Durango Herald Advocates Colorado Naturopathy Licensure, 2012

here, I excerpt from a recent Colorado article on that State's naturopathy-licensure tension [see 001., below; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

001. Luke Groskopf reports / advocates in "Naturopaths – License or No?" (2012-07-23) [vsc 2012-07-23]:

"Joslyn Erica [...says] 'if licensure would give naturopathic doctors the recognition they deserve, I’m all for it' [...]";

sounds like someone believes naturopaths deserve RECOGNITION.  What licensure really is is approval, but should naturopaths' behaviors and beliefs be sanctioned / legitimized?

"how do you know your doctor is legitimate? The letters behind his or her name – MD – are generally a trustworthy signal. Under current law in Colorado, however, anybody can claim to be a doctor of naturopathy regardless of education history or training [...]";

so, licensure will lead to sanctioning / legitimization of naturopathy.  But, based on their education and training, in my opinion, they are NOT worth trusting with one's medical concerns.  After all, it is naturopathy, at its core, that falsely labels the nonscientific sectarian as medical science. That falsehood is already sanctioned by the seal of the State of Oregon, and why the hell should consumers in Colorado be so similarly victimized?
\

"naturopathy is a branch of alternative medicine that avoids invasive surgery and synthetic drugs. Instead, it calls upon herbs, vitamins, massage, diet changes and lifestyle counseling to facilitate the body’s 'innate healing' abilities' [IHA aka coded vitalism...there's] Nicola St. Mary, a naturopathic doctor [(SCNM 2004)...and] Nancy Utter [(Bastyr 2003)], a naturopathic doctor [...says] the licensure debate is [...] 'about clarity for patients and their peace of mind' [...and there's] Jennifer Letellier [(NCNM)], a naturopathic doctor [...]";

for what IHA's true meaning, see ND St. Mary's alma mater SCNM wherein we're told it is the science-ejected idea known as vitalism, and see ND Utter's alma mater Bastyr where same is said, and see NCNM, the trunk of the naturopathy tree, telling us that science is the same as nonsense. Well, said but at both institutions falsely labeled with the umbrella term "science-based" (SCNM, Bastyr).   But, if Kitzmiller et al. taught us anything, it is that even in a court of law, there is a reasonable distinction between science and patent nonscience.

"since 1994, the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors has proposed licensure bills seven different times [...] sixteen states plus the District of Columbia have passed legislation licensing naturopaths [...] the goal remains the same: clarifying the credentials needed to call oneself a naturopathic doctor [...past] criteria [has] included a bachelor’s degree, a post-graduate naturopathy degree from a four-year, Department of Education-accredited institution, at least 1,200 hours of supervised clinical training and completion of board exams. Just five schools in the United States meet these requirements [...]";

so, based on what I know about naturopathy, a domain what trades on false labels and manipulative language seeks to be approved by States to keep themselves out of trouble.  This is known, at Naturocrit, as licensed falsehood.  The irony of stating "clarifying" when it comes to naturopathy, which from the get-go states that its fundamental characteristic is that it "blends".  As you can see, in blending science with nonscience and calling, absurdly, the whole thing science, we are quite not-clarifiable and quite false in label.  This is know as required stupidity.  Obviously, as well, the USDE will accredit anything all all, even doctoral level NONSENSE.  This is institutionalized racketeering.

"among those opposed to licensure is the American Medical Association and its state affiliates, which lobby on behalf of conventional physicians. Colorado’s chapter, the Colorado Medical Society, believes licensing naturopaths as doctors wrongly endorses pseudoscience and allows them to prescribe and treat beyond their capabilities, according to a statement from CEO Alfred Gilchrist [...]";

hear, hear.  Pseudoscience is quite the correct label for a domain that labels science and the science-exterior SCIENCE.

"Shauna Young [...of] the Colorado Coalition for Natural Health [who] opposes licensure [...] holds a Doctor of Naturopathy degree from the Herbal Healer Academy, a correspondence school based in Arkansas, and was awarded a doctorate in Natural Sciences from the University of Natural Medicine in Santa Fe [...] neither are members of federally endorsed accrediting bodies [...]";

as evidenced, though, the USDE accreditation is NOT GUARANTEEING integrity or any kind of consumer protection as an education customer.  After all, as I went there and I therefore know, the University of Bridgeport labels patent science-ejected cultic nonsense "health science" and it is fully-accredited.

"[ND] Young thinks graduates from the 'big five' are creating a sweet deal for themselves at the expense of all other practitioners [...]";

oh, yeah, baby!  The 5 schools in question have a consortia body that also states quite falsely that that which is NOT in any way scientific is scientific.  Licensing such nonsense is quite protective of that nonsense.  Sweet! 

"former state Rep. Jim Reisberg, D-Greeley, was a sponsor of H.B. 11-1173.  He supports licensure for consumer-protection reasons [...]";

as I have already pointed out, how are particularly EDUCATION consumers protected by licensure of falsehood?  In fact, I term this Title IV fraud.

Note: and licensed falsehood, the naturopathillogical, marches on.  How quite an obviously absurd issue gets the 'both sides are equal' journalistic treatment is beyond me.  Therein, I label this article 'proponentry' / 'advocacy'.