Pseudojournalism Concerning Massachusetts ND Licensure, Again

here, I scold.  Boy, quality journalism is so hard to come by these days!

001. Nick Grabbe 'reports':

001.a. in "The Long Road to Licensure" (2011-04-01):

"Massachusetts is not one of the 17 states that licenses and regulates naturopathic physicians [...but] is one of about 30 states considering some form of licensing this year [...according to] Amy Rothenberg [...who] practices in Connecticut [...and said] 'it's better to have alternative forms of medicine licensed and regulated than to leave it to an unregulated market without any consumer protection or information [...] with licensure, consumers have some degree of comfort and protection. It's better to do licensure than to leave it unclear' [...] Rothenberg has been involved in a campaign to educate lawmakers about the type of medicine she practices [...] Rothenberg herself received four years of full-time residential medical training [...] opposition to the bill has come from the Massachusetts Medical Society [keep it up!]."

001.b. in "The Naturopathic Approach" (2011-04-01):

"naturopathic physician Amy Rothenberg of Amherst [...] has about 2,000 homeopathic remedies, mostly botanicals, that she can recommend to patients."

Note: so, you got NOTHING in the story concerning specifically why naturopathy and homeopathy are criticized. Homeopathy, lets be CLEAR, is heinous in terms of science and ethical medical practice.  These two pieces are blatantly promotional without a shred of objective expert content.  Nice advertising, and likely unpaid too -- quite a value for naturopathy and homeopathy.  Well, the claim that 30 states have stuff going on this year toward ND licensure strikes me as inflated.  And an ND claiming licensure protects consumers and not foremost themselves?  Licensure of bunk leads to licensed falsehood.  And consumer protection and information?  Hilarious. The ND had naturopathic training, not medical training, by the way.

002. Rothenberg, A. (ND NCNM 1986) states in "Amy Rothenberg ND, DHANP":

"Amy Rothenberg was born March 14, 1960 in New York City. She can be reached at the New England School of Homeopathy [...] she currently practices classical homeopathy within a naturopathic family practice, part-time, in Enfield, Connecticut [...] she is board certified in homeopathy by the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians. [...] she is the editor of the New England Journal of Homeopathy."

Note: so wow!  Hugely wow!  Homeopathy, homeopathy, homeopathy.  Couldn't Grabbe at least have asked her specifically about the ethical position of practicing  pseudotherapeutic bunk such as homeopathy, whereby empty remedies are given to patients and falsely posed as specifically effective when we PROFOUNDLY know they are not?  No, because how can you properly write about complex topics that require categorical expertise from a position of apparent ignorance?

003. NCNM:

Rothenberg's alma mater, could also have been mentioned by Grabbe, wherein the hugely science-ejected and -exterior is falsely labeled science and then commercially unfairly traded upon.  I'm dissatisfied.

A Politician, A Reporter, and Massachusetts Naturopathy Licensure - Pacheco, Reading, and MSND-AANP-AANMC

here, I cite from a 2009 Jennifer Reading "Survive and Thrive" horridly shallow naturopathy piece up on her youtube.com [see 001., below]; then, I analyze it [see 002., below]; and expose some MSND, AANP, AANMC naturopathic absurdity [see 003., below]:

001. in "Massachusetts Naturopaths Fight for a License" [vsc 2010-08-28]:

001.a. Massachusetts State Senator Marc Pacheco, author of the naturopathy bill, states:

001.a1. in the video:

"[Pacheco] 'I'm the author of the bill [...] we will have standards created, where the Department of Public Health is involved, where other medical professionals are involved, in developing and putting in place a standard that consumers at least have some degree of trust in' [...and we're told that the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) is unwilling to] evolve [...instead keeping] 'with the status quo [...whereas naturopathy is] cutting-edge, state-of-the-art.'"

001.a2. in the description accompanying the video:

"'when I first filed the bill, I don't think there was a state that had enacted the law,' said Senator Marc Pacheco, who first wrote the bill over a decade ago, 'And now there have been a number of states that have gone by us in terms of being on the cutting edge.'"

001.b. reporter Jennifer Reading states:

001.b1. in the video:

"naturopathic doctors in Massachusetts are not giving up their fight to be licensed [...though] the Massachusetts Medical Society [...has] been a long-time opponent of the legislation and says licensing naturopathic doctors will put the public at risk [...and] questions the role of naturopaths within the medical community in general [...that NDs will be] legitimize[d] with licensing [...] June Riedlinger [ND SCNM] is a practicing naturopath in Summerville. She says that's just not true [...] 'if we have a board of registry, one of their jobs is going to be to look at patient complaints and penalize naturopaths who are practicing outside of their trained scope of practice [...] naturopathic physicians are very consciencious [...and finds criticism of an impartial ND board] insulting [...that such accuses NDs on such a board of lacking ] integrity to be critical [...and finds examples used by critics to be] misrepresentative' [...and she speaks of] what naturopaths are taught in school [...according to the reporter] licensing will ultimately safeguard consumers."

