A question off the naturopathic licensing exam (NPLEX)

Naturopaths often mention that their licensing exam, the NPLEX, is a rigorous test of medical knowledge that ensures standards of care. This point always looks good to the unsuspecting.

Consider the following sample from the 2013 official study guide for the NPLEX:

PATIENT: 8-year-old male

PRESENTATION: The anxious mother of the patient calls you at 11:30 p.m. because the child has developed a loud barking cough that has been preventing him from sleeping. She became frightened when she observed that he is struggling to breathe. You hear the child’s cough in the background. Onset of the cough was several hours ago, after he played outside in the cold wind; she had noticed that he had a runny nose the day before.

VITAL SIGNS: His temperature is 101.5° F (38.6° C), heart rate is 120 bpm, and respiratory rate is 60/min and gasping.

1. What is the first thing you should ask the mother?

a. “Has he been vomiting?”
b. “Does his neck seem rigid?”
c. “Is there a rash on his abdomen?”
d. “What is his breathing like between coughs?”

2. Which of the following homeopathic preparations would best address his clinical presentation?

a. spongia tosta
b. aconitum napellus
c. cuprum metallicum
d. drosera rotundifolia

This child appears to have a moderate to severe case of croup: he has a fever and is gasping for air. This is a medical emergency. The correct answer is “call 9-1-1.” That is the standard of care.

Yet, for a child struggling to breathe, the naturopaths who wrote the NPLEX decided that homeopathy — an incontrovertibly debunked placebo therapy — is a valid choice. The naturopathic standard is to choose magic over medicine.

I cannot help but think about the Canadian naturopath, Tracy Tannis, who sold an herbal tincture to the mother of a toddler with meningitis who later died for not receiving prompt medical care. Probably like me, Tannis had never seen a pediatric emergency during her training. We each graduated from programs accredited by the naturopathic profession.

My required pediatrics classes was a mere 40 lecture hours that taught anti-vaccine theories, homeopathy, and herbal remedies. No clinical experience with children was required. Tannis’s training was similar.

Overall, naturopathic students are required to get only 850 hours of clinical training on patients. Physicians earn tens of thousands of hours before practicing. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants get more than twice as much training as naturopaths by the numbers, and it is spent studying proven medicine, not imaginative treatments.

Given such an education, it is impossible for naturopaths to be safe and effective medical practitioners who use standards of care and engage scientific reason. It is no wonder that naturopaths have repeatedly refused requests to open their NPLEX exam for external review. Naturopaths simply balk at legitimate criticism of their methods by invoking “nature” and claiming to treat “the root cause of disease.”

Naturopaths have weaseled their way into the health care system, and they want more. If lawmakers continue to give legitimacy to naturopaths, patients are likely to have medical outcomes with tragic consequences, and more taxpayer dollars will be spent cleaning up the mess.

Please sign the petition below to show your support for stopping the pseudoscience that is naturopathy from being passed off as real medicine:

70 Replies to “A question off the naturopathic licensing exam (NPLEX)

  1. A child is breathing at 60/minute and their answer is to give a placebo?????

  2. That is truly frightening. How can state legislators see something like that and even remotely consider expanding naturopathic privileges? I would also suspect pertussis given that description and yes, get your kid to the ER.

    1. State legislatures don’t see this- the NDs talk about the NPLEX being the same as the USMLE or COMPLEX-USA, but no one asks them to prove it. Lawmakers believe the naturopaths, and then end up legitimizing the practice of nonsense.

      1. That’s utterly depressing. Thanks for shining the light of day on naturopathic practices and posts like these find their way to the PTB.

    2. We have to keep bugging our legislators. Go to town halls, even if only to introduce yourself so they know you when an a CAM bill comes up.
      Call them and set an appointment, talk with them about what CAM is and isn’t. They pay attention to their own constituents, and give some weight to those who have nothing to gain from opposing Nds.

  3. Yes. this is what homeopaths do: they help people get sick and die. There should be no licensing of this quackery: its practice as a profession should be made illegal.

