here, I cite from the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts [KSBHA] which absurdly labels naturopathy's homeopathy "clinical science" [see 001., below]; then, I muse on 'what such pseudoscience-by-legislation accomplishes' [see 002., below]:
001. the KSBHA states in "Kansas Statutes Annotated and Kansas Administrative Regulations Relating to the Practice of Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-11-26]:
"the board shall issue a registration as a naturopathic doctor to an individual who prior to the effective date of this act (1) graduated from a school of naturopathy that required four years of attendance and was at the time of such individual’s graduation accredited or a candidate for accreditation by the board approved accrediting body, (2) passed an examination approved by the board covering appropriate naturopathic subjects including basic and clinical sciences [...] K.A.R .100-72-5. Examinations: (a) Each applicant for registration by examination as a naturopathic doctor shall submit proof of having passed a nationally administered, standardized examination [the NPLEX, essentially] that is approved by the board and consists of written questions and practical questions assessing knowledge and proficiency on subject matter from the following content areas: (1) Basic sciences, including the following: (A) Anatomy; (B) biochemistry; (C) microbiology; (D) pathology; and (E) physiology; and (2) clinical sciences, including the following: (A) Emergency medicine and public health; (B) laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging; (C) botanical medicine; (D) clinical nutrition; (E) physical and clinical diagnosis; (F) physical medicine; (G) psychology; (H) counseling; (I) ethics; and (J) homeopathy."
Note: so, an accredited school requiring basic and clinical sciences. Wow, knowing what I know about 'the essentially naturopathic'. Yes, that's right, homeopathy is claimed as SCIENCE. And ethics too. We know, and have know for quite some time, that homeopathy is IMPLAUSIBLE.
Edzard Ernst recently said it best in "Homeopathy, Non-Specific Effects and Good Medicine" (2010-11-13):
"in this issue, Brien et al. report the findings of a five-armed randomized controlled trial, which was aimed at differentiating between the effects of homeopathic remedies and patient consultations. The authors demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are placebos and show that 'the benefits of homeopathy are attributable to the consultation' [...] homeopathic remedies [...] are biologically implausible, and the 150 published trials collectively fail to indicate clinical effectiveness [...yes,] patients benefit from a long and empathic encounter with a homeopath but not from the remedy [...yes,] the effective element is not specifically homeopathy but the therapeutic relationship in general [...so, overall] homeopathic remedies are ineffective and empathetic therapeutic encounters are helpful [...] we should discard the ineffective and adopt the helpful. If we do this, we must tell our patients that homeopathic remedies are both implausible and ineffective. Thus, they cannot be recommended."
That's right, what KSBHA states is a clinical science hasn't ever been shown to be effective, and is considered implausible. That amounts to being science-ejected. The label upon naturopathy's homeopathy by KSBHA is false.
002. pseudoscience-by-legislation: what does naturopathy's false-labeling of what's science-ejected as "science" accomplish?
I've fashioned the term "epistemic conflation" [akin to pseudoscience, but encompassing more so the Franken-build of legitimate science and nonscience knowledge amalgamation so typical of naturopathy] to put an handle on naturopathy's M.O. What naturopathy does is study some science content [e.g., 'basic medical science' and 'regular clinical medicine'], some nonscience content [the essentially naturopathic, sCAM woo-things] and combines the two areas under the umbrella term "science." But, this is logically false. Scientific knowledge is a specific kind of knowledge, and the other stuff is not scientific knowledge. To blend knowledge kinds and falsely label it unblended is madness.
Naturopathy's 'back-end' in all this misrepresentation is simply this: it's great marketing. I see it also as unfair trade, and a violation of the professional ethos of informed consent.
It's also efficient: instead of doing actual science, or merely keeping up with the scientific literature and gutting from naturopathy 'that-which-is-archaic-junk', a little pdf document and a few lines of legislation are all that's needed to get on the commerce gravy train.
Now, lets be as expansive as possible: this epistemic conflation and false labeling of homeopathy as science happens across all of North America [NA; I'll exclude Mexico], not just in Kansas. NPLEX, the licensure exam for NA naturopathy, clearly claims homeopathy as "science."
And this is why Naturocrit exists: to at least be a small voice countering this madness. The naturopathic racket continues, even after all these years of continually publicly alerting State, Federal, and Provincial authorities.