So I didn't make myself clear enough, apparently.
https://twitter.com/Eric_OGrey/status/1139990193270927361 …
-
-
Replying to @gorskon
TBF — and yes, they’re the exception — I know two NPs who don’t practice homeopathy, are extremely pro-vaccine, and practice only therapies/interventions supported by peer-reviewed research. Unicorns? Yes, but they do exist.
5 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @tarahaelle @gorskon
NP or ND? As NPs we study and practice evidence-based, I don’t consider an NP comparable to a ND in the least.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I’m all for calling out bad actors and bad trends in professions as a whole (including naturopathy, chiropractic, etc). I am not for presumptive statements that EVERY SINGLE individual in a certain capacity or profession is, by definition, incapable of evidence-based practice.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tarahaelle @AJafari81
EVERY SINGLE NATUROPATH is trained in quackery. That is a simple fact. It is indisputable. Any naturopath who overcomes that does so in spite of his training and generally becomes an ex-naturopath like
@NaturoDiaries.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I agree that all naturopaths are trained in quackery. But that’s not what you said. And there are some (very few) PRACTICING naturopaths who are not quacks and practice evidence-based medicine.
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
The problem is, when you remove the quackery from naturopathy, all that's left is life coaching.
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Can’t argue with that. I still take issue with broad statements that are not explicitly, precisely accurate. I’m a journalist, so it’s my job to nitpick.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
I look at it this way. The number of naturopaths who try not to be quacks is so small as to be negligible, a very close approximation to 0%.
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.