      1. You’re asking the wrong question. The question should be: Which system of education promotes homeopathy as a treatment option, or more directly related to the question YOU asked:
        What percentage of doctors vs naturopaths rely on homeopathy

      2. No. Due to quirks of licensing, in some states, only MDs can be licensed homeopaths, so it can be misleading. Usually there are only a handful, and virtually none of recent vintage. Most “Homeopaths” are unlicensed, and decidedly NOT MDs. Homeopathic “training” programs run from 6 months to 4 years. Most have minimal, if any, requirements for entry, not even a high school diploma! Many offer courses primarily online, or in hotel conference rooms. No reputable caregiver would recommend homeopathy

      3. the qualifications for that are a joke–just like homeopathy itself.

  4. The only way for the pro-ND-licenses activists to disavow the NPLEX is to pull a Donald Trump.

  5. The only way for the pro-ND-licenses activists to disavow the NPLEX is to pull a Donald Trump.

  6. I’m a qualified naturopath and I have never been taught such garbage. A “naturopath” that would prescribe homeopathy instead of a referral to the ER in a situation like this should be imprisoned.

    1. There is no such thing as a qualified ND. The basic premise of naturopathic practice is vitalism a form of energy medicine. No scientific basis.

    2. There is no such thing as a qualified ND. The basic premise of naturopathic practice is vitalism a form of energy medicine. No scientific basis.

    3. A “naturopath” that would prescribe homeopathy should be imprisoned. <–there I fixed it for you.

      1. My Naturopathic qualification makes me a qualified naturopath.

          1. Bachelor of Health Science (Naturopathy) –
            Anatomy & Physiology, Pathology, Microbiology, Differential Diagonosis, Pharmacology, Biochemistry, Nutritional Medicine, Herbal Medicine, Clinical Research, Clinical Practice, Research Evaluation etc…

            1. Wow. You sound better trained than me and I did 15 years of university. How were you trained in research evaluation

    4. But they are taught this garbage, they do prescribe homeopathy for serious conditions and nothing happens to them. Ms. Hermes provided a rather glaring example of a toddler death. What are you doing to change this?

      1. I was never taught that garbage, maybe it’s because I was taught in Australia. Hopefully things will change in America for the benefits of the patients.

      2. “What are you doing to change this?”
        I’m writing a book for starters.

        1. I’m rather underwhelmed. Books won’t do anything to change naturopathic curricula nor gross lapses in oversight and standards of care.

        2. While you are at it, you might have a go at the latest edition ofPrinciples and Practices of Phytotherapy; a tome worthy of serious criticism and co-authored by a fellow Australian with direct financial ties to Big Suppla, and industry marketing what are for all intents purposes by users, drugs.

    5. Brendan, if you look through this study guide, you will see that this croup is not the only case where naturopaths endanger the patients via false and ineffective treatment. There is a woman with sky high blood pressure and suspected unstable angina. A physician would refer to a cardiologist and give bp lowering medication. None of that is mentioned. Or a women with dizzyness, fatigue and excessive thirst – signs of diabetes. The women is treated with Qi and blood strengthening.

  7. Where are the rest of the questions that would have been with that particular scenario? Each scenario is followed by 4-5 questions dealing with different aspects of clinical care. Every person who takes the NPLEX exam is taught emergency medicine and would know this is an emergency referral. She did not list that part of the particular question. And question #2 does not state that this is a first line treatment. It’s simply asking what symptoms are covered under which particular homeopathic. I’m pretty sure the author knows that and is twisting it to fit her agenda.

    1. You can click on the link above to see for yourself, but have a look here. The next question recommends steam inhalation at home. Still no 911. The next question suggests croup or an object blocking the airway. Still no 911. The last question asks about spilling a vial of the kid’s blood in collecting a sample for a CBC. Still no 911. Epic fail.

    2. Definitely not. If you look at the rest of the cases there are similar – lets say “interesting” therapies, among them a women with dizzyness, fatigue and excessive thirst (signs of Diabetes) being treated with Qi and blood strengthening. There is also the case of a women with sky high blood pressure and a suspected ischemic heart disease treated with aspirin.

  8. Confirmation bias!!

    Confessions of a naturopath: where haters like to bash naturopathy online and have nothing better to do but hate but use confirmation bias in every comment and post and thus fail to see the irony of their pseudoscience.

    Good job! You’re clearly making a difference in the world while operating from the most rudimentary and unintelligent part of your brain that serves to react out of fear and pick up the pieces with ill-suited logical “facts” that are juxtaposed to maintain a singular and incomplete viewpoint.

    If naturopaths are so harmful, why don’t you find data on how many patients we have killed compared to regular doctors? (Oh it’s in our favor).

