Colorado Naturopathy Licensure Is Permission to Practice "Non-scientific" Medicine -- Colorado Rep. Brown

here, I cite from a recent Summitdaily.com article regarding the failed 2011 AANP licensure attempt [see 001., below]; then, from a web page of the NDs interviewed in that article [see 002., below]:

001. Kathryn Corazzelli reports in "Summit County Naturopaths Fight for Recognition" [saved 2011-03-05]:

"this past Tuesday, a bill that would regulate naturopathic doctors in Colorado failed in a House Health and Environment Committee vote [sure did...] Dr. Kimberly Nearpass [...says] 'this is about public awareness and safety [...] there's no regulation in terms of public safety; there's no way for the public to know that their naturopathic doctor has any formal training [...] there's also no way to file a complaint with the state in terms of public protection [...] there's no board overseeing the licensable ND's in this state [...] we're looking for protection' [...] Nearpass and her husband Dr. Justin Pollack own the Mountain River Naturopathic Clinic [...]  both [are] licensed to practice in Oregon [...] where the profession is regulated [...] Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Durango, told the Colorado News Agency  [...] 'it may be too soon to go down this path, formally authorizing a non-scientific practice'."

Note: the irony is killing me. They sure are looking for protection: their own.  But, not the public's, in my view, because I agree with Rep. Brown that naturopathy is "non-scientific", overall. He gets it.  I'm in no way, though, endorsing his political platform.

Nonscientific medicine, because it leads to dumb-assed ideas, practices, and eventually harm, indicates that naturopathic licensure would be AGAINST the best interest of the public.  Their doctorates are "formal training" in nonsense, as the contents of the Oregon '.gov' board and the ND / NMD licensure exam indicates.

I don't see how such a board, in any state, could enforce / oversee naturopathy's nonsense.  How do you violate the nonsensical principles which are naturopathy's standard of care; what do they accuse you of, making sense?  Practicing actual scientific medicine?  Being rational?  Truly the reversal of all values.

002. ND Pollack [Bastyr 1999] and Nearpass [NCNM 2003] state, on their web page "Services" [vsc 2011-03-05]:

"our main treatment methods include: [...] constitutional homeopathy (very dilute substances that stimulate the body's vital force)."

Note: enough said, not science.  Meanwhile, both Bastyr and NCNM -- their alma maters -- state that naturopathy IS science.

Late to the Game Mary Rondeau on Colorado ND Licensure:

here, I cite from a letter to The Coloradoan:

001. "Bill Improves Natural Medicine" (2011-03-04) [my comments are in bold]:

"every day, thousands of Coloradoans choose natural medicine rather than tradition medicine [...]";

Well, usually natural medicine considers itself traditional medicine, but...go on...

"[looking] beyond being prescribed a pill";

Yet NDs are gaining prescriptive authority...

"but as health-care consumers, we have no way of knowing if the practitioner of natural health care is a real naturopathic doctor  [...] and the state has no way of holding naturopathic doctors accountable for not meeting ND professional standards or harming patients";

Well, since naturopathy overall is not based on the "real", who cares?  It's all figmentation-based medicine.  Also, I'm pretty-sure that if someone is harmed, there will be criminal prosecutions no matter what cute labels they are using.

"I'm supporting House Bill 1173, which would regulate and license naturopathic doctors in Colorado [...]";

Licensed falsehood.

"as a patient, I have a right to know and a right to make informed choices about seeing a naturopathic doctor. It's that simple [...]";

Yes.  Did your ND / NMD tell you that their basis is false, though?  I doubt it.  So much for that sentiment as relates to naturopathy.

"Unlike eight other Western states, Colorado does not currently regulate or permit the legal practice of naturopathic medicine [...]";

Legalized falsehood.

"HB1173 [...] establishes professional standards to meet requirements mandated by the U.S. Department of Education, which accredits four-year naturopathic medical schools, holding them to professional standards [...]";

Bullshit.  What profession begins from falsehood? They'll regulate themselves from a position of falsehood and irrationality.

"HB1173 protects citizens [...and] would be good for Colorado health-care consumers [...] Mary Rondeau."

I totally disagree.  Ah, that reversal of values.  When is nonsense good, in terms of medicine?

