Wednesday, September 30, 2009

SFC & SPI on an ND's Swine Flu Expertise - Reporter Robbins on NCNM ND Peters (2009-09-21):

here, I cite and comment on some of the canards that are used when journalists uncritically promote naturopathy [see 001., below]; and I delve particularly into this article's coding of naturopathy's science-ejected vitalistic context [see 002. & 003., below]:

001. Robbins, N. (? ?) states in the San Francisco Chronicle article which mostly deals with naturopathic swine flu treatment [yikes!] "Naturopath Bridges Gap in Treatment, Prevention" [also in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer](2009-09-21):

[the title itself is a canard - a gap? what problem is not being addressed that NDs can better assist with? oh, see below - vitalistic & supernatural fantasies in the place of scientific knowledge and honesty / misrepresented as science and frankness];

"like most doctors [ND] Karen Peters is gearing up for a flu season [but, NDs are far from 'like most doctors' - for instance, NDs' education and collective creed falsely labels that which is profoundly science-ejected as science - which is quite dishonest / absurd]";

"as a licensed ND - [a] doctor of naturopathic medicine - Peters believes that the body has an innate ability to heal itself [more on 'BIAHI vitalistic coding' in 002., below]";

"when it comes to promoting mass flu vaccinations, she pauses [wow!...] 'we cannot always count on science to solve all our health problems,' she says [wow, just simply WOW! but NDs are not shy about labeling themselves 'science, medicine & prevention experts']";

"she cautions against trying too hard to lower fevers [...] taking heavy doses of medicine to reduce fevers may work against the body's virus fighting power [really! - prove it. sounds like a delay in care, when time is critical and ACTUAL expert advise highly warranted]";

"naturopathic medicine [is] geared to prevent illness, and more conventional medical protocols [are] devoted to treating illness [really! oh, so our modern medical and public health systems don't prevent and only treat, and the ND takes up the 'prevention slack'. but, seeing as she doesn't expressedly support science or vaccination...hmmm.]. Naturopathic medicine is a personalized, not a mass, approach to health care [in other words, relativistic]. She tells her patients there is no one-size-fits-all flu fighting formula [actually, science provides actual answers, not antiscience relativistic 'answers from my ass']. What buffers one body against the onslaught of flu symptoms may not work for others [really! if knowledge is so relative and science doesn't have the best answers, how can we trust that she knows ANYTHING actual!]";

"Peters considers herself an old-fashioned family doctor [really! well, if you as an ND are based on what is in 002., below, which is true, then yes you'd be quite old-fashioned - which NDs are]";

"patient Crystal Paul, 28, of Pinole, said [...] 'she listens to me, and gives me hope and confidence in my body's ability to heal itself' [again, regarding 'BAHI vitalistic coding', see 002., below]";

"to find a naturopathic doctor [the reporter recommends]: California Naturopathic Doctors Association: www.calnd.org";

Note: the author's web page is http://www.noellerobbins.com/, her bio. is http://www.noellerobbins.com/bio.html

002. regarding BIATI / BATI:

if you delve into the context that underlies naturopathy, you find that NDs' 'body's healing blah-blah-blah' is the science-ejected concept known as vitalism. What's really sad is that the patient is being given FALSE HOPE: in a vitalistic fantasy not being fully / transparently explained.

003. what ND Karen Peters's web site says:

003.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine" we're told:

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) complete a four-year postgraduate level training [...] the curriculum covers traditional medical science [...] the latest in conventional health sciences [...] and in addition, coursework is infused with holistic philosophy [...] extensive training in holistic medicine [...e.g.] natural healing therapies such as [...] homeopathy [(empty pills!)...] six principles guide the naturopathic practitioner [...including the] healing power of nature [HPN...] what distinguishes naturopathy from conventional medicine [...] for patients, working with a naturopath often requires a paradigm shift [(I'll say)...] a flexible state [I'd say gullible state, with wallet out & open] that allows for optimal function to sustain the body and develop the spirit [supernaturalism]. The belief that the body uses the healing power of nature -- its innate ability to heal -- is inherent in naturopathy."

Note: but, there is no transparency to what exactly HPN is here, either.

003.b. in "Meet the Doctor" we're told:

"[that she's a graduate of NCNM and that] a cornerstone of Dr. Peters’ practice is her confidence in the body’s innate ability to heal [(coded vitalism, again)...and that this is] progressive medicine."

Note: if you have any doubts about her alma mater NCNM's false portrayal of the science-ejected vitalistic and kind as science and kind, see it blatantly expressed here.

So, I'm supposed to trust someone to treat me medically for serious things who does not distinguish between what is in fact scientific and what isn't [it's something an NCNM graduate is obligated towards!] -- and who can't tell me straight what they're all about [an NCNM tradition!]?

Now, calnd.org also, in "Naturopathic Medicine - The Basics" states naturopathy's supposed science expertise while coding vitalism: "naturopathic doctors are trained at accredited, four-year, post-graduate, residential naturopathic medical programs. The training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...with] a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research [...and] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [...] remains one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy today [coded vitalism]."

No thanks - progress is not backwards into medieval thinking. And it is quite absurd to claim that you are science when your central / defining context is a belief that is hugely science-ejected. Wacko.
Post a Comment