NC Legislature is about to make some alternative health practitioners felons.

[lildreamer316]

Look, I know a lot of you think this is just fine, and I'm really not here to argue the validity of naturopathy, homeopathy, midwives and etc. I personally use allopathy and alternative medicines both, in as balanced a way as I know how (and can educate myself to). But I do believe that we should be able to have a CHOICE over what we put into,and how we choose to TREAT OUR OWN BODIES - especially in this time where many of us are uninsured and don't have many choices financially. To me, it's about FREEDOM. I thought that was a Democratic and Progressive value. It certainly is one of mine.

Please, if you are from NC and are sympathetic, or even if you are not and you think it will make a difference, consider writing Gov.Perdue and asking her to veto this bill, or at least give it some more time for debate. This managed to slip under many people's radar until now.

Here's a link to all the info you need:

http://community.icontact.com/p/soulshaman/newsletters/shamanism/posts/urgent-help-needed-from-nc-people

Anyone who takes the time to read and do this, I thank you very much. I don't often post things like this (you can check my history).

[iwishiwas]

1. Repugs (and Dems) push "choice" as the gospel unless corporations

are involved.

[derby378]

2. Science is not democratic - that's why it's science

It is, however, a process, and anyone can do it.

That's how some forms of alternative medicine have been found to be beneficial. That's why they're no longer considered alternative medicine, but simply medicine.

[ThatPoetGuy]

6. Somewhat accurate, but somewhat misleading, too.

I'm not going to argue any theories about medicine. But I will discuss science, law, and money.

Before a substance can be labeled a medicine in the U.S., it needs to undergo seven years of testing. Last I heard, the required tests cost over two million dollars. Sometimes, at the end of the testing, the substance is found to have no benefits, or to be unsafe. Spending two million dollars on the hope that your substance might be good medicine.

So, suppose there's a plant that might have medical benefits. Who will pay for the testing? You can't patent the plant. Who will spend millions of dollars of their own money to get a substance approved as a medicine if anyone can then make a profit off of it?

But if ScienceTech Labs creates a new, synthetic substance, they can patent it. If it has medical value, the company can make a fortune off of it. So of course they'll spend a few million dollars.

The way the law is set up, and economics working as they do, means that naturally-occurring substances seldom get a rigorous scientific study, but synthetic substances often do. And there's no easy way to change the system on this, not without re-writing our entire intellectual property laws.

[Raksha]

7. Good point: i.e. "some forms of alternative medicine have been found to be beneficial.

That's why they're no longer considered alternative medicine, but simply medicine.

[ThatPoetGuy]

9. Really?

How many naturally-occurring substances are actually considered "medicine," under legal definitions?

Umm, there's ephedrine, and opium-derivatives, and aspirin, and, um.... Can you think of anything else? Marijuana, in some states.

Beneficial substances, like green tea, red wine, and so on, aren't considered medicine, because they treat no specific condition. There are plenty of substances that medical science considers beneficial without being medicine.

[Mz Pip]

3. The big problem I have with

a lot of this stuff is that it isn't regulated. Claims can be made that aren't true or backed up by sound science. Yes, people should ahve a choice about what they put in their bodies but they should know what it is and if the claims made on its effectiveness are valid.

I remember being in a shop that sold lots of alternative medicine stuff and some guy was getting advice on his kidney disease from someone encouraging him to put yellow crystals on his stomach. Yeah, I guess it was his choice but I don't think he was making decisions based on any kind of rigorous testing and double blind studies.

[derby378]

4. Exactly!

Next thing you know, we'll have "psychic sugeons" running amok in the heartland, and those soulless frauds cannot be allowed in our country.

[angstlessk]

5. Of course it is better to take drugs that will make your toe nails look beautiful

but murder your liver..but WHO SEES YOUR LIVER ANY HOW?

Wear your Gucci sandals with pride!

[Mz Pip]

11. ...but those warnings are printed

and given out with the medication. At least there is a warning. You can at least make an informed choice.

BTW Mr Pip took that stuff because he had the grodiest toe nail fungus imaginable. His liver is fine. ;-)

[angstlessk]

15. Well, when the cure is worse than the disease....you COULD die

I think it should be banned..no matter how wonderful your husbands toe nails look now

[Mz Pip]

17. But it's rare.

I nearly died taking 2 aspirin. Should it be banned because I nearly died and some people do? It's rare.

