001. Paul Boger writes at mpbonline.org in "Lawmakers Considering Holistic Medical License" (2016-10-22) [2016 archived]:
"supporters of an alternative medical treatment known as naturopathy are urging lawmakers to allow the practice in the state [...] but members of the Senate Public Health and Welfare committee are considering a change [...] 'when we talk about naturopathic physicians, we are talking about someone who has gone through a rigorous, accredited, four-year graduate level program,' says Sharon Still[s], a naturopathic physician from Arizona who spoke to lawmakers yesterday. 'Part of wanting to get naturopathic medicine licensed in the state of Mississippi is for constituent protections' [...] some lawmakers have concerns [...] Republican Senator Brice Wiggins of Pascagoula [...said] 'I think the Public Health Committee, in particular, has a role in looking out for its citizens. Obviously, we don’t want any fly-by-night things that are going to hurt our citizens' [...]";
if naturopathy education is so rigorous, how come nonsense is termed "science" all the time at naturopathy schools? And as such, how does allowing such "protect", since falsehood hurts? Not a very long or in-depth article, full of false balance and bad writing. I don't see online a prominent web page for a "Sharon Still" so that must be a typo. There's a short audio file on this mpbonline.org page which talks about supplements, veganism, and states naturopathy is "an alternative to modern medicine" that is "holistic" then states it is used alongside modern medicine. The language of the article doesn't even match the language of the audio interview which is supposedly a transcription of the speakers that were recorded. And the audio states "Sharon Stills." Here's the ND's Facebook page; she is a 2001 SCNM graduate. Her archived web page explaining naturopathy states that naturopathy's VMN-HPN is the "immune system." That's not rigorous to me.
