The Arkansas House of Representatives has recently proposed a bill to license Alt. Med practitioners specifically Naturopathic Practitioners.
This was a television news report broadcast by KARK in Arkansas. “ Naturopathic medicine becoming more popular in the Natural State as more people frequently turn to alternative healing. According to the Arkansas Naturopathic Physician’s Association however, people trained in this field seem to be leaving the state for greener pastures. This could be changing with a recent bill filed. Rather than leave for a state that recognizes their field, they could stay here. As it is now, there’s no legal way to license a naturopathic practitioner in Arkansas and some who want to practice but follow the law say it has opened the door for people who don’t. Ann Arouh for example is licensed, but only in Oregon. She just helps out in her husbands general practice/primary care physicians office right here in Arkansas. A recent bill filed in the Arkansas Legislature, House Bill 1011, could allow her to practice the alternative medicine she’s educated in and worked hard for. ”It means that I could see patients,” Arouh said. “I could do my diagnosis, I could do all the proper intakes, I could do the office procedures, order the labs… take better care of my patients.”
This report had all the usual alt med logical fallacies. Argument of Popularity common in alt medicine. Blood letting was very popular for thousands of years. I am not a fan myself. There are the usual warnings that unlicensed alt med practitioners are somehow more dangerous that the licensed kind. This is a common quack medicine argument “look out there may be quacks practicing my quackery you need to legalize me to stop them.”.
This law, as reported by the television news segment, focuses on licensing naturopaths. 16 States and 5 canadian provinces already has such a law. Unfortunately, naturopathy is a group of mostly unscientific treatment based on vitalism and other prescientific notions of disease. As a result, typical naturopaths are more than happy in essence to “pick one from column A and one from column B” when it comes to pseudoscience, mixing and matching treatments including traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, herbalism, Ayurvedic medicine, applied kinesiology, anthroposophical medicine, reflexology, craniosacral therapy, Bowen Technique, and pretty much any other form of unscientific or prescientific medicine that you can imagine. Despite their affinity for non-science-based medical systems, naturopaths crave the imprimatur of science. As a result, they desperately try to represent what they do as being science-based, and they’ve even set up research institutes, much like the departments, divisions, and institutes devoted to “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) that have cropped up on the campuses of legitimate medical schools and academic medical centers. Naturopaths don’t like it when they encounter criticism that their “discipline” is not science-based. In fact, though, every school of naturopathy whose curriculum I’ve ever examined includes homeopathy as a requirement, even as the AANP requires and defends homeopathy. It’s no wonder, too. There is actually a North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners, just like medicine’s National Board of Medical Examiners. The NABNE even has a certifying examination, just like real doctors! It’s all science-y and medicine-y, too, with all the trappings of science-based medicine but none of the rigor. This examination, the NPLEX (Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations), which is required for naturopaths to be licensed in the sixteen states and five Canadian provinces that license naturopathic physicians tests naturopaths on homeopathy
I am against medical pseudoscience being legally licensed in another state. What is interesting about this story is that I can find no evidence of an actual bill in the Arkansas house of representatives. I have emailed a request to the reporter questioning where the bill is, and who is the sponsor. So far no response. I have done some research at the government website but the only bill coded HB1011 for this year is a finance bill that has nothing to do with alt med.
At this point I can only conclude that it is real but so far I have no dis-confirming or confirming evidence. It begs the question is this some government alt med proponent testing the water to see the response? Real bill or “testing the waters” this needs to be knocked down quickly. I am very concerned that “Ann Arouh ND” may be able to; diagnose, perform office procedures and laboratory work on her “Patients”. Maybe, if this law is stopped, naturopaths will leave Arkansas. I would call this Arkansas medical addition by subtraction. More likely they will continue their slow erosion of science based medicine.
Licensed quackery is still quackery. Every time pseudoscience is legitimized it erodes the the safety and efficacy of treatment in that state. In my opinion being licensed to practice magic does not make the illusion real.