If something works and doesn't negatively affect 99% of the people who take it, should it be banned?

[angstlessk]

24. Really,...how rare would it be if it is discovered in a trial of 10,000 people

if it were rare is would not even be discovered...unless it is NOT rare enough to discovered?

[Mz Pip]

32. huh?

Not sure waht you're getting at. Nothing is 100% safe. But should you deny the 99% of the population relief for what ails them because a small percentage might have a bad reaction? Do we really want to go back to the time when there were no drugs to cure disease? Is that what you want?

I read those inserts with my prescriptions. The one for the migraine medication kept me from taking it for quite a while. But then I got one hell of a migraine and gave it a try. I lived. The headache went away. No side effects.

[PVnRT]

46. I guess you would ban all medicine, then

Ten thousand people is plenty to discover rare side effects. 1/10000 = 0.01% By definition, that is very rare.

[FLPanhandle]

8. This doesn't stop you from taking whatever you want

It stops people from charging others while basically practicing unlicensed medicine. Even worse, practicing unlicensed unproven, unscientific medicine.

You can do whatever you want. You just can't play doctor and charge others.

Good law IMHO.

[madrchsod]

10. why do`t they regulate them?

although i have some doubts about some practices they should be held to certain standards.

[lildreamer316]

19. That would be fine with me.

Compared to this, anyway. I do understand that there are a lot of quacks and charlatans out there,and I don't purport to believe that every remedey suggested works (duh :) ) but this is just a serious over-reaction. And it smacks of a curtailing of freedom of choice for treatment - just a tad.

[OneGrassRoot]

12. From a neurologist friend in NC: "Wow. The way Republicans think about freedom is a funny thing."

Most people want reasonable regulation of all industries, to keep us as safe as possible.

This applies to "traditional" medicine and alternative health care.

Big Pharma has a lot more money and thus influence to throw around, so I tend to think there's a lot of greed and fraud -- leading to potential harm to the consumer -- from them as much as any multinational corporation driven by profit.

There are plenty of charlatans and false claims in traditional medicine as well as alternative. Let us choose, with reasonable regulation for consumer safety being in place.

But the comment from the neurologist was, I think, spot on.

[ThatPoetGuy]

13. I'm curious, does this apply to quacks like chiropractors and physical therapists too?

Or does it only apply to those practitioners who are considered odd and out of the mainstream?

Because medical science has shown again and again that chiropractics and physical therapy don't work.

[uppityperson]

16. "physical therapy (doesn't) work"? What do you mean? Doesn't work how or what?

As far as getting exercises to strengthen weak muscles, it does. Not sure what you mean, would you please clarify? Thanks.

[ThatPoetGuy]

18. Sorry, physical therapy is quack science.

Every respectable study, like this one from the New England Journal of Medicine, has found that physical therapy doesn't aid with pain management, no matter how many claims are made by physical therapists: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/339/15/1021 .

Every study has shown that electromagnetic stimulation of muscles (EMS) has no benefit to muscle strength.

And no respectable study has yet shown, to my knowledge, that physical therapy exercises offer any more strength gain than simply moving around.

It's a quack field, built on quack theories, and it has no relationship to science.

[OneGrassRoot]

20. Wow, this is a first for me. Never seen PT listed as quack science.

Wish I saw things as clearly as you do -- black and white. It would make life much easier.

:)

[ThatPoetGuy]

33. Interesting misinterpretation.

I asked if the law is only being applied to herbalists and homeopaths and various hippie-like people who practice questionable or unproven medicine, or if it's also going to be applied to respectable-looking fields that practice questionable or unproven medicine.

Where on earth did you get the idea from that that I see anything as black and white?

It would certainly make life easier to make things up and attribute them to others, rather than pay attention to what's being said. That's what you did here.

[OneGrassRoot]

34. This is a pretty definitive statement to me...

Regarding PT you said: "It's a quack field, built on quack theories, and it has no relationship to science."

I've honestly never seen anyone make such a blanket, black-and-white statement about Physical Therapy.

