The Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians publishes Principles of Care Guidelines. Not surprisingly, they aren’t science-based.
Last week, the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP) published "principles of care" guidelines. Try as they might, naturopathic oncologists tried to represent their specialty as evidence-based. Unsurprisingly, they failed.
That booster of all things "integrative," John Weeks has devoted the entire most recent issue of The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, which he edits, to trying to demonstrate that naturopathy is science-based. It does not go well. Same as it ever was.
Facilitated communication is pure pseudoscience that was debunked almost 30 years ago, but it keeps coming back, creating new victims.
If you don't think that CAM is the enemy of science in medicine, then you don't understand CAM and its proponents. Don't be fooled by their marketing. They want a return to the pre-scientific days when health gurus could sell any snake oil they want at exorbitant prices, with any hyped claims that they want, without going through all that tedious science.
Move over, Christopher Shaw, there's a new antivaccine scientist dedicated to demonizing aluminum adjuvants in town. His name is Christopher Exley. He's got a fluorescence microscope, and he's not afraid to use it.
ASEAs marketing practices, in my opinion, are clearly deceptive. They use a lot of pseudoscientific claims representing the epitome of supplement industry misdirection and obfuscation. They use science as a marketing tool, not as a method for legitimately advancing our knowledge or answering questions about the efficacy of specific interventions.