001. @news.nationalpost.com, Sharon Kirkey writes in "Should Naturopaths Be Restricted From Treating Children After Tragic Death of Alberta Toddler?" (2016-04-03):
"before her creeping uneasiness with naturopathic medicine finally drove her from practice, Britt Marie Hermes says she watched colleagues deliver advice that was bad to dangerously incompetent [...such as] missed diagnoses of cancer [...positions] against childhood vaccinations [...and the] treat[ing of] aggressive illnesses with the same 'immune boosting' herb Ezekiel Stephan was given while the Alberta toddler was dying from meningitis [...] 'my argument is not, and never has been, that medicine is perfect,' Hermes said. 'But just because medicine isn’t perfect doesn’t make naturopathy a reasonable alternative' [...]";
yes, go on...
"after a family friend and nurse told the mother he might have meningitis — an infection that causes inflammation of the layer of tissue that covers the brain — Collet purchased an echinacea tincture [...] from a Lethbridge naturopathic clinic. By then the boy was so sick and stiff he couldn’t sit in his car seat.[...] the case is raising troubling questions about whether naturopaths should be restricted from treating children [...]";
hmmm, let's thing: should licensed falsehood treat children...hmmm.
"the naturopath has testified she was busy with a patient when Collet called ahead of her visit to the clinic, but that she told a staff member to tell the mother to take the boy immediately to hospital [...and that] she said she remained by the phone long enough to confirm the message was relayed, and that she was never asked if echinacea would be a good treatment for meningitis. Under cross-examination, the jury heard the naturopath never told police she had stayed by the phone while the advice was passed on. A worker in her clinic also told investigators she introduced the naturopath to Collet when she arrived at the clinic, and described her as the mother of 'the little one with meningitis' [...]";
I smell perjury here. Naturopathy, in general, usually has no problem lying, BTW.
"University of Alberta health-policy researcher Tim Caulfield [...] has long argued that naturopathy operates in the realm of 'pseudoscience' [...] Caulfield said naturopaths are increasingly positioning themselves as' some kind of substitute for a family physician' offering evidence-based treatments, when much of what they advertise, according to his research, has no foundation in science. 'They want to have the best of both worlds,' Caulfield said. 'But if you’re going to be a science-based practitioner, you shouldn’t be providing homeopathy, you shouldn’t be providing iridology or high-dose intravenous vitamin injections' [...]";