Thursday, January 5, 2017

Mass. ND Licensure: Representative Kaufman Doesn't Know What He's Talking About

here, differing opinions on Massachusetts ND licensure and my comments:

001. at bostonglobe.com, Felice J. Freyer writes in "Legislation Would License Alternative Medicine Practitioners" (2017-01-05) and the retitled "Unproven, Potentially Dangerous — and Licensed Under a New Bill":


"a measure that emerged in the last moments of the Massachusetts Legislature’s session Tuesday would create a licensing board for naturopaths — alternative medicine practitioners whose work is considered unproven and potentially dangerous by physician leaders, but defended as a helpful option by adherents [...]";

a nice synopsis.

"Amy Rothenberg, president of the Massachusetts Society of Naturopathic Doctors [...] said the bill, if enacted, will protect patients from inadequately-trained naturopaths who engage in dangerous practices [...] 'we’ll be able to offer quality naturopathic medicine to the citizens of Massachusetts, where we will have both the protection of the law the and also regulation' [...]";

actually, the bill allows naturopathy to regulate itself, and why would nonsense have a problem with itself?  And ND Rothenberg is also a homeopathy advocate.  The MSND's mother-ship, the AANP, actually quite falsely terms homeopathy a "medicinal science."  So, where oh where is the quality?  Where or where is the consumer protection?

 "Dr. James S. Gessner, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said that licensure won’t protect patients because naturopathy does not have standards for proper care [...] 'it’s hard to know if there is a deviation from standards when it’s not clear what the standards are [...] a license really doesn’t mean very much' [...]";

exactly, licensure doesn't mean the methods and ideas of naturopathy are valid, just approved, and self-regulated.  But that does mean a lot for naturopathy's growth, the growth of licensed falsehood.

"the Massachusetts Medical Society, in written testimony to the Legislature, dismissed naturopathy as 'a combination of nutritional advice, home remedies, and discredited treatments' and 'a large assortment of erroneous and potentially dangerous claims mixed with a sprinkling of non-controversial dietary and lifestyle advice [...]'; 

true that. 

"representative Jay R. Kaufman, Democrat of Lexington and a top proponent of licensing naturopaths, said the medical society has been 'incredibly slow to appreciate the qualifications as well as the experience of folks who are alternative medicine practitioners' [...] years ago, Kaufman served on a legislative commission that examined naturopathy, which he said concluded that naturopathic practices and those of conventional medicine 'had very comparable levels of credibility and scientific accuracy' [...]"; 

you don't know what you're talking about, Mr. Kaufman.  Perhaps you think astrology is so close to astronomy that they're comparable.  No, idiotic. 

"Britt Marie Hermes, a former naturopath who left the profession and writes a blog lambasting it, urged the governor not to sign the bill [...stating] 'licensing provides the public with a sense of legitimacy [...] patients are being duped into believing naturopaths are trained just like doctors [...] naturopathic students are not trained in medical standards of care, let alone reality' [...and also pointing out that] the courses at naturopathic colleges have some of the same titles as at medical schools, but the content is thin and often bogus [...e.g.] she took a year of training in homeopathy, a discredited practice that purports to treat illnesses with highly diluted amounts of the element that caused it [...]"; 

hear, hear.
Post a Comment