Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Reactions to Mass. ND Licensure: ACSH, MMS

here, criticism of recent Massachusetts naturopath licensure from the American Council on Science and Health and the Massachusetts Medical Society:

001. acsh.org writes in "Massachusetts Becomes the 20th State Where Naturopaths Can Hurt You" (2017-01-14):

"a naturopath is not a physician, should not be able to substitute for one, act like one or even play one on TV [...yet] in the last few weeks, the Massachusetts legislature passed bill 2335 'an act establishing a board of registration in naturopathy', that will give the profession of naturopaths legitimacy - one of the worst moves that they could have made for the health of the people of the 'bay state' [...] the heart of the bill designates that a board will be instituted to determine the role of naturopaths and define their abilities and limits. The five person board will be made up of two naturopaths, one physician who works with naturopaths, one pharmacologist and a member of the public - which is absolutely ridiculous. That is like a board on the regulation of cigarettes being made up two smokers, one person who sells cigarettes, one person who studies the effects of nicotine, and a random person from off the street [...]";

say OUCH.

"the bill addressed more than the board, however. It also outlines the following regarding how naturopaths practice [...] they can work to (i) prevent and treat human illness, injury or disease [...] (ii) [...] physical examinations and the ordering of clinical and laboratory procedures from licensed clinics or laboratories to evaluate injuries, illnesses and conditions in the human body (iii) dispense, administer, order and prescribe natural medicines of mineral, animal or botanical origin, including, but not limited to, food products or extracts, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, digestive aids, natural hormones, plant substances, homeopathic preparations, natural antibiotics, topical medicines and nonprescription drugs, therapeutic devices and barrier contraceptives to prevent or treat illnesses, injuries and conditions of the human body [...]";

oh, and we see that they have no boundaries, so therefore they are not the people they say they are.

 (iv) use manual m"Governor Charlie Baker [...] in a blow to evidence based science and medicine [...] signed the bill. As someone who has spent more of my life in Massachusetts than in any other state, being fortunate to work in world class scientific and medical institutions, I am disappointed in my home state and concerned about the growing influence that naturopaths are having on people's health across the country [...]";


"South Carolina and Tennessee are the only two states where practicing naturopathy is illegal [...]";

well, actually, their MO as I've described in the Podcast, is illegal EVERYWHERE.

002. bostonherald.com reports in "Physicians Group Unhappy Over New Alternative Medicine Law" (2017-01-14):

"an organization representing Bay State physicians says it's disappointed that Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill establishing a state licensing board for naturopaths — health care professionals who practice alternative medicine.  Massachusetts Medical Society President Dr. James Gessner says naturopathy offers few scientifically or clinically proven treatments and 'lacks rigorous medical training and standards of care' [...]";

so, some truth.  Can you sense the conflict: medicine says crap, naturopathy claims "science-based" and "standards of care."

"supporters of the new law say licensing assures only properly trained and qualified people can practice naturopathic health care [...]";

properly trained and qualified falsehood.

"naturopathic health care [...] is defined in part as treatment based on education, nutrition, and natural medicines and therapies [...]";

oh, my.  Let's define it in full: an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.  With a fundamental basis in MISeducation.

"Gessner says he's grateful that naturopaths won't be allowed to prescribe medications, or call themselves physicians or primary care providers [...]"; 

yet, yet, yet.
Post a Comment