001. Neda Iranpour reports at cw6sandiego.com in "Daily Dose: Should Naturopathic Doctors Have More Rights?" (2016-03-23):
"naturopathic students from Bastyr University in San Diego went to the State Capitol to push for SB-538, a bill that would give naturopathic doctors more rights. CW 6’s Neda Iranpour interviews a Bastyr student, Griffin McMath who explains what rights they are asking for. She tells CW 6 why she believes their training prepares them to work as primary care doctors and prescribe certain medications like antibiotics. In opposition, Britt Marie Hermes, a former naturopathic doctor who has a blog called 'Naturopathic Diaries' says she opposes SB-538 because she is concerned for patient safety. Take a listen to Hermes and McMath in the above video [...]";
well, I applaud the reporter for presenting the controversy, so to speak, and not just presenting Bastyr's side.
002. from the video [vsc 2016-03-24]:
"[from the video's titles] naturopathic doctors want more rights [...the ND student tells us] we're really just hoping to modernize our scope, to reflect more accurately the training that we receive in our naturopathic medical program [...] so basically we're just asking to lift the supervision agreements for schedule V and legend drugs. And that's it [...]";
oh, that's not it. Basically, naturopathy fraudulently poses as science-based that which isn't, like homeopathy at Bastyr claims as a "natural health science." That's basic. That's not modern. That IS naturopathic training. The request, in terms of "more rights" is more right to engage in such unfair marketing practices. Let me make an observation too: the ND student claims NDs are competent to assess people in terms of their spirit. How? How is that done as "science-based"? And she mentions "environmental toxins".
"[McMath goes on, such] helps us to really serve as a primary care doctor [...] basic things a primary care doctor needs to really serve their patients [...]";
naturopathy as primary care is like having a broken car and calling in a magic carpet mechanic to fix it. If naturopathy really served patients, it would stop the pseudoscience. That is easy to do, it is not productive, it is what OUGHT to be as a "basic" requirement.
"[the host] and obviously there is another side to this [...] it's always kind of been a battle out there [...] I want to give our viewers the other perspective [...] I did reach out to Britt Marie Hermes. She was a naturopathic doctor [...] she does not agree with this bill [...]";
I applaud the giving-of-space for a counter-argument. And I agree that a counter-argument is ethically necessary since naturopathy is so unethical.
"[ND Hermes] I recently left the profession [(supposed profession!)...] in order to pursue a science-based career [...] I oppose California's SB538 [...for reasons of] patient safety [...] Californian's need to know that naturopaths are not trained as medical providers capable of independently providing safe or effective healthcare [...] naturopathic education focuses on nonmedical therapies such as homeopathy, energy-medicine and healing touch [...]";
as opposed to naturopathy's pseudoscience.
"[the host] what is your response [...]";
"[McMath] she's just not accurate [...] that does not reflect the training that we really do receive [...] we are primary care doctors in the State of California [...] we are trained to be some of the most well-prepared primary care doctors [while the video likely shows craniosacral therapy...] we do learn how the body works [...] basic sciences [...]";
accurate, you keep saying that word. But the accurate label for naturopathy is MUDDLE. To say homeopathy isn't a major focus of naturopathic education is bullshit. It's on their licensure exam, falsely posed as a clinical science. I do not consider naturopathy's epistemic muddle to be any kind of acceptable basis for medical training. Why are CAM people so evasive, so opaque???
No comments:
Post a Comment