These threads NEVER go well on DU.

I'll agree to disagree about what's effective and what isn't, but my perception is that you made very clear statements that, to me, are "black and white." You see these issues very clearly, with no wiggle room.

To you, PT is quack science.

:shrug:

[ThatPoetGuy]

36. Um, it is.

It's not based on observation. It's not based on studies. Every large-scale study, bar none, has shown it not to work. You're welcome to pretend otherwise. But if you say a large-scale study has shown it effective, then, to the best of my knowledge, you'd be lying.

If you want to say the studies have missed something, feel free to do so. You might even be right. Maybe no one has performed the right kind of study to highlight the effectiveness of physical therapy.

But any medical claims that aren't grounded in solid research are quack science, and as far as I know, physical therapy hasn't got any solid research behind it.

Let me try to explain this more clearly. A professor once floated the theory that ulcers were caused by bacteria. There weren't studies that supported his theory yet. So suppose a doctor started giving antibiotics to people with ulcers, based on an untested theory. That doctor would have been practicing quack medicine.

The professor was right. Ulcers are caused by bacteria. Studies have shown that now, and doctors now give antibiotics to ulcer patients. They're not quacks. They're acting on the basis of solid research.

Quack medicine is usually wrong, but not always. Physical therapy is quack medicine because it isn't based on solid research. The same is true of homeopathy, herbalism, chiropractic, etc. I hope more research is done. I hope people find healing. But anyone and everyone who makes money providing untested medical treatment is behaving in a questionably ethical manner. They're placing their hunches, their intuition, and their ego in a high enough importance that they're putting other people's health on the line for the sake of their gut feelings.

Perhaps you won't understand the complexity of what I'm trying to say here, because it's complex, and because you're trying -- hard -- not to see complexity.

[OneGrassRoot]

39. Okay. :) n/t

[uppityperson]

40. Physical therapy isn't based on observation or solid research, it doesn't work?

For anything? For people after hip replacements, to help get them moving, that therapy does nothing? For a person with a rotator cuff injury, it does nothing? Exercise, range of motion, massage do...nothing? They're based on hunches and ego?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Perhaps you won't understand the complexity of what we are trying to say here because it is simple and because you're trying...hard..to not see it.

There are quacks in every field. However, to blithly write off physical therapy thusly because of some quackary is ridiculous.

Ok, let me post the first thing I find googling
http://www.physorg.com/news140445156.html

A new study questioning the usefulness of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee should encourage patients to consider physical therapy as an effective non-surgical option, according to the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA). The study was published in the September 11 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

[ThatPoetGuy]

50. Where did you read that I'm trying to "write off physical therapy"?

It isn't based on research. That doesn't necessarily mean it's not effective.

Your own link -- the link YOU posted -- isn't what you seem to think it is. It's a press release. An AD. An ad from the APTA, which isn't a scientific or research organization; it's a PR group.

The press release clearly and deliberately misinterprets the results of a NEJM article from 9/11/08. The study didn't look at physical therapy separate from other medical procedures, at all. Here's the NEJM's summary of the study:

"This randomized trial showed no benefit of the addition of arthroscopic treatment to optimized physical and medical therapy and provided evidence that arthroscopic surgery is not indicated for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708333

The study showed knee surgery gave little added benefit to people who had osteoarthritic knee pain when those people were already undergoing a number of medical procedures, including medical pain management and physical therapy among others. The study wasn't double-blinded for those who were receiving no treatment.

What are some possible conclusions? * Maybe the knee surgery doesn't work. * Maybe the medical treatment works. * Maybe the physical therapy works. * Maybe the physical therapy together with the medical treatment works. And so on.

What did the APTA quack claim the study showed? "Physical therapy can be equally effective and should be considered by not only patients themselves, but also the primary care doctors and orthopedists who are treating them," he said. The study doesn't show anything of the kind. It's a lie told by a professional liar. His organization then sent the lies out as a press release. The press release was put up on a website, unedited, and you claimed that this ad was "research."

Stunning work, chap.

[uppityperson]

51. Where did I read that? From your posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=804946&mesg_id=805161

I'm curious, does this apply to quacks like chiropractors and physical therapists too?

