Fighting Back

As I hope I demonstrated in Legislative Alchemy: Naturopathy 2013, below, licensing “naturopathic doctors,” especially as primary care physicians, is a bad idea.  Unfortunately, the only people usually interested in opposing their licensing efforts are medical doctors and their organizations.  Of course, this allows naturopaths to pretend they are the victims of the evil, Big Pharma-controlled medical-industrial complex which kills and maims vast numbers of people every year.  This distracts legislators from the real issues, such as whether they are qualified to do what they want to do (answer: no)  and whether people really want an ND to provide their care (answer: very, very  few).

I happen to think that legislators should be fully informed about things such as how naturopaths are educated, what they do in actual practice, and what thier beliefs  about medical care are.  So I created a website to inform them about these issues and to inform the public as well, so they too will be inspired to oppose naturopathic licensing.  It also has suggestions for opposing naturopathic licensing as well as addtional sources of information and downloads of materials you can use.  (I thank SBM’s Kimball Atwood, M.D., for permission to use some of the wonderful work he has done on naturopathy.)

The website is titled, most creatively, “Oppose Naturopathic Licensing!” And you can find it here: If those who value science and the rational application of science to medical care don’t work to stop CAM provider licensing, the spread of pseudoscience and quackery will only increase.  And that demeans all scientific endeavors.


Posted in: Announcements, Naturopathy

Leave a Comment (18) ↓

18 thoughts on “Fighting Back

  1. Neil J says:

    I support the heck out of this. Is there a way to include Canadian jurisdictions in this project? I’ve personally watched my local “quackery row” (West 8th street in Saskatoon, SK) swell with homeopaths, acupuncturists, iridologists, naturopaths, Ayurveda…ists? and all other practitioners of woo seemingly without resistance. I think it’s about time someone took a stand against their hogwash.

  2. Neil J says:

    And if I could make a recommendation on the layout of the website, I’d suggest you simplify and jazz up the main page a bit. As a frequent reader of SBM, I’m fine with being confronted by a wall of text, but to the lay reader this may come across as intimidating. I’d recommend hiding the majority of this information behind enticing links and a couple of slick graphics. May as well follow the example of the practitioners of woo — God knows they’ve managed to suck in their fair share of wanderers, however unfortunately, with the same tactics.

  3. Jann Bellamy says:

    @Neil J

    There is a new anti-pseudoscience group in Canada — Bad Science Watch:

    They might help you out.

    Thanks for the website suggestions. I agree and will be working on some of those issues. My main purpose was to get the info out while still early in the legislative season.

  4. Janet says:

    Wonderful News! Thank you for doing something concrete. May we donate to maintaining the site?

  5. cervantes says:

    Good idea, but you totally need a competent designer. Really, you might think it’s not important but it has a huge impact on credibility. That looks unprofessional and low-rent.

  6. Jann Bellamy says:

    @ Janet:

    “May we donate to maintaining the site?”

    Thanks for your generous offer! But, as cervantes pointed out, the site is “unprofessional and low-rent,” so there is very little cost. For now, I am funding it and keeping it up.

  7. cervantes says:

    Well, wouldn’t it be better to take my advice and try to make it better? Why do you want it to look bad?

  8. pharmavixen says:

    Hi, Jann! I just emailed your new site a link to a comprehensive list of Canadian legislation related to naturopathy.

    For the folks here, it’s this: (sorry about the icky pro-naturopathy stuff).

  9. Harriet Hall says:

    Good for you! It’s great to have all that information consolidated in one place and a resource to recommend to legislators. Must have taken a lot of work. We appreciate it!

  10. Quill says:

    Thank you for this website! Very handy to have good information. I think most people assume M.D. and N.D. sound so similar that they must be similar but when they find out about the vast differences they are not interested in the naturopath way. I hope more legislators find out about all this and don’t let these unqualified people harm others.

  11. Ken Hamer says:

    Shouldn’t the website have a more sCAMy type name, like “Understanding Naturopathic Licensing!”?

  12. pharmavixen says:

    Jann, I posted a link to your site on the Association of Science and Reason Facebook page, and someone from a Canadian skeptics group, the Committee for Scientific Skepticism (CASS, came by to say that this is an area of expertise for them, as they have submitted briefs to regulators regarding alt-med in Ontario, for instance. I suggest you contact folks @ CASS.

  13. pharmavixen says:

    Random comment: one of the nurses I work with has a roommate who is studying to be a naturopath. So today, I heard her telling someone, “My roommate is in medical school.”


  14. adventuregrrl says:

    Thank you so much for this–it’s fantastic! My state (WA) is unfortunately quite friendly to them, but I’ll do what I can. I also keep seeing a petition to recognize acupuncturists as healthcare providers under the Social Security Act so they can be paid under Medicare. Is there anywhere to oppose that?

  15. yodeladyhoo says:

    Jann, I read Kimball Atwood’s report which you linked to on your site. I think it’s excellent. Do you have a link for the appendices to the report? He mentions them a number of times and they sound interesting.

  16. Jann Bellamy says:


    No, but I will try to find them. Thanks for the link in your comment to Legislative Alchemy. Very interesting!

Comments are closed.