Saturday, March 5, 2011

Colorado Naturopathy Licensure Is Permission to Practice "Non-scientific" Medicine -- Colorado Rep. Brown

here, I cite from a recent article regarding the failed 2011 AANP licensure attempt [see 001., below]; then, from a web page of the NDs interviewed in that article [see 002., below]:

001. Kathryn Corazzelli reports in "Summit County Naturopaths Fight for Recognition" [saved 2011-03-05]:

"this past Tuesday, a bill that would regulate naturopathic doctors in Colorado failed in a House Health and Environment Committee vote [sure did...] Dr. Kimberly Nearpass [...says] 'this is about public awareness and safety [...] there's no regulation in terms of public safety; there's no way for the public to know that their naturopathic doctor has any formal training [...] there's also no way to file a complaint with the state in terms of public protection [...] there's no board overseeing the licensable ND's in this state [...] we're looking for protection' [...] Nearpass and her husband Dr. Justin Pollack own the Mountain River Naturopathic Clinic [...]  both [are] licensed to practice in Oregon [...] where the profession is regulated [...] Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Durango, told the Colorado News Agency  [...] 'it may be too soon to go down this path, formally authorizing a non-scientific practice'."

Note: the irony is killing me. They sure are looking for protection: their own.  But, not the public's, in my view, because I agree with Rep. Brown that naturopathy is "non-scientific", overall. He gets it.  I'm in no way, though, endorsing his political platform.

Nonscientific medicine, because it leads to dumb-assed ideas, practices, and eventually harm, indicates that naturopathic licensure would be AGAINST the best interest of the public.  Their doctorates are "formal training" in nonsense, as the contents of the Oregon '.gov' board and the ND / NMD licensure exam indicates.

I don't see how such a board, in any state, could enforce / oversee naturopathy's nonsense.  How do you violate the nonsensical principles which are naturopathy's standard of care; what do they accuse you of, making sense?  Practicing actual scientific medicine?  Being rational?  Truly the reversal of all values.

002. ND Pollack [Bastyr 1999] and Nearpass [NCNM 2003] state, on their web page "Services" [vsc 2011-03-05]:

"our main treatment methods include: [...] constitutional homeopathy (very dilute substances that stimulate the body's vital force)."

Note: enough said, not science.  Meanwhile, both Bastyr and NCNM -- their alma maters -- state that naturopathy IS science.
Post a Comment