    Why don’t you find data showing that patients who visit naturopaths vs conventional docs have worse outcomes?

    Because you can’t. That’s why all you have are theories…”it can’t work! There’s no evidence!! The NPLEX sucks!”

    All that matters are outcomes, not the method. If the outcomes are good the method works. So why can’t you find data on the differences in outcomes between us and conventional doctors?

    Because we help people. Because…your thinking is too banal to understand the cognitive dissonance; that we can live up to the standards of primary care while believing in homeopathy. By the way, since you love homeopathy so much you should see what they do in India. Tell me those outcomes are all the placebo effect. (Hint: you won’t be able to. You may see cases where homeopathy obviously works and no “evidence” is needed even though there is evidence, but you will maintain your rhetoric and expose your child-like behavior by maintaining your worldview. You aren’t a scientist you are a joke to science and you probabaly have never seen homeopathy work; you just decided it didn’t and closed your mind off).

    And if you didn’t have a vendetta, you’d be thinking about how we can get better at helping people. But since you’re a dropout who lives on the internet and has nothing productive to do, you are operating from hate and seeking vengeance. And you are wrong!

    There is definitely a homeopathic remedy for you that would get the stick out of your ass and maybe give you some positive emotions in your life. Secondly, you can never stop us, ever because patients love us for how we treat them. We don’t just treat symptoms! We treat the patient. And since you gave up on the profession due to your lack of confidence and strength, you are closing your mind off to the beauty of that concept.

          1. Science admits and tries to fix errors. This is the beauty of science-based and evidence-based medicine.

          2. Admin, “Johnny storm” is a sock puppet of a whacko quack who has been booted off of several sites and is an abusive troll and stalker.

        1. Ezekiel died from meningitis, which would have been easily diagnosed and treated by a real doctor using real medicine. He suffered and died due to the delusions of a naturopath and her enablers. Worse, none of them behaved in a way that the average naturopathy-believing individual would likely object to. This was not a doctor’s mistake or a problem beyond modern medicine’s ability to heal; this was a tragic case of incompetence that is sadly representative of the whole naturopathic mindset.

        2. Tim, there is a difference between naturopaths and medicine. Medicine is aware of such shortcomings, therefore they can be addressed. If you look at my posting above re homeopathy and belladonna in scarlet fever, despite *knowing* that belladonna does not work in scarlet fever it is still prescribed.

    1. I hope I am not the only one who finds it rather ironic that Avishek started this post calling out “confirmation bias”.

    2. Oh, Avishek again. Quote: “Why don’t you find data showing that patients who visit naturopaths vs conventional docs have worse outcomes?”

      Quote: “All that matters are outcomes, not the method. If the outcomes are good the method works. So why can’t you find data on the differences in
      outcomes between us and conventional doctors?”

      Well, with regard to homeopathy there is a large metastudy showing no effect beyond placebo.

      There are other studies too. In breast cancer for instance. The 5 year survival of patients receiving CAM as opposed to standard therapy is drastically reduced.

      The reasons that there are very few data on how many people are actually killed by naturopaths are simple. First, they don’t appear in the statistics because naturopaths largely have no working quality control system in place. Second, statistics does not count cases that have been aggravated by a delay in treatment. I.o.W. the “success” rate of naturopaths is likely a purely statistical artefact.

      As for homeopathy in India. If it works, where are the studies ?

    3. “We don’t just treat symptoms! We treat the patient.” Homeopathy is entirely based on ‘symptoms’, as it was from the beginning. Speaking of dissonance and seeing what is done in India (to paraphrase an Indian phytochemist I worked with, a nation of superstitious people if there ever was one), why is it that 90% of the population prefers conventional instead of alternative medicine?

      As to your question, “So why can’t you find data on the differences in outcomes between us and conventional doctors?”, the reason is that conventional doctors are often forbidden by their employers or partnerships at clinics from reporting cases of harm or potential harm by homeopaths and naturopaths, even though they see them all the time. I have yet to meet a physician who has not seen such cases. They confide them to me, but only because they know my background. The reasons you have not seen comparative studies have more to do with avoiding time-consuming litigation than ethics. In what lawyers in North America like to refer to as the litigious zone (also known as the United States of America), people are often sued even when they are innocent, whether for the sake of gagging the truth or in deliberate attempts to change perceptions of wrong-doing. But that’s obviously not the only reason. It would be one thing to recruit a population of subjects who only received treatment for a given condition with homeopathy, and another to match the subjects with those who only received conventional treatments for comparison. One of the greatest difficulties in conducting such as study would be to obtain patient records from the homeopaths. Assuming that anyone would cooperate, how many do you suppose would be willing to have their failures exposed?

