001. in "Rationalizing the Ridiculous" (2014-09-014), MD Crislip writes [my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"what about using naturopaths? [...] the short answer is no [...]";
hear, hear...and there you go. IMHO, with the profound irrationality that sits at the heart of naturopathy, I wouldn't even let one look at a blister on the sole of my foot.
"[NDs'] mostly harmless, although mostly fantasy-based, therapies [...] they are trained in unproven, often irrational, fantasy: nutritional supplements, homeopathy, acupuncture, hydrotherapy and electrical stimulation. There is no nonsensical therapy that is not in the naturopathic armamentarium [...] any and all medical magic is in their purview [...]";
agreed. Though, as I've said many times before, the mislabeling of figmentations as science-based, and the fact that money is exchanged, is quite a harm in the legal sense of fraud of unfair business practice, and academic standards. Plus, since NDs' core is comprised of 'coded articles of faith falsely posed as scientific fact', I think freedom of belief is quite harmed too.
"referring to naturopathy as a credible source for medical diagnosis and treatment doesn’t make it so [...]";
"to quote me, if you mix cow pie with apple pie, it does not make the cow pie taste better; it makes the apple pie worse. Our patients need a better apple pie, not cow pie [...]";
agreed. Or, as I formulated a long time ago: wine plus mud does not equal wine. It's all mud then.