Or does it only apply to those practitioners who are considered odd and out of the mainstream?

Because medical science has shown again and again that chiropractics and physical therapy don't work.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=804946&mesg_id=805227

And no respectable study has yet shown, to my knowledge, that physical therapy exercises offer any more strength gain than simply moving around.

It's a quack field, built on quack theories, and it has no relationship to science.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=439&topic_id=804946&mesg_id=805687

asked if the law is only being applied to herbalists and homeopaths and various hippie-like people who practice questionable or unproven medicine, or if it's also going to be applied to respectable-looking fields that practice questionable or unproven medicine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=804946&mesg_id=805360

no one understands how pain works, what it is, how to treat it. The official medical treatments are junk as well. But no honest person would make the claim that they have a method for managing pain.

[MedicalAdmin]

47. As long as you are going to use good solid scientific terms like quack...

...I guess we can accept your premise as being all scientific and not just your opinion.

Regulation works. Standards work. Making something illegal rather than individual actions isn't. Look at the war on drugs...

[uppityperson]

22. I look at it like exercise education. Teaching people how to help their bodies move around better

There are a lot of claims that don't stand up to science. As in my current field of massage therapy. Don't get me started on that.

However, PT does help with giving exercises to those who won't or can't do them on their own.

[ThatPoetGuy]

28. My own experiences with physical therapists weren't bad.

The first time I saw a physical therapist, I was recovering from abdominal surgery. I couldn't figure out how to get up out of bed without tearing my abdominal muscles. She taught me a very clever method of rolling swiftly to one side and using the momentum to propel me up out of bed, without using my stomach muscles.

I'll always be grateful for that. But in my conversations with her, it became clear that knowledge actually came from her background as a competitive swimmer; it wasn't part of the physical therapy science. And it would be awesome, it would be amazing, if people who really understood the way the body works could advise us on ways to use our bodies when something changes.

The next time I saw a physical therapist, they gave me exercises to help my foot pain. The exercises didn't work. But no one can blame them; no one understands how pain works, what it is, how to treat it. The official medical treatments are junk as well. But no honest person would make the claim that they have a method for managing pain.

[uppityperson]

31. As below, it depends on the person, the therapist, the situation. Unfortunately there is quacker

even amongst MDs. I operate from the point of a RN with BS and LMP, bodies are very cool. Understanding the way the body works, the anatomy, physiology, kinesiology are a big thing for me and quacks very much annoy me. I've been told I could make more money by doing "energy work" but no. I can't. I really. Really. Can't.

[uppityperson]

25. This study was for low back pain. However, PT does do a lot more than simply LBP.

RESULTS
After adjustment for base-line differences, the chiropractic group had less severe symptoms than the booklet group at four weeks (P=0.02), and there was a trend toward less severe symptoms in the physical-therapy group (P=0.06). However, these differences were small and not significant after transformations of the data to adjust for their non-normal distribution. Differences in the extent of dysfunction among the groups were small and approached significance only at one year, with greater dysfunction in the booklet group than in the other two groups (P=0.05). For all outcomes, there were no significant differences between the physical-therapy and chiropractic groups and no significant differences among the groups in the numbers of days of reduced activity or missed work or in recurrences of back pain. About 75 percent of the subjects in the therapy groups rated their care as very good or excellent, as compared with about 30 percent of the subjects in the booklet group (P<0.001). Over a two-year period, the mean costs of care were $437 for the physical-therapy group, $429 for the chiropractic group, and $153 for the booklet group.
Full Text of Results...
CONCLUSIONS
For patients with low back pain, the McKenzie method of physical therapy and chiropractic manipulation had similar effects and costs, and patients receiving these treatments had only marginally better outcomes than those receiving the minimal intervention of an educational booklet. Whether the limited benefits of these treatments are worth the additional costs is open to question.

[ThatPoetGuy]

38. Medicine isn't like criminal law, "innocent until proven guilty."

It's false until proven true.

You say, "This study was for low back pain. However, PT does do a lot more than simply LBP."

Does it?

Show us a reliable study.

These researchers started with a hypothesis along the lines of "Physical therapy helps people with lower back pain," and their experiment disproved the hypothesis.

