@salon.com: "Scientists and Medical Professionals Condemned the Actions of the [Rabid Dog Saliva] Naturopath"

here, excerpts and musings:

001. @salon.com*, Keith A. Spencer writes in "Naturopathic Doctor Treats Preschooler With 'Rabid Dog Saliva': This is Our World" (2018-04-20):

*at least in my experience, by the way, salon.com's pages are so 'advertising aggressive' that I AVOID the site as unreadable due to the distractions.

"for one perfect moment, a polarized electorate united in shared horror over the revelation that a naturopathic doctor in Canada had prescribed rabid dog saliva to a preschooler with behavioral problems [...] naturopathy is a general term for the treatment of patients using so-called natural or alternative cures; homeopathy falls within naturopathy and was the specific regime that led to the rabid dog saliva treatment [...]";

and this is perfectly acceptable in terms of naturopathic standards of care...which is, basically, 'anything goes.'

"understandably, scientists and medical professionals condemned the actions of the naturopath, Anke Zimmermann, who is based in Victoria, British Columbia even though Zimmerman's prescription was perfectly legal under the Canadian regulations that govern homeopathic medicine. That may come as a surprise to many [...]";

well, this is called licensed and regulated falsehood.  It's doesn't protect the public, it exists to protect the naturopathic and the homeopathic.

"it raises the question as to what other kinds of potentially hazardous substances are legally allowed to be prescribed by naturopathic doctors — or what other dangers there are to naturopathy [...]";

well, there's obvious danger when you are 'an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.'  But, also, I've pointed out this danger too, to basic human rights: naturopathy claims that certain articles of faith are scientific facts, so ALSO, naturopathy is violating freedom of belief.  Period [e.g., a specific kind of posed 'science-based supernatalism'].