001. we're told, in "Podcast #572 - June 25th, 2016", at The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast [my comments are unquoted bold]:
[from 00.12.47 until 23.11 in the mp3]
"the [Massachusetts] Senate just passed the naturopathic practice act, which is a horrible piece of legislation that would give naturopaths not only licensure but a broad scope of practice, they could essentially function as primary care physicians […to be] the first point of contact for a sick patient […] we've fought against Massachusetts licensing naturopaths […] this is a battle we've fought a dozen times […] every year it comes up […] the system is rigged, it just ratchets its way up […] all we're doing is slowing down the advance […]";
as I often say, licensed falsehood marches on.
"naturopaths […] the whole profession is quackery […] that's the bottom line [...]";
I personally term naturopathy a pseudoprofession. Because to give them that label is to put their nonsense in a tuxedo.
"[it's] an eclectic blend of every medical pseudoscience and quackery that you could imagine […] a lot of their training is homeopathy, a lot of their practice is homeopathy. That right there says that they're pseudoscientific […]";
"there are lots of naturopaths in Connecticut […] so I have tons of patients who will say 'oh yeah, so I saw a naturopath for this problem and they did X' and X is always the craziest shit you could imagine […] that is the standard in the naturopathic profession, that's what they do, is just utter nonsense […]";
ah, the antistandard.
"there is in fact no science-based standard of care. That's the problem […] they don't know how to recognize what they don't know how to recognize […] they just want to be an alternate physician who doesn't have to spend time learning science […] they basically want to do whatever they want […] they want the ability to just do whatever they want without being held to any kind of standard […]";
well, as I'm writing right now the part of The Naturocrit Podcast that deals with an interated standard of care that was written into the law for naturopaths in Hawaii, it's interesting what Hawaii NDs have created as what they must do and must not do in that law. And it specifically allows NDs to do what they want.
"once they're licensed, they basically regulate themselves […] there's no external validity […] they decide what their own standard is, they get to regulate their-selves […] that's fine for a profession that has some kind of external validity, that holds itself to some demonstrable standard of some sort […]";
well, as I've also said often, why would absurdity have a problem with its own absurdity? But, overall, isn't this just another HACK job? Lazy. After all, MD Novella's own institution, Yale University, employs a pediatric naturopathic. No mention of that. That would be too inconvenient.