Do you have any studies where the outcome was different?

[KT2000]

52. This is a new one on me

Having seen absolute miracles in people post-stroke and accidents learn to walk and use their arms and hands again. They were guided in muscle and strength building in a progressive way as to rebuild themselves without causing further injury.
But the good news is that if this should happen to you, you will have the choice to "just move around" unguided.

[Raine]

23. Chiropractors "don't work"??? Tell that to my back

of course I guess I could've gotten a big pharma prescription paid out continual big bucks for it and dealt with loads of side effects. x(

[ThatPoetGuy]

27. LOL, ok!

Should I tell your lower back to google "fluxuations," too? Because fraud is fraud, and your chiropractor is doing nothing for you that an untrained, regular massage wouldn't do. Well, other than feeding you misinformation.

[uppityperson]

29. Sorry, but professional massage therapists are not trained or licensed to twist people

that hard. And and "untrained regular massage"? Whatever that is? Massage deals with soft tissues, not bones. (avoiding "happy ending" and "bone" puns here)

Just because a lot of what a lot of DC's do is quackery does not mean everything they all do is.

[laundry_queen]

35. Yeah, I guess it was a total fraud

when I was a teenager and had horrible hip pain, unable to freakin walk, after going to several doctors and orthepedic surgeons, getting numerous hip x-rays, doing P-T, being loaded up on anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxants and pain killers (at 16 yrs old!) that my mom got fed up and took me to her chiropractor (against my will, as I was a skeptic) who cured me. I hobbled in there and walked out pain free. And there was no massage involved. Sorry, 'googling' fluxuations wasn't helpful, as that's the wrong word. Maybe you need to make sure you have the right word before you call it a fraud. And my provincial health care plan obviously agrees there is something to chiropractic treatment, as they cover part of it. Same with most other provinces in Canada. I highly doubt our single-payer plan would be lining up to pay for treatment if it didn't work. I'm sure big pharma would have loved me had I never tried a chiropractor.

FWIW, I don't believe they can cure colds or diabetes or crap like that, but I do believe it helps back and joint pain. I also believe there is a concerted effort to discredit chiropractors by big pharma. Heck, big pharma is still getting their money from me, since all their anti-inflammatories and pain killers wrecked my goddamn stomach and now I need nexium. Fuckers.

[ThatPoetGuy]

37. I'm sorry you're in pain.

And yes, the word I was looking for was subluxations, not fluxuations. Sorry about that.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, no one understands pain, and no one has a solution for it. Not mainstream medicine, not allopaths, not yoginis. No one. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool, unless they're trying to get you to part with your money, in which case they're a con artist.

While you're googling subluxations, you might want to look into "anecdotal evidence," as well.

[uppityperson]

41. "no one understands pain, and no one has a solution for it"? Good grief, how wrong can you be

If you'd said no one has a solution for everyone's pain, for all types of pain, you might be a bit more accurate but yes, some pain is understood and some pain has a solution.

To give a small example. Last night I experienced a sudden sharp pain in the bottom of my foot. Upon examination I discovered a small piece of glass protruding from my sole. Upon removal I had no more pain in my foot.

I UNDERSTOOD it was sudden, sharp, caused by this piece of glass embedded in my skin. I had the SOLUTION of removing this object and cured the pain.

No money, no con artist and I am not the fool here.

[uppityperson]

42. Anyone that thinks anyone can do everything is wrong.

I am glad you found what worked for you as chiropractors do have their uses.

[October]

45. I was once skeptical of chiropractors. Not any more.

I had what a surgeon called, carpal tunnel syndrome, which of course required expensive SURGERY.

Rather than have my wrists cut -- I did some research and discovered that a medical research concluded that women suffer from CTS more than men. In addition, all the subjects in the study were found to be low in Vitamin B's. They found that a combination of chiropractic visits and Vitamin B's helped/cured the patients.

So... I tried it. I was scared to death, but I felt immediately better. And I avoided UNNECESSARY surgery in my 30's.

[uppityperson]

14. It seems against unlicensed health practitioners operating illegally. Other links....

From OP:
"If the NC Legislature has its way on Monday, non-licensed health practitioners (naturopaths, homeopaths, herbalists, aromatherapists, some midwives and others) will become felons."