001.b2. in the description accompanying the video:

"some Massachusetts lawmakers are worried that the Commonwealth is falling behind [...] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians defines the practice as 'combining the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science.' Naturopaths treat patients by promoting the body's inherent ability to heal itself [...] 'the basic premises on which their practices are based are not sound,' said William Ryder, state legislative and regulatory affairs counsel for MMS."

002. my commentary on the above highlights, per:

-"standards created": I'd argue LOUDLY that 'standards are being lowered' [see below under the Oregon Absurdity];

-"other medical professionals": NDs do not meet the ethical standards of professionalism [see below under the Oregon Absurdity];

-"a standard that consumers at least have some degree of trust in": using Oregon as an example, a FALSE TRUST has been created by legislation and '.gov' support:

I call this the Oregon Absurdity, wherein the hugely science-ejected is falsely labeled -- in '.gov legislation' -- science and objective fact, and therein naturopathy trades under deceptive labels with government sanction as a "profession" [vsc 2010-08-28; that is what State licensure helps naturopathy with];

-"evolve": as if naturopathy's absurdity -- that I just mentioned above as the 'Oregon Absurdity' -- is a step FORWARD;

-"cutting-edge, state-of-the-art [...] falling behind": nonsense isn't the future, it is retrograde;

-"licensing naturopathic doctors will put the public at risk": I totally agree;

-"Riedlinger [ND SCNM]": this ND's school uses the science label upon the hugely nonscientific, as all of naturopathy does;

 -"penalize naturopaths": judging from the permissiveness of naturopathy nonsense from the get-go, I don't think there's ANY kind of standard to hold an ND to beside very mundane torts.  The professions-level standards aren't possible within naturopathy science it is founded upon falsehood and trains future NDs to act just as false;

-"integrity to be critical [...] conscientious [...] misrepresentative": the entire racket is misrepresentative, and I don't see integrity or conscientiousness because I don't see any thinking / honesty going on;

-"licensing will ultimately safeguard consumers": no it won't.  The education consumer, like myself, will be misled due to false labels, and people will visit NDs clinically with the assumption that their knowledge is not absurdity-based;

-"the rigors of modern science": no, because if this was true, then certain premises wouldn't be within the naturopathic belief system that they call "principles," such as vitalism and supernaturalism;

-"body's inherent ability to heal itself": the great coded vitalism statement that NDs employ because if they told you that they're based upon science-ejected articles of faith which modern medicine has ejected, they'd not generate much traffic to their schools or their clinics;

-"the basic premises on which their practices are based are not sound": I totally agree, unless, of course, the hugely science-ejected is equivalent to the science-supported, and in that sense then, unless something is the same thing as that which it excludes etc.;

003. release the absurdity: the reporter's ND, MSND, and AANP-AANMC:

003.a. ND Riedlinger states on her own web page "About Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-08-28]:

"what is naturopathic medicine?  It is based on the core principles listed below: [#1] the healing power of nature: have trust and faith in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself [coded vitalism...#5] treat the whole person: view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical body, mental, and spiritual dimensions [supernaturalism...] a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a 4-yr graduate-level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. or D.O. [science-expertise claim].  To learn more about naturopathic schools go to the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] web site [...] a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [...] to learn more go to the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC) web site."

Note: what's so fascinating here is the science expertise claim placed upon the coded nonscientific vitalistic and the explicit nonscientific supernatural.  When modern science preponderantly excludes certain ideas for several decades ['life forces'] and a few hundred years ['spirits'], you are not getting the same science.

003.b. MSND states in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-08-28]:

"NDs support the body’s innate ability to heal [coded vitalism] with natural therapeutics and by following the guiding principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] support the healing power of nature. The body’s innate ability to heal [coded vitalism] can be restored by removing obstacles to healing [...] knowledge is power [...and speaks of] modern science."

Note: and that's all you are told.  So, there's the hugely opaque / coded vitalism miscommunicated, there's again a claim of knowledge expertise, and a mention of science.  Actually, licensure is power, and false-labeling is power.  Also, at their homepage [vsc 2010-08-28], we're told by msnd.org:

"our mission is to promote the success of naturopathic doctors and the naturopathic profession in Massachusetts through education, public awareness, advocacy, and community."

