"the attitude of the GCC to evidence is amply illustrated by the fact that they have said that the rather crude myths known as craniosacral therapy [CST] and applied kinesiology [AK] fall within their definition of evidence-based care. Any organization that can say that is clearly incompetent."
Note: similarly, when I was at the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine, a yearly Connecticut ND get together on campus around 1999 actually had a CST hands-on seminar [my first exposure to this woo], and a few courses required AK as a diagnostic method [that I avoided].
NDs love CST, per here. And AK, per here.
UB, of course like all of naturopathy, calls this science.
When is crude myth [like naturopathy's essential vitalism] falsely postured as "science"?
Naturopathy.
Clearly incompetent:
an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'.
NDs love CST, per here. And AK, per here.
UB, of course like all of naturopathy, calls this science.
When is crude myth [like naturopathy's essential vitalism] falsely postured as "science"?
Naturopathy.
Clearly incompetent:
an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'.