    4. As an MD I have seen many cases where people have gone blind (as that is the field I work in) or have lost their lives because they have chosen homeopathy or naturopathy instead of conventional medicine. We are unable to do anything about this as the patient has made the choice to forego treatment. Most recently, I saw a patient with a very treatable form of breast cancer identified a year prior, for which she decided to pay a naturopath almost 10 K per month for daily treatments. She now has metastasis to the eye which is equivalent to metastasis to the brain, and will die within the next week or two.

      1. I’ll bet she signed waivers with the naturopath so that litigation would be nearly if not completely impossible.

      2. I’ll bet she signed waivers with the naturopath so that litigation would be nearly if not completely impossible.

    5. For what it’s worth, a friend of mine who was a homeopath died from rectal cancer despite every homeopathic ‘remedy’ available.

      1. I was told that I could cure my autoimmune with massive probiotics and kombucha. Just to find out later while almost choking to death that I am anaphylactic to ferments specifically Saccaromyces later verified by a board certified MD allergist. I’m not allowed to take any ‘probiotics.’

    6. For what it’s worth, a friend of mine who was a homeopath died from rectal cancer despite every homeopathic ‘remedy’ available.

    7. No thanks. As someone with life threatening food allergies I’ll stick with the real doctors that prescribe the epipens.

    8. Just look at this hippie call out argument fallacies while not providing anything to support his views.

    9. Just look at this hippie call out argument fallacies while not providing anything to support his views.

    10. Vitriolic post full of name calling and projections while totally devoid of facts.

      You give a bad name to the profession you pretend to represent.

    11. Vitriolic post full of name calling and projections while totally devoid of facts.

      You give a bad name to the profession you pretend to represent.

  9. The first time I read Dr. Hermes blog, I felt moved to reply to point out the spurious elements of her argument, but decided against it. I am too busy to tilt at windmills, and everyone is entitled to their opinions, despite their inaccuracy. Dr. Hermes’ is undoubtedly a good writer and deftly presents only one side of the picture whenever she describes naturopathic education and practice. To those of us with an eye to see it, it’s clear she has an agenda and an axe to grind.

    I have been a licensed ND and acupuncturist for 20 years. I admit there were inadequacies in my education. There are inadequacies in every educational process. “Learns” is not the same as “learns how.” When I was a student, my housemate was a student at OHSU school of medicine. He was deeply interested in my structural diagnosis classes, where we learned to identify and palpate anatomical landmarks; he admitted that that course was gone from the curriculum at OHSU, and that he had no training in or knowledge of how to palpate anything. He eventually graduated and became an internist. I pity the first person he had to draw blood from.

    I work now as the Chief Medical Officer at an accredited college of naturopathic medicine in the US. I appreciate Dr. Hermes’ writings because they serve to raise the awareness of naturopathic medicine, and healthy discourse is valuable especially at this time, when NDs have been recognized as primary care providers in some states.

    But I take issue with her prompting a petition based on an inaccurate portrayal of all NDs and ND colleges. And I’m especially concerned that the purpose of the petition is to block legislation of naturopathy — if the public wants to enforce competency standards and the practice of naturopathy, the way to do it is to require laws to regulate the practice of this medicine in every state. Otherwise, anyone can call themselves a naturopath, and no one is regulating what they do. This petition is the opposite of what is needed if folks want tougher laws to regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine. I urge everyone not to sign this petition. It’s intentionally misleading.

    1. I signed it. I don’t want your fellow naturopaths killing any more poor children like Ezekiel Stephan.

    2. Chief Medical Officer at an accredited college of naturopathic medicine in the US.

      There is no such thing.

      There is nothing adequate about training in acupuncture anyway so don’t sweat the inadequacies.

      As for regulation, your lot can’t even regulate yourselves and fight to keep any outsiders regulating your profession. You want the privilege of being primary care providers but none of that inconvenient oversight.

    3. Chief Medical Officer at an accredited college of naturopathic medicine in the US.

      There is no such thing.