Laura Flanagan's Colorado ND Licensure Logic: Deadly Nonsense is Prevented by Licensing Nonsense [and the bill is dead, too]

here, I cite from a 2011-03-01 report by KWGN [see 001., below]; and then I muse [see 002., below]:

001. KWGN's Eli Stokols reports in "Lawmakers Again Consider Regulating Alternative Doctors" [saved 2011-03-02; and the embed (also up on the AANP Youtube.com account as well)]:

"Laura Flanagan['s...] son, Sean, had less than a year to live [due to cancer...] she found a naturopathic doctor [...and] ten days later, Sean Flanagan was dead [...from] unconventional hydrogen peroxide treatments [...] eight years after Sean's death, Laura Flanagan went back to the Capitol to ask lawmakers to approve a bill to regulate naturopathic practitioners [...] 'when this bill passes, you will know when you go to a naturopathic doctor that they have been checked out by the state of Colorado and their credentials are good' [...said sponsor] Rep. Jim Riesberg, D-Greeley [...] after four hours of testimony Tuesday, lawmakers on the House Health and Human Services voted 6-7 [7 against!] to kill the measure."

Note: I am in no manner attempting to lessen the tragic loss of the Flanagan's.  It appears, though, that they don't see the problem as naturopathy overall [the disease], but as a certain subset of naturopathy [the symptom].  Riesberg's proposed legislation, which I've read over, is so vague that within it one cannot find a transparent definition of naturopathy AT ALL.  In that sense, it is deceptive [the disease] because it doesn't honor disclosure and transparency.  It's like patenting a widget, or a thing-a-ma-jig.  I don't get the logic of either Flanagan or Riesberg.  I would think both would want the best scientifically-based, highly-educated oncologist that society can muster -- not state-credentialed pseudoscience on stilts.

002. what I take away from this:

the scientific plausibility of hydrogen peroxide as a cancer treatment is utter nonsense.  So, from the get-go, the most basic of criteria for justifying the treatment didn't exist. That naturopath, that non-AANMC-AANP-CAND naturopath, is in jail.

but, that's not the only nonsense in this scene.  There's no guarantee of non-nonsense by going the CNME route!  Look at Oregon!  Washington State!  Excuse me if I seem to be harsh, but the Flanigans appear still to be true believers in naturopathy / alt. med., even after their experience: yet, naturopathy is, even within the AANMC-AANP-CAND group, STILL NONSENSE.

it seems the Flannigan's want nonsense regulated, though they may not be aware of how acutely nonsensical naturopathy is just as the lawmaker cited may not.  Has the due diligence been done?  Credentials, of the AANMC-AANP-CAND type specifically that would be licensed, are NOT GOOD [naturopathy is truly the reversal of all values] -- unless science and nonsense are the same thing and engaging in trade from such a position after falsely labeling it all science anyway, is acceptable clinically and educationally.

now, somehow the bill died.  It seems the shear number of non-AANP "naturopaths" and the like in Colorado [reported at about 16,000; a very woo-ful state] were again able to defeat the AANP contingent [of about 90].  Democrats all voted for, Republicans all voted against.  I don't think it died for the right reasons.  The alty group opposing it still claims that this is a "turf war."  I'll guess that the Dems thought it would guarantee some kind of consumer protection, and the Reps didn't want to interfere with the marketplace.

the turf isn't commerce - the mean green of the market interested in this stuff.  There's a turf that's more encompassing, and has priority: scientific integrity, and professionalism.  The AANMC-AANP-CAND type ND falsely labels the profoundly science-ejected science.  It's not science and can't be professional if it's false. That's a fact.

so, licensure leads to licensed falsehood.  In licensing such an absurd knowledge position, more tragedies can be expected [as the whackaloon is offered as legitimate] and likely with greater immunity for the woo-meisters due to State complicity.

Arguing Against Colorado ND Licensure with the Wrong Reasons - Daily Camera's Editorial Board 2011-02-27

here, I cite some seriously disconcerting ignorance regarding the ethical position of professionalism as it relates to naturopathy [see 001., below; my musings are in bold]:

001. the Editorial Board of the Daily Camera [EBDC] states in "The Fight Over Naturopathy" [saved 2011-02-27]:

"on Tuesday, the state legislature's health committee will have a hearing on [...whether] naturopathic doctors [...should be] licensed in Colorado [...]";

Again.  Notice the desire is to be titled "doctor" as in 'diagnosing and treating disease' also known as MEDICINE, one of the classical professions.

