001. at slate.com, Brian Palmer writes in "Quacking All the Way to the Bank" (2014-06-03) [my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"legislators in Washington state refuse to live in a world where only the wealthy can afford care from poorly trained health care providers who practice unproven medicine. This year Washington joined Oregon and Vermont in covering naturopathic care under Medicaid [...] the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of quackery [...this] Medicaid coverage is the result of a series of anti-scientific decisions many states have made [...]";
hear, hear. Actually, I'd argue, much of 'the essentially naturopathic' is DISPROVEN, like homeopathy, and the overarching and usually disguised vitalism-spiritism that they regard as responsible for health and disease. Poorly trained: assuredly. Antiscience: inherently.
"the whole mess began with an argument within the community of naturopaths [...] four-year naturopathic colleges [...] graduates [...who] can spend more than $150,000 for their educations [...] lobbied state legislatures to create a licensing system [...and] many states acquiesced [...] this was a serious mistake [...] differentiating between trained quacks and untrained quacks is not actually a consumer protection measure [...]";
you're telling me brother. I got one of those huge bill aggregates, and studying all that quackery in sum was the biggest mistake of my life.
"at Bastyr University, one of five U.S. schools accredited by the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [...] botanical medicine, homeopathy, acupuncture, and ayurvedic sciences are all on the course list. The only thing that these approaches to medicine share in common is that they lack a sound basis in evidence [...]";
oh, snap! Ayurvedic or Hindu science is as science as Christian Science or Scientology!
"naturopaths [...] lobbying hard for what they call 'non-discrimination' among health care specialists [...] want to charge like real doctors and nurses and get reimbursed like real doctors [...] covering proven therapies but not disproven or unproven therapies isn’t discriminatory, it’s sensible [...] to equate it with real discrimination is an insult to people
who have actually suffered. The tactic, however absurd, has succeeded in
Washington, Oregon, and Vermont [...]";
hear, hear. And absurdity is at the center of naturopathy.
"exposing the holes in naturopathic medicine is a bit like taking candy from a baby [...]";
yes.
"if people want to see a medical practitioner who lacks appropriate training and advocates for unproven treatments, they should pay for it with their own money [...]";
provided, of course, there is full disclosure aka informed consent. But don't count on naturopathy to tell the truth: it tends to stifle their commerce.
