Australian Journal of Pharmacy and PHAA Abets Naturopathy's Agenda

here, epistemic charity on the part of the AJP:

001. Megan Haggan writes at ajp.com.au in "Call for Naturopaths to be Registered After Near-death of Child" (2015-07-17):

"the arrest of a Sydney naturopath for child abuse has reignited the debate on naturopathic registration, says the Public Health Association of Australia, which is now calling for the regulation of naturopaths [...]";

when you regulate nonsense and falsehood, you sanction it.  And therein, you abet it, and you a an accomplice to its outcomes.

"'the circumstances of inappropriate treatment causing the near death of an infant are tragic,' says Professor Jon Adams, Convenor of the PHAA Special Interest Group on Complementary Medicine [...] 'unfortunately, this chain of events was not only preventable, it was predictable.  Naturopaths are currently one of Australia’s largest unregistered professions' [...] 'every government report since 2000 looking into the regulatory requirements of naturopaths has said the same thing, the risks associated with this profession are significant enough to warrant registration,' says Michael Moore, CEO of the PHAA" [...];

as I say SO OFTEN, how can you be a profession if you are based upon nonsense and falsehood?  HOW Mr.s Adams and Moore?  You can't professionally register an unprofessional area, by definition.

Note: now, pharmacology is a science.  And I assume the AJP is within that epistemic stricture.  So, where, where, where is the SCIENTIFIC analysis of naturopathy in this article?  Sure we get politics, and law, and an outlet for the proponents, but where is the analysis?   Where is the journalism? Therein, I consider this a puff piece that is promotional for naturopathy's agenda.  Here's a simple fact: naturopathy claims homeopathy works.  That is pharmacological NONSENSE.  Where is mention of these objective facts in this article?  Would an astronomy journal advocate for astrology?  Why is naturopathy given SO MUCH EPISTEMIC CHARITY?  Since when it is a "public health" imperative to regulate absurdity, nonsense, deception, and falsehood?  The original PHAA document is here.