My Comments on 'A Webchat in Idaho Between Naturopathy and Conventional Medicine'

here, some comments on an exchange recently between naturopathy and conventional medicine:

001. from idahostatesman.com, "Chat Replay: Alternative Medicine in Idaho" (2015-10-28):

who was participating:

"[the chat] Audrey Dutton [is the moderator...who writes] Diana Crumrine [...] is here with us [a 2010 Bastyr graduate...and] Susie Pouliot of the Idaho Medical Association is here as well [the IMA's chief medical officer...]";

so here we go...

what the ND said:

"[the ND explains] naturopathic physician is a doctor who has been trained to address the root cause of illness and listen to the patient's story [...it's] patient-centered [...] specifically I am representing naturopathic physicians who graduated from 4 year federally accredited naturopathic medical schools in the US or Canada [...] licensure is important because it ensures public safety for the consumer who is seeking out a naturopathic provider in Idaho. Right now there is no entity who is monitoring the practitioners and what they are doing. Licensure also sets high standards of education and training. This would also give patients/consumers a process to file a complaint in case they has a bad experience. Again, right now we have no way of monitoring if patients are getting hurt.  Also, licensure increases patients access to insurance coverage for naturopathic services. This increases access of this medicine to people all over Idaho [...] naturopathic medicine is the umbrella term for most natural medicine. Then homeopathy is one of the modalities/therapies that we learn and can specialize in along with botanical medicine, nutrition, etc. Homeopathic practitioners do also have their own training but I do not know anything about the specific certification opportunities that are happening in Idaho or other states. This is a separate profession than naturopathic medicine [...] a good resource in Idaho to keep informed or be able to contact with questions is the Idaho Chapter of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (www.idaanp.org). Our national organization is the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (www.naturopathic.org) [...] at this point we are interested in advancing the profession and increasing patient access to quality practitioners and medicine and regulation is part of that process. The next steps will take a lot of work but we are ready to work with the medical community and legislators to increase the naturopathic health care option in Idaho [...]";

and that's all you get.  This claim of "root cause" as opposed usually to what they pose as 'shallow negligence' by way of regular medicine supposedly only treating symptoms.  They claim "patient-centered" but, if you look at those North American ND schools, you'll find patient nonscience posed falsely as science-based.  Licensure of NDs actually is a licence to engage in falsehood.  It ensure naturopaths will watch themselves, and from a basis of falsehood they are quite comfortable permitting each others' falsehood commerce.  That is not safe for the public, beginning with their wallets.  In my state of Connecticut, for instance, the NDs are allowed to state that the patently science-exterior as ideas, diagnostics, and treatments are science-supported.  The State ND Board is comprised of two NDs and a third public member and they are fine with all that.  Because they were miseducated.  And that licensure exam falsely terms homeopathy as "clinical science."  It's there, it's simple to find, it's lazy not to know about this.  Simply by mentioning homeopathy the ND is admitting that it is standard for NDs to engage in deception with patients and THEMSELVES.  The idaanp.com site actually falsely poses and so does naturopathic.org.  And as for "profession", how can you be a profession if you are based on falsehood and deception?  Because we all need an option to be fleeced with State sanction and prosecutorial immunity.

what the IMA person said:

"the Idaho Medical Association represents doctors of medicine (MDs) and doctors of osteopathy (DOs). They attend four-year medical schools that are nationally accredited, and then after obtaining their medical degrees, these physicians must compete a residency program of 3-7 years to establish their specialties: family medicine, general surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, etc. Then they must be licensed by the state in which they practice, in additional to certification by national specialty boards [...] IMA believes licensure is important to ensure patient safety and consistent quality of care across the spectrum of providers. IMA has not opposed licensure of naturopaths who have attended accredited schools because they have established national standards, and hold their graduates to higher standards than those who have attended unaccredited schools or not obtain naturopathic education [...]  I agree with Diana's assessment. Something will happen in the future, we just don't exactly when right now. IMA appreciates the focus on patient safety and quality of care on the forefront of this conversation."

002. my big question, knowing what's EASY to find out about naturopathy:

WHY didn't the ND clearly define naturopathy [based on vitalism, supernaturalism, and science-ejected therapies blended with aspects of allied healthcare], and why doesn't the IMA person have any idea about the blatant fact that naturopathy is based, at their schools, on blatant pseudosciences and falsehoods?  She tells us their education is of "high standards."  No.  Take, for instance, the ND here's alma mater, Bastyr. There, we get the label of "science based natural medicine" upon such ideas and activities as 'supernaturalism, vitalism, and homeopathy'.

A possible answer: because naturopaths are trained to misrepresent, and so many people in conventional medicine don't do their homework.