“What is interesting about this story is that I can find no evidence of this being an actual bill in the Arkansas house of representatives. I have emailed a request to the reporter questioning where the bill is and who is the sponsor. So far no response. I have done some research at the government website but the only bill coded HB1011 for this year is a finance bill that has nothing to do with alt med
At this point I can only conclude that it is real but so far I have no dis-confirming or confirming evidence.”
So, you wrote this entire post (in desperate need of proofreading) about a bill that you checked and it doesn’t exist, yet you conclude it’s real? Unbelievable!
The news report was broadcast on 12/14, and was presented as factual. Thank you for pointing out the typos.
I love posts like Wordwizard just presented.. How do you verify whether bills are presented should be a simple matter (as it is in Oz, NZ and Britain)?.
Verification is not something for the bold.
Verification is not relevant, the previous comment-er edited my post to leave out the significant second line. “It begs the question is this some government alt med proponent testing the water to see the response? Real bill or “testing the waters” this needs to be knocked down quickly.”
As I wrote the news story was broadcast and the Bill was reported as fact.
Come to think of it, that line about one of us editing your post is about as conspiratorial as a blogger can get.
You didnt present any sort of verified blog post and now you really think one of us is rewriting your posts??? yeah and aliens do my ironing as well
Thanks for that. What say the rest of your post William Shakespeare.
Thats really junk blogging. I dont know how Brian let you in.
Please, go straight to thread.pulling and learn a bit of blog decorum!
Interesting and impassioned, but how would you define stopping where he did if it is not editing?
Wordwizard:”What is interesting about this story is that I can find no evidence of this being an actual bill in the Arkansas house of representatives. I have emailed a request to the reporter questioning where the bill is and who is the sponsor. So far no response. I have done some research at the government website but the only bill coded HB1011 for this year is a finance bill that has nothing to do with alt med
At this point I can only conclude that it is real but so far I have no dis-confirming or confirming evidence.”
So, you wrote this entire post (in desperate need of proofreading) about a bill that you checked and it doesn’t exist, yet you conclude it’s real? Unbelievable!
Actual paragraph:”At this point I can only conclude that it is real but so far I have no dis-confirming or confirming evidence. It begs the question is this some government alt med proponent testing the water to see the response? Real bill or “testing the waters” this needs to be knocked down quickly. I am very concerned that “Ann Arouh ND” may be able to; diagnose, perform office procedures and laboratory work on her “Patients”. Maybe, if this law is stopped, naturopaths will leave Arkansas. I would call this Arkansas medical addition by subtraction. More likely they will continue their slow erosion of science based medicine.”
If he is not quoting me out of context then what is your definition?
Thank you for confirming that verification was never your intent. It clearly was the responsibility of the reporter.
Thank you for that small contrition on your behalf..
Now explain the fact that you claim either I or wordwizard edited your article. I don’t know how good Word wizard is in breaching skeptoid bloggers posts, I a not, I have never tried.
So where is your verification on that?
I am sorry but the rest has nothing to do with what I posted.
Where the hell is Guy McCardle. He was a lot better at this sort of blog post.
I am not contrite, if you wish to be pedantic and assume that I meant that wordwizard was editing my original post that is your error. If I have not been clear he copied my sentence editing out the rest of the my paragraph. He mis-quoted me. You did not see that or chose to ignore it. The rest of your ramble and reference to my other post gives you away wordwizard.
New anonymous name same poorly written ad-hominium attacks.
Please indulge yourself. You just add more evidence to the troll bin. The more you protest the more you prove my point. You were right about one thing blocking you was a mistake you are very very entertaining.
I await your answer to my last question”If he is not quoting me out of context then what is your definition?”. I noticed your usual skimming over that.
Look, I get shit for reviewing theses…Its sad that I will remember your name forever and have to hand back your hopefully future thesis on the established reputation that you will defend personal subjectivity…
Man,, I could get my transmission gasket fixed but…..
