Since you don't actually support your argument with any data, citations, or rational points, what would you say all these things are based on?
> For whatever flaws may exist with naturopathy, at least it's a real thing with legitimate practitioners.
Can you please define "it's a real thing" and "legitimate" and "practitioners" in that statement?
>Studied homeopathy to some extent. Which if you haven't done, you're probably not a very good doctor.
Tell me again how you are able to judge what makes a good doctor? By what authority, knowledge or reasoning?
Wouldn't that make SBM not scientific by definition?
The problem is that it's not clear whose gets the decide what the existing scientific beliefs are, how the evidence should be weighted, whether this results in better patient outcomes than treating patients using evidence based medicine, etc.
For whatever flaws may exist with naturopathy, at least it's a real thing with legitimate practitioners.
edit: Also, your assertion that Dr. Auer advertises himself as a homeopathic practitioner isn't even accurate. His actual bio states, "Dr. Auer is continuously furthering his education and understanding of the body through post-doctorate courses and various seminars ranging from functional medicine, functional endocrinology, natural hormone balancing, holistic nutrition, homeopathy, herbology, chiropractic neurology, and various chiropractic and soft tissue techniques."
In other words, he is saying that he has studied homeopathy to some extent. Which if you haven't done, you're probably not a very good doctor.