Kate Thomas is not impressed by non-doctors.
Let’s look at the illusion of regulation and naturopath degrees. And when I say degrees, I’m using that word quite wrongly.
Naturopaths use words like “qualified”, “trained”, “degree educated”, even “practitioner”. If you’ve ever wondered how someone with as little as a three-hour online certificate ends up giving oncology advice or autism detox protocols, the answer is they can because no one is stopping them!
In Australia, the term “naturopath” is completely unregulated, and the public generally do not know this. I realised this firsthand, and we’ll get to that later. But first, let’s explain the landscape.
Anyone can call themselves a naturopath today. It isn’t a protected title. No national or minimum training standards are required. There’s no standardised curriculum, no limitations on what they can claim to treat, no national complaints process, no mandatory CPD, no oversight.
AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) registers Chinese medical practitioners, but not naturopaths. Why? This is not an oversight. It’s not because AHPRA hasn’t caught up, and it’s not because the wellness industry is growing too fast. AHPRA has actually reviewed naturopathy multiple times and decided not to regulate it. Why? AHPRA only registers professionals that meet three criteria.
First, a clearly defined evidence-based scope of practice. Naturopathy has no unified national curriculum, no standardised competencies, no agreed scope, no evidence-based diagnostic framework, wildly inconsistent training. APRA literally cannot regulate a profession that can’t define what it does.
Secondly, a recognised ability to impact patient safety. AHPRA regulates professions who diagnose medical conditions, prescribe medicines, perform invasive procedures, make clinical decisions with real risk, and require national accountability. Naturopaths are not recognised as providing clinical care, so AHPRA has no regulatory basis.
Thirdly, they must meet strict national law criteria. This includes an independent accreditation authority, standardised training, consistent clinical placement requirements, evidence that regulation improves safety.
Naturopathy fails all three. If naturopaths were providing actual clinical care, they’d be regulated. They’re not, and that’s the point. “But Kate, my naturopath has a degree”, I hear you say. Well, I don’t hear our skeptic audience say this, but you get my drift. Naturopathic degrees can be anything from a Bachelor of Health Science to diplomas in naturopathy, natural health and homeopathy, to online certificates and short courses you can complete between dinner and dessert. Think gut health coach, master herbalist, detox consultant … the list goes on. Naturopathy has no accreditation, no national standards, no defined scope, no registration, no protected title, no standardised education, no complaints process, no accountability.
A Bachelor of Health Science Naturopathy does not create a recognised health professional. The public confuses them with actual health professionals, and this is the part that worries me. A few weeks ago, I did a debunking video on a naturopath claiming that it is “super common for a woman to get sick in their luteal phase”. And I simply asked for the receipts, you know, basic evidence. The pushback was wild. Comment after comment saying, “health professionals don’t put down other health professionals”. And that’s when it hit me. The general public genuinely see naturopaths as equivalent to doctors, pharmacists, dieticians, physiotherapists, nurses, etc, you know, legitimate regulated health professionals. They do not understand that naturopaths are not AHPRA registered. They do not understand that anyone can call themselves a naturopath. They do not understand that there are no minimum standards, no accountability and no scope of practice. This confusion is part of the problem and the wellness industry knows it.
Let’s discuss scope creep and professional boundaries. For example, I have seen videos on the socials from naturopaths talking about oncology treatments. “Here’s the treatment option your oncologist doesn’t want you to know about.” Now, there are a number of issues here, chief among which is the fact that there is no secret naturopathy-only oncology science. If there were a credible cancer treatment or even a supportive therapy that actually helped patients, your oncologist would know about it and you wouldn’t be hearing about it for the first time from a naturopath! Another example is autism treatments promoted by naturopaths. These include chelation, detoxes, parasite cleanses, heal the gut, heal the brain, mould detoxification, yeast eradication, restrictive diets without medical need, to name just a few. Autism is neurodevelopmental, not toxicological, not parasitic, not caused by poor detoxification.
These naturopathic remedies not only cost money, but they shift the blame of the sickness onto the parent, as if this wouldn’t be happening if only you had managed your heavy metals better. Not to mention it delays getting access to qualified gold standard treatment.
And there is a conflict of interest here. Naturopaths can recommend products and financially benefit from the recommendation. They can diagnose imbalances, prescribe supplements, sell the exact products they prescribe, mark them up, earn commissions, access practitioner-only brands and run affiliate programs. There’s a direct financial incentive to find toxins, parasites, mould, hormone imbalances, gut issues, adrenal fatigue, because every diagnosis leads to sales. Why does it matter? The combination of no regulation, no standardised training, no scope of practice limits, the ability to diagnose fake illnesses, the ability to sell the treatment, and zero accountability creates real measurable harm, financial, psychological, and medical.
As someone who has worked in an industry for 25 years that is highly regulated, as it should be, I find this naturalistic fallacy curious. Healthcare isn’t about whether something grows in a forest or comes from a lab. It’s about evidence, regulation and outcomes. Natural doesn’t mean harmless. Evidence is what keeps people safe.
Kate Thomas has over 25 years’ experience in NSW public hospitals, community palliative care, aged care, policy writing and community pharmacy. She is also a reporter on the Skeptic Zone Podcast. Visit Kate on TikTok PrescribeorPass or debunkingbabs; and Instagram – https://linktr.ee/PrescribeorPass
