here, I cite from a recent Australian web article and then comment:
001. agedcareinsite.com.au states in "Educators Spar on Complementary Medicine" [vsc 2012-02-19]:
"[as reported by Jennifer Bennett] NHAA president [and naturopath!] Leah Hechtman [...] who lectures in naturopathy at the University of Western Sydney [...wants] naturopathic and Western herbal medicine [...] integrated into the Australian health system [...] 'to exclude naturopathic and Western herbal medicine courses from undergraduate or postgraduate programs at Australian universities is irresponsible' [...and] that teaching at a university level also ensured quality practitioners [...] 'in order to safeguard the public, practitioners of these modalities [practices] need to be part of the same rigorous training and education as other health professionals' [...and at UWS the naturopathic program is] 'heavily evidence based [...] the equivalent of a health science degree [...of] health science quality [...] it’s all backed up by laboratory evidence and clinical trials' [...versus] Dr John Dwyer, co-founder of the Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM) [...said] 'we’re not complaining about universities doing research. What we’re complaining about is giving credibility to belief systems that are common in alternative and complementary therapies for which there is no evidence to support – things such as homeopathy, reflexology, iridology, healing touch therapy, energy medicine and the belief that chiropractic is related to an energy force [vitalism!] in the spinal cord. We don’t want the universities [to be] allowing these ideas to be presented as if there was an evidence base where there is none [in other words, FSM is against FRAUDULENT KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS / for the proper labeling of nonsense!].'"
Note: yes, UWS labels naturopathy academically / commercially broadly: "science" [vsc 2012-02-19].
002. oh where to begin?
To integrate is to BLEND, essentially. And to mislabel is to miseducate / and rip-off, in my view. What does naturopathy do? It blends science with nonscience and then mislabels the whole thing science -- and takes your treasure along the way. That is not rigorous or professional, or even legal commerce: that is a mindfuck [MF; pardon my French] and racket. For instance, as part of the MF, naturopathy's contents at UWS includes iridology [vsc 2012-02-19]. Lets call this picture "science subset naturopathy subset iridology":
So, in presenting what is patently science-ejected [e.g., that the iris represents the body homuncularly!!!] as science, I do believe it is naturopathy itself that is being quite irresponsible [and I'm being polite -- because when you pursue this falsely labeled path like I did in North America, you've not only lost time, and wasted effort, the loans taken out are with you for life]. The nerve to then imply that such an apparatus leads to QUALITY and consumer protection!!! Well, I own Hechtman's 2011 naturopathy text [ASIN B005R102LO]. Don't ask me why I was willing to shell out $88 for the Kindle copy, but I did. It gets to the heart of naturopathy, being that it is posed as a foundational 'textbook'. Now, without huge detail right now, the terms "evidence-based" has 82 occurrences, homeopathy 7, homeopathic 10, iridology 17, vital force 16 [minimally]. Ha! Here's a screen-capture of 'the essential naturopathic context'. I call it "vitalistic context of all naturopathy" [from location 15421]:
Note: "heavily evidence based" and "quality" science? Hmmm, such [iridology, vitalism] is GROSSLY SCIENCE-EJECTED. Naturopathy is TRULY, the reversal of all values.