"against licensure are some physicians [...] and the other naturopaths [...Daily Camera's editorial board sees ] a turf war [...] this is not a patient safety issue [...]";

I completely disagree.  What do you know, EBDC?  [Not much, it seems]. I am neither a physician nor a practitioner of naturopathy / sCAM.  I criticize naturopathy NOT based on market threat [I have none], but instead based on their claims as they relate to science, reason, and skepticism.  I did go to one of these ND 'residence' schools, so I've some inside knowledge.  A turf war insinuates an equality of claims / status when it comes to what is being argued over COMMERCIALLY, like two citizens of equal status fighting over grazing or farming rights.  Modern medical knowledge compared to naturopathic knowledge is not such an equality.  In fact, naturopathic knowledge is quite bizarre / irrational, from the get-go.  For instance, naturopathy claims that that which is science is the same thing as that which is not science [at an institutional level], and that it is appropriate to engage in commerce under such a false position wherein the science-exterior is falsely claimed as science [see OBNM]. That is scientifically wrong and ethically heinous.  That IS an issue of patient safety, since science is the best way we have of determining safety and efficacy.  Science gets thrown out the window in naturopathyland, but not so much that it isn't still used for marketing purposes.  Like creationism in the high school biology classroom, licensing naturopaths so they can indiscriminately label nonscience science [including their sectarian views which have been science-ejected for more than 100 years, actually, and sometimes dangerous and most-often-times ineffective treatments safe and effective; how can one know, in the naturopathic knowledge muddle?] is an attempt to gain science-legitimacy for that which isn't by political means instead of through the apparatus of modern science publication [via experimentation and peer-review].  Worse below.

"Kelly Parcell [...] vice president of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors, said the bill is important to protect patients. And we're all for patient safety [...]";

I don't see how consumers are protected when, inevitably, licensing naturopathy leads to licensed falsehood.  E.g., Oregon's '.gov' OBNM link above shows how NDs / NMDs label the hugely science-ejected as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  It's nuts.  As an independent board, complaints about them are referred to them.  When I've complained, they've humbly seen no problems with themselves.  Perhaps a naturopathic treatment like homeopathy -- which is an empty remedy -- isn't a direct harm, but the mere fact that the patient is being misled into the belief that the sugar pill they're getting is active and "science-based" [when it is actually science-ejected, and they're paying for it] is a kind of harm.  The patient has been financially harmed and deceived, and the relationship of trust between professional and client has been degraded to that of an self-interested buyer on a used car lot owned by a self-interested salesman.  More below.

"if people want to seek the services of a naturopathic practitioner, they are free to do so in Colorado [...] it's buyer beware -- it's up to the patients to do their due diligence on the person's practice and education [...] going to a doctor, going to a naturopath, or choosing to self-diagnose some illness on WebMD are consumer choices. All of that is up to patients, now and in the future";

So, I pick my jaw up off the floor.  It IS NOT a matter of buyer beware / commerce, EBDC.   You are COMPLETELY WRONG here.  On a used car lot, it is buyer beware.  The Latin phrase "caveat emptor" entails that.  But, in engaging with someone posing medical diagnostic and treatment knowledge, we are no longer in that 50-50 area of commerce where two self-interested parties try to make a deal.  The used car salesman is trying to get the most they can, the used car buyer is trying to get the most they can, and each does their best toward that end within legal boundaries.  Each is looking out for their-self FIRST.  But, that is ONLY IN commerce.  Professionalism is held to a higher ethical standard, particularly physicianship with its so VULNERABLE clients, which is what NDs claim to embody [I'd argue metaphysicianship!  As in metaphysical nonsense].  With professionalism, the clients' needs are placed FIRST ALWAYS.  The Latin for that is "credat emptor", let the buyer have faith -- not religious faith, but confidence of a FIDUCIARY nature -- that in their vulnerability yet, that professional be it traditionally ministry, law or medicine, would be held to a HIGHER ethical standard than just a used car lot type situation.  So, it is not buyer beware for the professions AT ALL, and it cannot be so for naturopathy.  That would be quite a bit of dangerous charity.  It is also not 'science is anything' AT ALL for naturopathy, though naturopathy embodies such a charity-resultant knowledge position as well.  What EBDC would have us do is lower standards to such an extent that medicine would merely be a relationship of commerce instead of professionalism.  That WON'T happen.  What could happen with Colorado licensure of NDs, in part: NDs would get their own board to police themselves claiming professionalism status [professions are self-policing] and science-based status, complaints would be handled by NDs about NDs' claims and methods, since naturopathy is essentially irrational and so much is science-ejected labeled science anyway, there are no standards of any consequence to uphold and they'd find nothing wrong.  Something is what it isn't in naturopathyland; science is nonscience, professionalism is falsehood [merely commerce too], wrong is right.  Nice MUDDLED arrangement.  It benefits nobody but naturopathy.

"doing it through legislation and regulation is not the way to go";

I agree that naturopathy shouldn't be licensed, but not for EBDC's dense reasons.  I actually believe, knowing what I know, that naturopathy should be prosecuted because they don't even meet the standards of commerce -- never mind the higher standards of professionalism.

