therapies most commonly confused with Nature Cure. The following is typical of many enquiries:

"I should be much obliged if you would publish a short statement on your opinion of homeopathy. Your attitude to the orthodox profession is made abundantly clear, but I feel sure that many people would welcome a reliable Nature Cure opinion on the subject of homeopathy. I am inclined to believe that there are more homeopaths who use Naturopathic aids than Naturopaths who use Homeopathy."

That last sentence is more deeply significant than a first reading might suggest. Its implications cover not only the confusion between the two systems—in the lay mind—but also provide the essential reason why homeopathy still flourishes. Quite apart from the most important argument against homeopathy—that it caters to the "disease-is-not-your-fault" and "health-can-be-bought" mentality—there is the undeniable fact that its theories and practices do not bear serious investigation.

Competent and impartial investigators have demonstrated time and again that the hypothesis of increasing potency with increasing dilution is utter nonsense. If there was any justification for the claim, the most powerful medicine imaginable would be a glass of distilled water, since this—from mathematical probability—contains every homeopathic drug in quantities corresponding to the highest potencies. However, the resourceful Homeopath probably has an answer to that, too! The text-books of homeopathy are characterised by a startling mixture of positive dogmatism and evasive generality. Self-contradiction is a feature of homeopathic writings. "All drugs are disease-producing and poisonous", and "only through homeopathy will there be real progress in their administration". Or, " the homeopath does not treat symptoms, but individuals". That sounds fine—right in line with Nature Cure—until a later chapter explains that every homeopathic drug is specific to a symptom.