001. on the nbcdfw.com page "What to Consider Before Seeing a Naturopathic Doctor" (2018-02-01), attributed to Consumer Reports, we're told:
"before you opt for an ND over an MD, Consumer Reports says there are things to consider [regarding] naturopaths [...] there is a lot of confusion around this profession [...]";
I'll say. First of all, naturopathy is not a profession in the sense of somebody acting professionally, in your best interest classically in terms of medicine. It's a group, a self-first group. And if any such group is now a profession, well, isn't that nullifying the idea of professional behavior when there is supposed to be a fiduciary duty?
"naturopathic doctors or NDs [...] someone who has also completed a four-year naturopathic training program and has passed a licensing exam. Others, just called naturopaths, are unlicensed but can still practice as long as they stick to basic lifestyle advice [...]";
well, when that four-year training is a training to be a charlatan, well, that license then is permission to act that way without penalty. After all, it is that licensure exam that quite fraudulently terms homeopathy a "clinical science."
"critics say wait, they haven't actually gone to medical school, and effectively giving them uniform licensure recognition is allowing them to practice medicine without actually having been trained medically [...naturopaths are not trained like] a primary care provider, someone who has undergone rigorous medical training [...] Consumer Reports warns that treatments like IV vitamin infusions and
botanical medicines have not been supported by scientific evidence [...]";
good point. Naturopaths will argue that they have "rigor" but when science is allowed to be homeopathy, not, not rigor at all. Yet naturopaths generally call their cornucopia "science."
No comments:
Post a Comment