I'll bet what I've said above is over EBDC's heads anyway, but to summarize: licensing naturopathy leads to licensed falsehood.  It does great harm to the public's understanding of what is legitimately science [and rational discourse] and it destroys the HUGE difference in relationship between commerce and the higher standard of professionalism / fiduciary duty.

 

Naturopathy would have it both ways: science that isn't really but labeled anyway, professionalism that isn't really but labeled anyway.  That's pseudoscience and pseudoprofessionalism -- wisely marketed.

Shallowly, probably few care until the rubber hits the road.  When cornered, NDs presumably would fall back on 'but they let us be licensed, and we are who we always have been.'

After all, "naturopathy blends."  And mislabels.  And is an interesting study in junk thought.

Colorado's HB 1173 and CoAND This 2011: A "Medical" Label, A "Science" Claim, Coded or Missing Naturopathic Premises [Opacity Written into Proposed Law]

here, I comment on the recent Facebook posting of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors [CoAND; see 001., below]; then, from CoAND and OBNM directly [see 002., below]; then from the -- quite empty -- bill itself [see 003., below]:

001. CoAND states in "Make Your Voice Heard Today in Support of  HB1173 For Licensing NDs" [vsc 2011-02-25][my comments / musings are in bold]:

"[2011's] HB 1173 has been introduced to require the regulation of naturopathic doctors in Colorado [...the] licensing of naturopathic doctors [...this] bill is strictly seeking title protection for the term 'naturopathic doctor' [poor Colorado!...]";

Another attempt in Colorado to license naturopathy, to protect falsehood.  I think "naturopathic medical doctor" and "naturopathic physician" are not possible due to the wording of previously established Colorado law concerning medical practice.

"[to] ensure that patients have a right to know [!!!]";

Wow, I didn't know that naturopaths were so concerned about knowing.  I've often illustrated how naturopaths don't transparently describe the basis and context of naturopathy, and instead falsely label such -- publicly.  I don't see how ND-patient relations can meet the ethical standards of informed consent with such continuing opacity.  Even this post on Facebook is opaque / true-context lacking.  Actually, not only do patients have the right to know, naturopathy has the OBLIGATION to tell them the WHOLE truth.  But, they don't -- which is quite ironic for these people claiming to be 'holistic'.  Licensure, I project, will simply  make sure NDs / NMDs can legally obfuscate [see 003., below].

"[a] naturopathic doctor has attended naturopathic medical school [...and] passed all the  ND medical board exams and requirements, and [...] will be held accountable by the state [...]";

The schools and the examining look like nonsense to this naturopathy-watcher.  I don't see how accountability can happen when the NDs/NMDs will police themselves, from, as Oregon exemplifies, nonsense ideas / a position of falsehood [see 002., below].

"[without it] the public cannot distinguish [...]";

Yet, it is naturopathy that does not distinguish -- 'naturopathy blends' -- the actually science-supported from the truly science-ejected.  It would seem that licensure would allow a muddle without legal recourse.  What are states going to do, prosecute themselves as accomplices to nonsense they permit?

"HB1173 would provide citizen protection by ensuring that those who call themselves naturopathic doctors have met the professional standards for this title [irony meter is exploding, Will Robinson...]";

Hmmm.  Can professionalism happen when the domain is essentially false and opaque regarding that?  Can protection happen when something is so fuzzy that it is equated with what it is not?

"your medically trained naturopathic doctor [...] medically trained ND's [x2 (a medical label)...]";

The last time I checked, medicine is medicine, naturopathy is naturopathy, science is science, the science-ejected is not science.  Naturopathy would like to equate all things irrationally.

"[CoAND members want] a license to practice legally [...]";

Hmmm.  I look at Oregon's example and see sanctioned nonscience and the elevation of the fake and false.  Wouldn't it be legal malpractice and unfair trade?  Not that I'm a lawyer.

"within a defined scope of practice [...] scope of practice very similar to that outlined in the 8 other Western States";

I'll use Oregon in 002. to attest how "defined" naturopathy is [defined by a scope of practice requiring sectarian figmentations as treatment objectives].

"ND's [...] diagnose and treat using  natural  modalities such as [...] homeopathy";

Oooops.  Empty remedies posing as "clinical science" on their board exam of such claimed rigor. ISYN.

Overall note: CoAND's fact sheet on the bill is here.  Not much explained about naturopathy at all.  Not surprising.

002. licensed falsehood via CoAND claims, then OANM specifically:

002.a. naturopathy is claimed as "science" in CoAND's "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-02-25]:

"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science".

