here, I cite from a 2011-03-01 report by KWGN [see 001., below]; and then I muse [see 002., below]:
001. KWGN's Eli Stokols reports in "Lawmakers Again Consider Regulating Alternative Doctors" [saved 2011-03-02; and the embed (also up on the AANP Youtube.com account as well)]:
"Laura Flanagan['s...] son, Sean, had less than a year to live [due to cancer...] she found a naturopathic doctor [...and] ten days later, Sean Flanagan was dead [...from] unconventional hydrogen peroxide treatments [...] eight years after Sean's death, Laura Flanagan went back to the Capitol to ask lawmakers to approve a bill to regulate naturopathic practitioners [...] 'when this bill passes, you will know when you go to a naturopathic doctor that they have been checked out by the state of Colorado and their credentials are good' [...said sponsor] Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley [...] after four hours of testimony Tuesday, lawmakers on the House Health and Human Services voted 6-7 [7 against!] to kill the measure."
Note: I am in no manner attempting to lessen the tragic loss of the Flanagan's. It appears, though, that they don't see the problem as naturopathy overall [the disease], but as a certain subset of naturopathy [the symptom]. Riesberg's proposed legislation, which I've read over, is so vague that within it one cannot find a transparent definition of naturopathy AT ALL. In that sense, it is deceptive [the disease] because it doesn't honor disclosure and transparency. It's like patenting a widget, or a thing-a-ma-jig. I don't get the logic of either Flanagan or Riesberg. I would think both would want the best scientifically-based, highly-educated oncologist that society can muster -- not state-credentialed pseudoscience on stilts.
002. what I take away from this:
the scientific plausibility of hydrogen peroxide as a cancer treatment is utter nonsense. So, from the get-go, the most basic of criteria for justifying the treatment didn't exist. That naturopath, that non-AANMC-AANP-CAND naturopath, is in jail.
but, that's not the only nonsense in this scene. There's no guarantee of non-nonsense by going the CNME route! Look at Oregon! Washington State! Excuse me if I seem to be harsh, but the Flanigans appear still to be true believers in naturopathy / alt. med., even after their experience: yet, naturopathy is, even within the AANMC-AANP-CAND group, STILL NONSENSE.
it seems the Flannigan's want nonsense regulated, though they may not be aware of how acutely nonsensical naturopathy is just as the lawmaker cited may not. Has the due diligence been done? Credentials, of the AANMC-AANP-CAND type specifically that would be licensed, are NOT GOOD [naturopathy is truly the reversal of all values] -- unless science and nonsense are the same thing and engaging in trade from such a position after falsely labeling it all science anyway, is acceptable clinically and educationally.
now, somehow the bill died. It seems the shear number of non-AANP "naturopaths" and the like in Colorado [reported at about 16,000; a very woo-ful state] were again able to defeat the AANP contingent [of about 90]. Democrats all voted for, Republicans all voted against. I don't think it died for the right reasons. The alty group opposing it still claims that this is a "turf war." I'll guess that the Dems thought it would guarantee some kind of consumer protection, and the Reps didn't want to interfere with the marketplace.
the turf isn't commerce - the mean green of the market interested in this stuff. There's a turf that's more encompassing, and has priority: scientific integrity, and professionalism. The AANMC-AANP-CAND type ND falsely labels the profoundly science-ejected science. It's not science and can't be professional if it's false. That's a fact.
so, licensure leads to licensed falsehood. In licensing such an absurd knowledge position, more tragedies can be expected [as the whackaloon is offered as legitimate] and likely with greater immunity for the woo-meisters due to State complicity.