      There is nothing adequate about training in acupuncture anyway so don’t sweat the inadequacies.

      As for regulation, your lot can’t even regulate yourselves and fight to keep any outsiders regulating your profession. You want the privilege of being primary care providers but none of that inconvenient oversight.

    4. To me your comments just highlight again how laughable naturopathic training is compared to med schools. “I pity the first person he had to draw blood from”. in medical school we are not drawing blood….we take arterial gases, put in central lines, lumbar puncture, chest tubes etc. I had quotas for these in medical school let alone if one did an internal medicine residency. So I would think your friend learned his surface anatomy quickly or there would be a few body bags around. Tell me, what are the quotas for such procedures in naturopathy school which is apparently equivalent training as medical school????

      1. Agreed, only in Australia we are taught to put in peripheral lines and draw blood also (who do the nurses call when they can’t get it? The intern). In fact, we were all officially taught intravenous access by external training providers and earned certificates qualifying us to apply for jobs as phlebotomists while in 2nd year med school.
        Regina’s comment seems pretty divorced from reality – no surprise there.

    5. The licensure of naturopaths creates confusion for the public and does not protect patients from danger. Existing laws that prohibit the unlicensed practice of medicine can be sufficient for protecting patients if medical boards take action when appropriate. It is a problem to permit NDs to have broad medical scopes of practice without them having received appropriate medical training. This is why we have medical schools.

    6. Regarding the argument re inadequacies in every educational process and your housemate. You housemate likely had to take a 3 to 7 year residency before becoming an internist, you probably started your practice immediately. That means, by the time you both were in the field he had not only 20.000 hours education ahead of you, but very likely would have been light years ahead with regard to structural diagnosis. The same goes if he would “only” have become a general practicioner. This is not an inadequacy, this is a HUGE difference.

      Another issue are the academic credentials of the faculty: Carrie Baldwin Sayre, associate Dean of the NCNM. Publications: 0. John Brons. Professor. Publications: 10, mostly from the 1970ties to 80ties. As a comparison, the deputy head of the institute of cancer research at the university I work at has 158, the head has 68, many of them in top journals.You yourself have three.

      For professional reasons I found the case report on breast cancer especially interesting. In summary this was a patient with a ductal carcinoma in situ which was diagnosed after excision biopsy. Further treatment planned was: “Surgery was recommended to excise cleaner margins, but the patient declined.” In other words, the tumor was removed, but with insufficient safety margins. Unfortunately this case report does not contain *any* sonograms or MRI pictures before and after biopsy, as well as the hormone status and how and when the outcome was determined is less than clear.

      There are other issues with this paper too for brevity just one example: Quote: “Although Western biomedicine balks at identifying constipation per se as a risk factor for the development of cancer,29–33 […]” This is not true. Constipation is a risk factor for colon cancer, which is something completely different compared to breast cancer. Any PhD working in oncology knows that. Cancer is not a single disease but a bunch of hundreds if not thousands of different diseases. Another issue is the insinuation of a move towards active surveillance. The claim is based on a study with n = 14 with very specific patient material and patients receiving a therapy (contrary to yours).

      Then there is following concusion: Quote: “The patient experienced a 75% reduction in volume of her DCIS between
      diagnosis in 2009 and November 2011, concomitant with the use of
      alternative therapies.” Since you did not state how the volume was calculated, this is difficult to check. In summary this case report does not distinguish between the effects of excisional biopsy (How much was removed ? What was the extent of the tumorous tissue *after* biopsy ?). Therefore the effect of your treatment can not be estimated.

      This is report demonstrates the problem of academic credentials. A senior scientist with research experience would never not have published such a report.

    7. For those interested, here is the link to the case report in question: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3842867/

      The section of the view of TCM on cancer is especially interesting. First I would like to emphasize that TCM, as *all* traditional medicine is fraught with observational bias and outdated models, thus rendering it of very limited value. An example is demonstrated by Cravotto et al in the field of herbalims. they reviewed data for 1000 plants used in medicine, found studies dealing 32% of the plants, but only 8 displayed sufficient pharmaceutical effects. These large number of false positives reflects the non-science observational bias fraught driven way traditional medicine emerged. These problems are also present. Today cancerogenesis is quite well understood, for breast cancer the risk factors are certain e.g. genetic mutations, a family history, hormonal therapy, to a lesser extent obesity and alcohol. Let’s look at the definition of TCM: “TCM views most cancer as an accumulation of phlegm and toxins.”

