User talk:Phuuphu

The naturopathy page contains information that is extremely biased. The introduction to this topic has skewed facts. The "Practice" section of this page is a very straightforward description of the field that can unbiasedly be used in the introduction. The political activity section of this page is very skewed in only identifying ONE society that doesn't support Naturopathy and only ONE student that decided to advocate against NDs. This research is extremely biased and needs another side. Naturopathy is science based and does perform clinically reviewed trials THAT AREN'T SKEWED BY PHARMACEUTICALS... So I'm unsure where you came to that conclusion. Many methods are not based on "energy fields". This statement: "However, "natural" methods and chemicals are not necessarily safer or more effective than "artificial" or "synthetic" ones, and any treatment capable of eliciting an effect may also have deleterious side effects.[12][10][57][58]" needs to be reevaluated (artificial/synthetic drugs are made to imitate natural chemicals... how is it not safer or more effective???? Why would you be synthesizing something that is not effective???). If one is to compare the amount of iatrogenic deaths from physicians... artificial and synthetic methods can be very dangerous. Especially with the amount of recalls from new drugs.

Abraham Flexner (who created the Flesner Report) was a white male with a degree in the bachelor of ARTS and played a very big role in shutting down schools based on his "art" degree opinions. Natural medicine has been around for longer than western medicine all over the world. I just request that you do your research and update this page.

Phuuphu (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please go and post your concern at the talkpage of the page you're talking of, not here. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)