I am an honest reviewer ……..
Don’t opt for master/PhD.
I now ask Brian why this non skeptic and abusive blog poster should remain on skeptoid blogs.
I know that Brian likes a variety of view in his personal skeptoid comments (general) but this blogger has a subjective and disproportionally defensive attitude that will nor heed the “personal research” verification that is required from prior bloggers.
Brian, this guy is a dullard…Keep him on your feeder groups if needs be..
Skeptoid Blogs requires folk who verify things and admit to gross errors in research
After all, Macky performs better than this joker.
As a reviewer? Fail.
So next up the issue,
Sttephen Propatier is a Skeptic and Clinical Nurse Practitioner who specializes in Spine and Sports medicine. He completed his Graduate degree at Umass graduate school of nursing. He is a board certified Acute Care Nurse Practitioner, as well as a member of the North American Spine Society. He is adjunct faculty for both Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School and Rhode Island College Graduate School of Nursing. He is also a member of NESS.
This blog author criticises state legislature on the basis of media reports alone. In a regulatory position, this author would be deemed as unfit in a regulatory role as this author does not verify fundamental research in legislatory practices, or regulatory interpretation with no regard to state criticism. Neither before, during research or posting said criticism.
Opinion understood.
Why have you not answered my question? ”If he is not quoting me out of context then what is your definition?”.
Distract all you want, I just want your answer to simple question for the third time.
“abusive blog poster should remain on skeptoid blogs.”
Reasonable question.
Suggesting that you are a blog troll is uncalled for and beneath the integrity of this website as a whole. For that I am apologizing.
I would say that the I believe in the body of my argument that this news piece may be an attempt to push for support in the legislature, or a real bill. It should be pursued at every level, and I would not wait until it is debated in the legislature to question its veracity. That is why I stated that verification is not important in this circumstance.
“The rest of your ramble and reference to my other post gives you away wordwizard.
New anonymous name same poorly written ad-hominium attacks.
Please indulge yourself. You just add more evidence to the troll bin. The more you protest the more you prove my point. You were right about one thing blocking you was a mistake you are very very entertaining.”
To Stephen: Does that mean you have un-blocked me? Because my name is NOT Mud. If you are able to check the addresses you do or don’t block, you will see they are not the same. I do not know who Mud is, (or Macky, for that matter). Please try to get straight who you are insulting! If you can’t tell us apart, just examine the typos. Also, I did not remove any text from the section of your post that I quoted, so I do not understand what editing you are complaining about.
To Mud: Brian doesn’t even have time to read the comments on his OWN posts, so I sincerely doubt he is reading other people’s. If you wish to complain to him about this writer’s posts (I second the motion!), you need to e-mail him directly. There’s a link in each of his posts.
I was in error assuming you were another poster and very wrong to have called you a troll….
I also agree that your typing has precision and that should have keyed me to the fact that I was mistaken.
sheesh, complaining about the odd typo in a response equals the lack of verification on a news repots must indicate some equivalence.
Give up, I would rather see a fantasia of construct from Macky before I read something as unverified as the above..
At least Macky writes superbly.
Give up that minimal appeal to authority in your bio on this particular field. Give up that disgraceful appeal to authority in your NON references.
If your bio matches your veracity in a post..
Then post.
I have never, ever, seen such self protection after a blog post when “oh bugger, I goofed posting a news report” would have sufficed.
Go Back to all of skeptoid and the superb blog posts and admissions of failure in posting real issues.
Sheesh, just go back to the Californian issue Brian brought up. Apart from Brian’s always polite responses to superb initial posts, he will carry the interest of the Voodoo killers (oops stoics) to carry his articles on.
If a woo artist comments on your articles, its probably deserved! You are easy meat. Fillet du jour I’d say.
What’s next? a totally unreferenced spoof display on quantum physics? Sorry wrong appeal to authority. That wasnt yours but it was about the most science less display of hoop daning for character space I have ever seen in a skeptic blog roll.
