Response by critics to updated review of "whole practice" naturopathy evidence is interesting. Authors explicitly state they use same methods as gov review conducted 6yrs ago. Critics lauded rigour of gov review, but claim methods in this review are flawed https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-08/southern-cross-university-naturopathy-study/10879232 …
Right, but that's the issue surely? What's the marginal benefit on top of yoga of "diet, mud pack, enema, steam treatments, hydrotherapy, and massage" and how can you even measure that when the study itself didn't?
-
-
I don't disagree. But the government review itself said that the evidence for individual practices was not relevant and only "whole practise" studies should be considered. I'm on record stating it was not appropriate then
-
I guess the challenge there is what is defined as "whole practice". This review seems to have taken an extremely broad approach, but I'm not sure that helps the case given how broad the interventions were
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.