001. at ajp.com.au, Megan Haggan writes in "It’s Naturopathy Medicine Week, and the Australian Naturopathic Practitioners Association is Encouraging Australians to Investigate Naturopathy as Preventative Health" (2015-10-07):
"'Australians who regularly visit a well-trained naturopath can prevent and turn around many common lifestyle conditions,'says Eta Brand, President of ANPA [...]';
ah, the operative words: well-trained. And a claim of efficacy for 'the naturopathic.' Is this a press release? Because if this is journalism, I see nothing offered beyond marketing language and therein this is a commercial.
"she says naturopathy offers the public safer and, in many cases, more cost-effective care for common conditions such as hypertension, raised cholesterol, overweight, fatigue, type 2 diabetes, sleep problems including insomnia, and mood variations such as anxiety and depression [...]";
so, that schwack at conventional medicine. But: prove it, prove that something 'essential naturopathic' aka 'not done by any other kind of more ethical and better trained practitioner' WORKS. A lot is borrowed and claim to then be 'naturopathic.'
"naturopaths focus on a wellness model of care and are trained to identify and treat conditions much earlier, preventing invasive and problematic conventional treatments costing the government billions' says Brand [...] this early intervention is where naturopathic care excels [...] our training uniquely focuses on preventative strategies not offered in conventional medicine [...]";
promises, promises. Empty idealism, in my view. Secret insight only naturopaths have? I doubt it. Now, there's lots of made-up unsubstantiated 'prevention shit' they do, but it's woo.
"she says naturopathic education is science-based and includes core subjects of [...] all naturopathy education in Australia will move to a minimum level bachelor degree [...]";
that science subset naturopathy claim. Subjects of what? Good question. Let's look.
002. well, within this accredited level of Australian naturopathy is such science-ejected crap as:
iridology;
and detox sCAMs.
"[quoting Scot Gavura of sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com] homeopathy illustrates, with perhaps the most clarity, why selling unproven or ineffective treatments is incompatible with ethical practice [...] selling placebos alongside medicine violates patient autonomy, reflecting a form of medical paternalism (or perhaps crass commercialism) that retail pharmacists need to eliminate if they want to be truly accepted as partners in the health care team.'"
hear, hear.
004. so do the math:
science subset homeopathy is false;
science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy is true.
science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy is true.
the cognitive dissonance is amazing.
