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 …
Mmmm but I'm really not sure how they could conclude what they did based on the evidence they found. As far as I can tell, the conclusion should've been that the evidence is poor and no robust conclusions can be drawn
-
-
My main beef is people shifting from "whole practice" is only way to measure naturopathy to saying it is not reflective once more studies get identified. You're right re conclusions (though I'd add "promising") but also think much excluded research should have been in assessment
-
But then we get to the whole no true Scotsman issue. If everything used in any naturopathic practice is "naturopathy", then a review is pointless anyway because the subject is almost infinitely broad. Also, definitions of "naturopath" vary widely by country
- 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.