I mean spoof as in antipodean..
Two blogs, two authors, one week; the veracity and verifiability of ants.
Brian, Please vet articles before you stain the name of SKEPTOID.
This exchange and the “quantum gargle” (argument from ignorance) from this week indicate one thing very clearly.
You are too busy to see the cracks…
Cracks being the antipodean version and…Let Macky be the judge…
Brian, letting these guys in has diminished yours, Guys and the blog posts prior to the last three months.
Sorry Steve;
1) verification is everything. In a quality world, with a transportable quality system ( as nursing practices have exemplified over the past 40 years) a whole blog post revolving around a news report requires verification to a bill (proposed and rejected, proposed and accepted for debate; propose and debated/accepted.
The mindless machinations of the media (and lets face it, the media adjust their position readily under the current 24 second news cycle) do not require verification but as a Skeptoid Blogger, I would at least hold you to a quarter of the standards Brian holds on himself.
Now as to the charge that I think is levelled at me, what re-editing? I commented on a post about the ridiculous re-adoption of magick that continually re-occurs in our society at all levels until political head patting is refused in any debate.
Surely if the media presents an article it might be factual or (more likely) just another attempt on mangling;
1) history
2) language
3 understanding
4) simple arithmetic
5) politics (over campaign)
6) economic presentation
6) science.
If your article is about the balnk spaces placed on the person reporting in front of a camera or racing their personal understanding prior to “examining” the facts, yes your article is fair.
But if you really think that a Skeptoid Blogger require someithing similar to;
“The news report was broadcast on 12/14, and was presented as factual. Thank you for pointing out the typos.”
Is not the basis of any reply to a blog post without having examined the patently obvious to what “Wordwizard” alluded to.
If Wordwizard was wrong at the time, state it. If a bill has been presented since, state it.
Look, we all agree that alternative medicine is a great advertising campaign for companies selling dubious product (i would add, non performing product and modailties to date).
If a Bill had been presented, post it, argue to it.
Arguing to the useless misapprehensions that appear in the media on a daily basis hardly seems fair.
If you think that that was worthy, please review what the guys at australian skeptics have done over the years with respect to the media, alty moronic thought and stupid socialites.
All of the campaigns started with going for the throat.
I think this has been ignored.
I would love to publicly review the article that was originally posted as well.
Do I have Brian permission to do this?
Look, for all experimental Skepoid blog writers, look to the fantastic (in more terms than one) Santa article.
Tongue in cheek and a great laugh…fully referenced and hyperlinked..
Brian and Guy did it as well.
If this is now Brian’s bringing up baby site, then the Santa article deserves the medal for the week..
Worked means, doing some damn work to get us stoics a laugh.
Santa did it.. earhart still gets a hit a week.
To all young writers who don’t publish and are looking to get skeptocred..Read Brian’s skeptoids… Brian here, Guy’s here and else where. Brian has so many fantastic friends and associates who spend a shitload of time for nothing but, learning.
This past week of posters are waiting for lessons!
If you understand skeptoids bedfellows and read their blogs et Cit Post here and enjoy fantastic comments.
Of course you could be naturals.
Still, This is now Brian’s experimental site that isnt noticed as my “marital irritant” (unlike the standard skeptoid comments page). “Who the hell is Macky and why do you write so much to her?”.. Macky is neither a he or a she, Macky is a fantastic and literate person who gives me a great reason to post..
We are on holidays, I refuse to see you going to skeptoid…
I only wish my dear friend Macky found this part of skeptoid…
PS, Macky, you owe me 15 cents on the probability of that volcano this week. When you come on Brian experimental, recognise this and..
Bugrit..15 cents gets us nowhere…
People have choice to take alternative or not. It is up to the person involved.
Here’s the text of HB 1011:
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2013/2013R/Bills/HB1011.pdf