001. in "Making the Case for Registration of Naturopaths" (2015-07-15), we're told:
"[Melissa Sweet writes] should naturopaths be registered? It’s a controversial debate that’s hit the headlines again recently, following the near-death of a baby in Sydney. Dr Jon Wardle, from the Australian Research Center in Complementary and Integrative Medicine at the University of Technology Sydney, who has been taking plenty of media calls on this question, argues below that registration of naturopaths would help protect the community [...]";
well, I don't see how sanctioning nonsense protects, it victimizes with State facilitation. So, this is a false controversy if you are knowledgeable.
"Jon Wardle writes [...who] has a naturopathic background and qualifications in public health and law [whatever that means...] 'the recent case of a Sydney naturopath being charged by police after providing questionable treatment advice that nearly resulted in an eight-month old infant’s death [...] in an unregulated major health profession like naturopathy this unfortunate event was, however, both preventable and predictable [...] naturopaths are currently the only profession [...] naturopathy is a controversial health profession, it is one of the largest unregistered professions in Australia [...]";
how, how, how can you be a profession if you are based essentially on falsehood? Like homeopathy, iridology, detoxification, etc.
"registration of naturopaths [...] there are several reasons why I believe it could have protected the public in this instance [...]";
or protect naturopaths DISPROPORTIONATELY.
"the practitioner [...] in fact she had no naturopathic training [...] she was not a naturopath at all [...]";
perhaps, though, being is doing. As long as the accused was doing naturopathy in a naturopathic kind of way, that's what's relevant.
"the severe failings of self-regulation [...] its use as an alternative medicine ‘dumping ground’ that makes naturopathy so dangerous [...] naturopathy is what advertisers would call a ‘recognized brand’ and it is an unprotected one. This results in a free-for-all co-option of the term by all sorts of fringe therapists [...] the public interest reasons for regulation are pretty clear. However, opposing a public protective mechanism known to be effective in complementary therapy practitioners based solely on principle is absurd, most certainly not evidence-based, and definitely not in the public interest [...]";
oh, my. The irony. In Oregon, where NDs regulate themselves, it turns out that nobody gets in trouble for espousing 'science subset nonscience.' That is what self-regulation gets you.
"people who have faked naturopathic qualifications [...]";
so, what's fascinating is that you can be a real naturopath in terms of qualification and then espouse fake therapies, diagnostics, and pontifications. And never be sanctioned
"naturopaths are used by around 10% of the Australian population, up to 16% in some conditions (such as cancer) [..]":
how fucking scary and stupid.
"the naturopathic community is increasingly active in researching their therapies [...}";
except, of course, such results as the fact that what's essentially naturopathic, like homeopathy and iridology, are science-ejected in the MOST PROFOUND WAY.
"some have expressed concern that registration of naturopaths would infer unwarranted legitimacy on naturopaths' [...]";
it's actually a form of co-guilt, allowing them to be false with permission.