Note: and on that page homeopathy is claimed as "powerful" while CoAND codes naturopathy's primary science-ejected concept all-the-while.  Colorado naturopathy in fact has been very careful apparently  to NEVER have transparently explained the vitalistic science-ejected underpinnings of naturopathy.  What kind of science is so opaque?  And secretly nonscientific?  As OBNM reveals below, quite adequately.

002.b. OBNM states in "Naturopathy":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis  [...including] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [coded vitalism...] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [vitalism aliases...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force."

Note: yes, that is a 'surives scientific scrutiny' claim placed upon the hugely science-ejected vitalistic, supernatural, and HOMEOPATHIC [and kind] essentially naturopathic.  In my view, ND licensure licenses the fake, the false, and the irrational.  It is exceptionally harmful to science standards, the public's understanding of science, and the ethics of the physician-patient professional relationship.  It undoes science, professionalism, and logical thought -- and it's SOOOOO easy to show.  But, now that those standards exist, complaints about this nonsense go to the board who up holds this nonsense, I presume.  Licensure simply makes falsehood and unfair trade LEGAL.

003. the current bill itself is here, and it doesn't state much of anything naturopathic at all, as results from my 'typical' searches of naturopathic documents reveals:

"life force" = 0;

"vital force" = 0;

"scien" = 2;

"based" = 8; 

"medicatrix" = 0;

"power" = 2;

"principle" = 0;

"medical" = 14;

Note: this bill doesn't tell me anything about naturopathy.  It defers to the AANMC-CNME-AANP-CAND educational and political apparatus for specifics.  It truly embodies naturopathy's nonspecific strategy / opacity, and legislates that occultic modus operandi.  You'd have to dig really deep to be informed, overall, and that's quite ethically heinous.

Licensing Falsehood: Naturopathy in NYT and the Charity of Shallow Reporting, 2011-02-21

here, I cite from a recent New York Times article on naturopathy in Colorado [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Dan Frosch reports in "Colorado Faces a Fight Over Naturopathy" [saved 2011-02-21]:

"in Colorado [...]  no regulatory system for naturopaths exists [...] Marc Cooper [...] sits on the board of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors, which has proposed a bill this year that would allow naturopaths to get licenses and create training and treatment requirements for practitioners [...] 'once somebody fully understands what our medical training is and what we actually do, they look at us and say, Oh, my gosh, I didn’t realize that' he said [...] naturopaths [...] 'go to naturopathic medical school' [...per] Karen Howard, executive director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...with] completion of a four-year accredited, specialized school, passing an exam and a certain amount of clinical training [...and] contend that it is dangerously easy to get a certificate that shows expertise in naturopathy and people need some way of discerning between a knowledgeable naturopath and a quack [...] the Colorado proposal would prohibit people who did not attend one of the schools from calling themselves naturopathic doctors [...the medical field says] 'they want to diagnose medical conditions, and we don’t believe they are qualified and that they have the education to do that [...and] there is little evidence naturopathy is either safe or effective [...] said Diana Protopapa [...of] the Colorado Medical Society [I agree with CMS]."

Note: wow, the quacks [naturopathy] are calling their fellow quacks [naturopathy] quacks and denying that they are all birds of the same feather.

002. now, I'm quite familiar with the requirements and contents of naturopathy -- that is what this blog talks about -- so lets talk about it, broadly [I went to one of those AANP-affiliated schools, I'm quite familiar]:

so, as the article states, once somebody "fully understands" naturopathy, you would say "oh, my gosh."  That is not because you'd be impressed, though.  It would be because you'd be wide-eyed with naturopathy's absurdity.  But, you'd actually have to have expertise in science, medicine, skepticism, and propaganda.

NYTs didn't report on that central absurdity, and that's quite a bit of charity for naturopathy -- to such an extent that this article reads like a press release.  Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that NDs are medically trained at all, they are naturopathically trained.  Where else is an article of faith equated with a scientific fact, and archaic science-ejected ideas called science-based?

the exam and specialized schooling for NDs / NMDs is interesting: it requires that the hugely science-ejected be falsely labeled science and medically relevant, and it also requires that you disguise that reality.

and naturopathy's knowledge is interesting to the extent that it is quackery overall: claiming as safe and effective the truly science-ejected archaic.

the reporter provides no accurate context regarding these realities about the naturopathic, and naturopaths won't either, while those who are knowledgeable about it watch the absurdity increase its market.

people will still be buying the product under false premises: that which is placebo, like homeopathy, is sold as effective while truly science-destroyed, and that which is science-exterior will be sold as within a science-context even though not [their essential sectarian vitalism, supernaturalism and kind].

this goes for naturopathy clinically and in terms of its educational apparatus.

as I've said before, naturopathy is licensed falsehood.