001. Steven Salzberg at Forbes.com writes in "Naturopathic Shenanigans in the Maryland Legislature" (2013-02-18) [vsc 2013-0219; my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"the Maryland legislature is considering a bill in its upcoming session to allow naturopaths to practice medicine in the state of Maryland [...] House bill 1029 and its companion Senate bill 783 [...] this quack bill [...]";
ouch! But if it's truly quackery, to quote Orac, then a statement of fact cannot be insolent! I'll excerpt from the bill in 002., below.
"what the heck is a naturopath? [...] Peter Lipson explained recently in
his Forbes column, naturopaths are little more than fake doctors, whose
practices are a modern-day version of folk medicine [...] naturopaths
[...] practices include homeopathy, colloidal silver treatments, and
chelation therapy, to name but a few [...]";
let me name a couple more. My recent changelog's ND video was a jewel of a cluster of naturopathic diagnostic nonsense. In "Dr. Alexis Shields, Naturopathic Doctor" [vsc 2013-02-16], we get applied kinesiology [that's what all those tubes are for on her wall; here's scientific the verdict on that] and dry blood cell analysis [we're show the blood being drawn from the earlobe; here's scientific the verdict on that]:
.
.
and I must emphasize: if a diagnostic is merely a parlor trick that is not scientifically supported and actually is quite silly, the therapeutic cannot -- if even a legitimate, scientifically supported method -- be being properly used. And we are told that her primary treatment after AK assessment is homeopathy, which scientifically speaking is not even considered worth researching anymore because it is truly INERT silliness. Parlor tricks upon parlor tricks.
and I must emphasize: if a diagnostic is merely a parlor trick that is not scientifically supported and actually is quite silly, the therapeutic cannot -- if even a legitimate, scientifically supported method -- be being properly used. And we are told that her primary treatment after AK assessment is homeopathy, which scientifically speaking is not even considered worth researching anymore because it is truly INERT silliness. Parlor tricks upon parlor tricks.
"[...such] bogus treatments, they
try all kinds of strategies to convince people that what they’re selling
really, really works, despite the evidence to the contrary [...such]
quacks never give up [...with their] unscientific and [often] downright
dangerous practices [...and] erroneous claims [...]";
by the way, one of my utmost of favorite naturopathy claims that they've made, from likely the late 1970s, is that homeopathy is "powerful." Here's are AANP-Alliance documents safe and soundly locked up at Archive.org: a) from 1999, that speaks of naturopathy as "science-based" and "not a belief system" and b) from 2000, that claims "the Textbook of Natural Medicine includes 10,000 citations of scientific studies on naturopathic methods. Scientific studies and observations have [...] held up the validity of [...amongst other things, specifically] homeopathy". Now, I own the TNM, in all its edition, and, what I can say overall, is that their standards for what makes it over the bar in order to be "scientific" is quite absurd to this present day.
"there’s an easy way to become legitimate: practice science-based medicine [...]";
hear, hear. One could also say, legally speaking: "stop engaging in commerce academically and clinically under a false science-based labeling of the patently science-exterior."
tragic! Regarding the label PROFESSION, nonsense cannot be the basis of a profession. My point has been, since the beginning of this blog in 2006 about, that the label "profession" itself is as falsely misused by naturopathy as the label "science-based". If you do not distinguish between rigorous science and the patently science-ejected, and falsely lump all that blended stuff under science-based -- as naturopathy does -- you cannot be trusted to put a patient's welfare first and foremost. In not being able to fulfill that fiduciary duty that is required of physicians, therein, you are not a professional: when the buyer has to beware, then the buyer cannot have faith. A licensure law actually allows a naturopath to get away with so much junk that I've often asserted that you have more rights on a used car lot presently than as a clinical patient of naturopathy. If what naturopaths can do when licensed was translated to that used car lot scenario, then imagine as a buyer having no rights whatsoever regarding the vehicles being sold on that used car lot. You are presented with something, you give them money, it isn't what it was described as. Imagine you go to buy a pickup truck and they deliver to you a donkey. Too bad, because when you complain, the only judges you'd get are similar used car lot salespeople. And they would tell you, confidently, all the while: we are professionals [self-regulating] who are licensed [government sanctioned] used car lot salespeople [we can do whatever we want, legally].
by the way, one of my utmost of favorite naturopathy claims that they've made, from likely the late 1970s, is that homeopathy is "powerful." Here's are AANP-Alliance documents safe and soundly locked up at Archive.org: a) from 1999, that speaks of naturopathy as "science-based" and "not a belief system" and b) from 2000, that claims "the Textbook of Natural Medicine includes 10,000 citations of scientific studies on naturopathic methods. Scientific studies and observations have [...] held up the validity of [...amongst other things, specifically] homeopathy". Now, I own the TNM, in all its edition, and, what I can say overall, is that their standards for what makes it over the bar in order to be "scientific" is quite absurd to this present day.
"there’s an easy way to become legitimate: practice science-based medicine [...]";
hear, hear. One could also say, legally speaking: "stop engaging in commerce academically and clinically under a false science-based labeling of the patently science-exterior."
"[actually] naturopaths are trying to get licensed in multiple states [...with] a legal licensing system, if the government licenses your profession [people will assume] it must be legitimate [...even when it's] a licensing system for nonsense [...] the new Maryland
bill would require physicians to violate medical ethics. The AMA code
of ethics states that 'it is unethical to engage in or to aid and abet
in treatment which has no scientific basis and is dangerous, is
calculated to deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may
cause the patient to delay in seeking proper care'. By adding a
naturopath to the Maryland State Board of Physicians, and by requiring
them to license naturopaths to practice medicine, the legislature is
forcing physicians to act unethically";
tragic! Regarding the label PROFESSION, nonsense cannot be the basis of a profession. My point has been, since the beginning of this blog in 2006 about, that the label "profession" itself is as falsely misused by naturopathy as the label "science-based". If you do not distinguish between rigorous science and the patently science-ejected, and falsely lump all that blended stuff under science-based -- as naturopathy does -- you cannot be trusted to put a patient's welfare first and foremost. In not being able to fulfill that fiduciary duty that is required of physicians, therein, you are not a professional: when the buyer has to beware, then the buyer cannot have faith. A licensure law actually allows a naturopath to get away with so much junk that I've often asserted that you have more rights on a used car lot presently than as a clinical patient of naturopathy. If what naturopaths can do when licensed was translated to that used car lot scenario, then imagine as a buyer having no rights whatsoever regarding the vehicles being sold on that used car lot. You are presented with something, you give them money, it isn't what it was described as. Imagine you go to buy a pickup truck and they deliver to you a donkey. Too bad, because when you complain, the only judges you'd get are similar used car lot salespeople. And they would tell you, confidently, all the while: we are professionals [self-regulating] who are licensed [government sanctioned] used car lot salespeople [we can do whatever we want, legally].
002. the Maryland Association of Naturopathic Physicians:
002.a. have a bill page "Support Licensure of Naturopathic Doctors in Maryland"[vsc 2013-02-19] stating:
they will testify on 2013-02-27 and 2013-03-05
and boy how I'd love to be there to hear and watch those shenanigans!
"naturopathic physicians are trained in the scope of primary care physicians with a focus on disease prevention and use of science-based natural therapies."
Note: of course, science-based. But not. Is it criminal to provide false testimony? By the way, the host site is "ndaccess.com", which for years and years has provided ample evidence of the "science subset nonscience" naturopathy pathillogicality.
003. the Maryland bills' language:
is not available. Of course not. But I look forward to it.
