001. in "SFSBM Pleased to Report that Its Report Displeases Maryland Naturopaths" [2014-12-07; my comments are in unquoted bold], we're told:
"the Science-Based Medicine blog has done a terrific job of educating the public about pseudo-medicines such as chiropractic, acupuncture and naturopathy [...] and the tools of their trades: homeopathy [...] subluxations, colonic irrigation, moxibustion, cranial sacral therapy [etc....aka] quackery";
"this quackery and deceit [...] the tide of bamboozlement [...]";
ah, one of my most favorite words for deceiving others.
"the 'root cause' of much of the pseudo-medicine unleashed on the public is the government itself, mostly the state legislatures [...]";
yes indeed. And trunk where those roots spring from in terms of naturopathy in the United States is the State of Oregon and its accomplicing to naturopathic fraud.
"our first effort is a Report to the Naturopathic Advisory Committee of the Maryland Board of Physicians and you can read it here [...]";
this I'll comment upon in 002., below.
"the Society for Science-Based Medicine [...] is a community of like-minded individuals, both in and out of health care, who believe that people should not suffer, die and lose hope, time and money due to pseudo-medicine. We support a single, science-based standard of care for all health care and believe that effective, reliable care can only be delivered within a consistent framework of scientific knowledge and standards [...]";
I hugely agree, of course.
"the Maryland Legislature passed a naturopathic doctor licensing act in 2014 [...]";
because licensed falsehood moves on.
"naturopaths are required to study homeopathy in naturopathic school. Homeopathy is a 200 year-old, pre-scientific set of beliefs about medicine known to be at odds with basic laws of chemistry, physics, and biology [...] despite its implausibility, hundreds of clinical trials of homeopathy have been conducted. In 2013, the Australian government conducted an exhaustive review of the evidence and concluded 'the available evidence is not compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy is an effective treatment for any of the reported clinical conditions in humans'. This is accord with earlier reviews of the evidence [...]";
"[some of naturopathy's bogus activities include] biotherapeutic drainage is wholly implausible and, not surprisingly, there is no evidence that it is effective for anything [...] cranial-sacral / craniosacral therapy [...] there is no evidence that craniosacral therapy has any effect beyond placebo [...] a regulation stating that 'naturopaths should not prescribe, dispense or administer homeopathic remedies without informing the patient that there is no reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective for any disease or condition' should be adopted [...] at the very least, the Committee should recommend a regulation stating that all naturopathic diagnoses and treatments 'conform to generally accepted scientific principles' [...]";
I also agree hugely.