Thursday, May 20, 2010

An ND Refutes Conventional Medical Expertise With a Contrary 'Feeling' at the AANP Blog

Thyr, S. (ND Bastyr) states in "Food Allergies: Fact of Fiction?" (2010-05-20): 

"I recently read an article in the New York Times that said that many people who have been diagnosed with food allergies don’t actually have them. They felt [!!!] that perhaps only 8% of children and less than 5% of adults actually have them. I feel that quite the opposite is true [...] whether you think you have food allergies or just an intolerance, it is wise to see a naturopathic doctor – a specialist in finding and treating the cause." 

Note: notice that the article itself isn't identified!  Sloppy!

Notice the use of the word 'feeling,' as a false equalizer of expertise-status.  Since feelings are equal, roughly, then an ND's take on something is equal to that of a specialist.  An actual specialist.  Not.  Scientific consensus is not 'feeling based,' it is informed from facts.

Now, the NYT article is based upon quite a weight of medical expertise [something an ND lacks galore] (I'll guess it is this article) and it states: "the true incidence of food allergies is only about 8 percent for children and less than 5 percent for adults, said Dr. Marc Riedl, an author of the new paper and an allergist and immunologist." So, I think there is a difference in "feeling" here.  There's 'feeling' from an ND, and then there is actual informed specialist opinion.

Or to say it another way: there's the expert MD specialist summation, and there's the ND quack opinion. 

It is not wise to see the unwise for medical issues.  Whatever they are.  And, since for NDs causes can be figmentations [like a 'vital force' problem] which they then label falsely as scientific fact, I would not count on an ND to distinguish between facts and fictions.  NDs specialize in conflation and obscurantisms: after all, it is Bastyr that states that within science is the nonscientific.  Hilarious.

Thyr is on the AANP board, according to the AANMCHere's where she discusses naturopathy without actually transparently discussing naturopathy. She states:

"New Hampshire state law defines naturopathic medicine as 'a system of primary health care practiced by doctors of naturopathic medicine [...] to support and stimulate the individual’s intrinsic self-healing processes [IISHP].”
 
Now that IISHP sounds like a fact, but it is really a vitalistic figmentation, when examined in true naturopathic context.
Post a Comment