This is not a profession because it is not transparent about its false premises and where they sit in terms of science, they are miseducators as their literature indicates, and they manipulate the public instead of increase their awareness about what naturopathy actually is.

 

And on their page "Licensure" [vsc 2010-08-28], MSND.org states:

"licensing would allow ND’s to provide the depth of  health care that they are trained to give, providing you better service and more treatment options. Most importantly, it would protect the health care consumer by preventing untrained people from calling themselves naturopathic doctors [...] a law has to be passed to allow a profession to be licensed. Though we have been trying since 1995 to pass a licensing law we have not yet been successful [...] our main opposition is the Massachusetts Medical Society."

Again, the licensure of NDs protects ND nonsense, because complaints would go to these nonsense-purveyors, it is not a profession ethically speaking, and KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK MMS.

003.c. AANP and AANMC:

you can follow the pattern of deception / falsehood right up the organizational chain to the AANP, who falsely claims science upon the nonscientific [that's an ND who won AANP's vitalism award in 2008], and also AANMC, who falsely claims science upon the nonscientific.

Note: again, so licensure of NDs merely provides a layer of bureaucratic cover and government sanction that then PROTECTS these pseudoprofessional, pseudoscientific, hugely science-illiterate swindlers. Naturopathy starts in rather opaque, coded, brief language until a law is passed, then when licensed -- as the Oregon Absurdity clearly demonstrates, and Oregon is the seat of North American naturopathy historically -- the really really burning stupid is released.

004. "survive and thrive", huh:

how about: 'shallowly report and miss all the good stuff' and 'write a bill that, if passed, will victimize the public in the name of a bunch of sectarian whackaloons.'

MMS - Naturopathy A "Large Assortment of Erroneous & Potentially Dangerous Claims":

here, I quote from a Boston Herald article regarding a current naturopathic licensing push, and what the Massachusetts Medical Society had to say [see 001., below]; then, I detail naturopathy's typical absurdity [see 002. & 003., below]:

001. the Boston Herald reports in "Doctors Slam Midwife, Naturopath Bills" {2009-08-04; McConville, C. (? ?)}:

"Massachusetts legislators are considering bills that would establish separate boards [...including one for] naturopaths [...] the Massachusetts Medical Society [MMS] is taking aim [...because it isn't] good medicine [...they're] fighting efforts to make naturopaths licensed health-care providers in Massachusetts. Naturopathic medicine is a small, but growing, form of holistic health care [...] naturopaths say bills currently before the House and Senate would require that all naturopathic practitioners in Massachusetts be held to the highest standards of education and training [...] the medical society denounced the move, calling the practice of naturopathy a 'large assortment of erroneous and potentially dangerous claims [hear, hear!] mixed with a sprinkling of non-controversial dietary and lifestyle advice.'"

Note: the fact is that there aren't high standards at the supposedly highest of standards naturopathic colleges [I know, I went to such a school], the AANMC schools of the AANP and FNPLA [see 003., below].

002. naturopathy's definition of "holistic" with their false claim of science upon that, per their central "highest standards" school, NCNM which states in "Principles of Healing":

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [professions claim; the essentially naturopathic follows]: [#1, first and foremost] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [teleology claim]; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism claim...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [vitalism claim...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [vitalism claim...] these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [survives scientific scrutiny claim...] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [supernaturalism claim...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors [supernaturalism claim...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [supernaturalism claim...] homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of 'like cures like.' Clinical observation indicates that it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels [supernaturalism claim...this is] a medical model that is more patient-centered and holistic."

Note: the holistic is vitalistic, supernaturocentric, teleological, and falsely claims that the science-unsupported is in fact objective & scientific. Naturopathy is the height of academic and pseudomedical absurdity. Naturopathy is sectarian beliefs falsely postured as legitimate science. Yeah, lets license crappola / junk thought like this, to protect the public. Makes sense [not!].

003. some of 'the grossly erroneous essentially naturopathic' [misrepresenting as scientific fact the actually science-ejected]. Naturopathy's claim that [and I won't, in this post, hypertext-link the following, as this blog has piles of such 'from the inside' linkages already]:

003.a. vitalism survives scientific scrutiny [no, it doesn't];

003.b. supernaturalism survives scientific scrutiny [no, it doesn't];

003.c. teleology survives scientific scrutiny [no, it doesn't].

004. I applaud the MMS. It is their duty to take such a stance.