      Whereas some cancer are the result of toxin damage (e.g. lung cancer and mesothelioma by exposure to asbestous materials) cancer is basically an accumulation of mutations that happen by coincidence. The probability of such a mutation to happen is determined by genetics and in some cancers by life style. Breast cancer is a prime example for a cancer that is mainly determined by genetics. There are two genes known (BRCA1 and 2) whose inactivation greatly increase the risk of developing breast cancer. The expression of estrogen receptor may drive the tumor. All this has nothing to do with digestion as TCM implicates. This example shows the main shortcoming of naturopathy. While medicine has developed greatly (A Qi-like life force was en vogue in classical medicine in the 18th century) development of scientific methods lead to the abandonment of these theories. With many natrupathic methods this is different. TCM has not developed much, homeopathy has not developed at all, even when confronted with very hard facts. An example for the latter (and for the influence of observational bias) is the use of Belladonna to prevent and treat scarlet fever. This modality was proposed by Hahnemann and became very popular in the 19th century. Even the best clinicians of the time (e.g. Hufeland) believed in it. That is until J W Begbie looked at a very hard parameter, the mortality rate.

      To quote Begbie: “Vaccination in its effects made itself at once recognized, and the contrast between the ravages of small-pox at the commencement of this century, and the almost entire immunity from that disease in an epidemic form, which now prevails, are facts so plainly recognizable, and so appreciable, as in the instance of that disease entirely to remove the difficulty referred to. It is altogether otherwise with scarlatina; notwithstanding the introduction of belladonna, and its extensive employment, both in this country and abroad, as a prophylactic against scarlet fever, we are not aware that the mortality in either has been reduced; a circumstance which itself militates very strongly both against the prophylactic and the remedial efficacy of belladonna” ( Begbie JW. On the use of belladonna in scarlatina. British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review or Quarterly Journal of Practical Medicine and Surgery 1855;XV:77–101). Nevertheless, virtually the entire homeopathic literature lists belladonna as a remedy for scarlet fever. One-hunderd and fifty years after it became obvious that it is not.

      In other words in naturopathy entire branches are completely outdated. This is akin doing astronomy with a heliocentric model. However, whereas astronomy is a pretty harmless sport, treating sick people with outdated modalities might kill them. Therefore naturopaths should not be licensed as primary care providers.

      1. OT Thomas but I read your comments on an article, can’t remember where but it was called something like ‘Naturopaths are frauds in white coats’ (it may have been softened by phrasing it as a question). I just wanted to thank you for your admirable persistence and patience in calmly refuting the same nonsense that came up again and again.
        I don’t know who you are but thank you, and keep up the good work.

    8. Regina, I don’t think there is anything wrong with enjoying and using herbs at home–my regular MD physicians are totally on board with it. But they would never in a million years be on board with someone pretending to practice medicine on other people with herbs or anything else. And I also know for a fact that my MDs would have a coronary if I told them that pretend doctors have access to pharmacies to prescribe. I don’t think they even know about that. Which brings me back to, if naturopaths are all about the natural stuff why the hell are they using pharmacies instead of laboring over raw herbs for their patients? It’s unlicensed medical practice no two ways about it.

      And I have a HUGE beef to pick with naturopaths as an anaphylactic food allergy patient. Your IgG testing is FAKE and extremely dangerous for people with life threatening allergies.

  10. Hey, signed your petition and saw one comment curiously voted up highly:


    I am a primary care naturopath and do not understand why you would oppose me or any of my other well trained colleagues. I use pharmaceuticals when necessary and refer for surgeries when indicated as well. I am not personally opposed to vaccinations -all my kids have been vaccinated , and continue to help a lot of people through diet, exercise, nutrition and acupuncture. There is a lot of scientific proof to what I do. Hope you have a change of heart.


    Dr. Shaun Dyler”

    I hope you’ll make a response of some kind, somewhere.

    Also, frightening that such a question could be on an exam when the correct answer is “none of the above” in both cases.

  11. With regards to the NPLEX question, it should be clear to anyone who’s taken even a basic first aid course that breathing problems are incredibly serious and should be treated as such.

    Therefore, the correct answer to #2 is E. All the Above Magic Water

Comments are closed.