Does this mean unlicensed practitioners will be operating illegally? I don't see a problem with that, but wonder if there is a way to get licensed?

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/FiscalNotes/Senate/PDF/SIN0031v2.pdf
From the bill, looks like they are changing it from a misdemeanor to a felony.

BILL SUMMARY:
The proposed legislation amends G.S. 90-18(a) to make the unauthorized practice of medicine a
Class I felony in all cases, except that it makes the unauthorized practice of medicine a Class 1
misdemeanor if (1) the person has an inactive license due to failure to complete the annual
registration in a timely manner or (2) the person is licensed, registered, and practicing under any
other Article in G.S. Chapter 90.
(clip)
Likewise, the bill reclassifies two subsets of offenders as follows: (I) an offender without an outof-state medical license or any license in North Carolina under G.S. Chapter 90 is reclassified from
a Class 1 misdemeanant to a Class I felon; and (II) an offender with an out-of-state medical license
and a license in North Carolina under G.S. Chapter 90 in a discipline other than medicine (e.g.,
dentistry, midwifery) is reclassified from a Class I felon to a Class 1 misdemeanant.
(clip)

http://www.wgnc.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9975:north-carolina-medical-society-doctor-to-doctor-%C2%BB-blog-archive-%C2%BB-sb-31-heads-to-house-floor-for-final-approval&catid=82:nc-news-by-google&Itemid=241

Friday, 01 April 2011 13:40
April 1st, 2011 by Amy Whited Amidst the budget negotiations and tort reform bills being debated at the General Assembly this year is also a very important bill that would make it a felony to practice medicine without a license in North Carolina, SB 31 – Clarify Penalty for the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine (Mansfield, D – Cumberland). Current North Carolina law is inconsistent in that out-of-state practitioners who practice medicine without a license are guilty of a Class I Felony, while in-state practitioners are only guilty of a misdemeanor. SB 31 would bring parity to the penalty by making it a Class I Felony, the lowest grade felony, to practice medicine without a license no matter where you live. SB 31 does not affect any legal scope of medical practice in the state of North Carolina. Licensed health care providers will not be adversely affected by this legislation and North Carolina patients will be protected. This bill passed out of the Senate earlier this month, without an opposing vote and received a favorable report from the House Judiciary B Subcommittee on Wednesday morning. It will be debated and voted on by the entire House on Monday evening at 7 pm – this will be a very important vote to protect the practice of medicine in our state. Please take the time this weekend to contact your Representative and ask them to vote “yes” for SB 31 on Monday night! (Need help finding your Representative? Click here.)

[Godhumor]

21. Practicing without a medical license should be a felony, I don't see any issue with this n/t

[uppityperson]

26. Me either. That is why I did some more research and posted it up thread. Unless OP wants toq

give me more info, I don't see that this is a bad thing. However, am willing to listen and hear what OP has to say

[Odin2005]

30. Oh noes! The Quacks are whining that they won't be able to quackl

[cali]

43. Midwives? Most midwives in this country are highly trained professionals.

[uppityperson]

49. And most trained professional midwives are licensed so this won't affect them

[October]

44. Wow! Scary! I wrote a letter to the governor...

This is insane.

[mopinko]

48. i think the government should regulate this stuff

because these decisions are so often made under duress. when you get a dx of cancer, you are very vulnerable. when your kid gets a dx of cancer, you are nearly incapacitated. making sure that your choices are legitimate is protecting the general welfare if i ever heard it.
i had a niece dx'd with cancer at 23. her parents freaked out, looked all over the internets and found a quake who told them it wasn't cancer. he sold them shark cartilage and a macrobiotic diet. not only did she die, she died without the palliative care that she needed. her last days were spent in excruciating pain.
on top of that, the marriage failed under the weight of recrimination.
i am sure there are thousands of similar stories from the age of laetrile. people still spend their last days trekking to mexico for it.

taking advantage of sick and dying people who are unable to truly evaluate their options SHOULD be against the law.

of course, universal health care would likely put a lot of these phonies out of business. money is so often a big factor in deciding which therapies to choose.