Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Michael Coren Show Naturopathy Debate 2010-06 - Selected Quotes - ND Tardik

here, I cite from the 2010-06-22 Michael Coren Show episode, which centered on CFI-CASS vs. NDs [Dr. Behzad Elahi and Michael Kruse vs. NDs Rouchotas and Tardik]!  This post concerns statements by ND Tardik:

Tardik, G.  (ND CCNM) stated:

"[concerning what he does as an ND] there’s lots of semantics.  You see complementary medicine, alternative medicine, now the buzz word is probably integrative [medicine...which is specifically] settings where you have practitioners from various disciplines working together [3.40...] we work together as a team for best outcome [5.12...] we work in a team environment [5.12...] it comes down to choice [4.38...] we do details. I’m a naturopathic doctor [5.03...] the context [...] the details are very important [5.39...Coren] there’s a certain text [...] there’s a primary work, a selection of primary works that you go by, and that you learn by, and that you study by? [21.20...ND Tardik] yeah, it’s called PubMed which is the universal database for all medical research [21.30...] I don’t know anything about the memory of water.  I’m probably more skeptical of homeopathy than you are [he said to the skeptics...] we rigorously analyze the research.  And what we do in practice, many times, is based on the very same evidence that any medical doctor would use [23.11...] the greatest amount of practitioners of natural medicine are medical doctors [44.10...] we’re not oblivious to the fact that naturopathic doctors have a long way to go [41.14…] we look at the science." 

Notes regarding:

-"integrative medicine [...and] work[ing] together as a team for best outcome", I can't figure out what is "best" as an outcome when regular medicine is positioned alongside the huge absurdity known as naturopathy -- as if they are 

equally legitimate [slumming!];

-"it comes down to choice", which was repeated many times.  When absurdity is compared to something rational, there really isn't  a choice because the facts then speak for themselves.  With naturopathy irrationally conflating knowledge that is scientific with complete and utter medieval figmentation, modern medicine is ahead by leaps and bounds;

-"we do details. I’m a naturopathic doctor [...] the context [...] the details are very important", well, if that were true and details where important, naturopathy would transparently explain itself, its context -- but, how do you stay in business then when you explain to the public that you are based upon an irrational conflation of knowledge type falsely labeled as a specific knowledge type!;

-"it’s called PubMed which is the universal database for all medical research", this was a surprising answer for me.  I'd expected the answer to be the "Textbook of Natural Medicine."  Instead, we're told that naturopathy is based upon perponderant medical science consensus, which sure as hell is the OPPOSITE of what the essentially naturopathic is;

-"I’m probably more skeptical of homeopathy than you are [...] we rigorously analyze the research [...we're] based on the very same evidence that any medical doctor would use", well, this actually SHOCKED me.  It must be hard to be ND Tardik.  Homeopathy is CENTRAL to naturopathy, and its philosophical creed is based in part of homeopathic philosophy.  Homeopathy is premised, as naturopathy is, on a vitalistic figmentation.  Is ND Tardik denying the principle premise that his ND oath is centered around?  The position offered instead is one of 'typical evidential rigor.' It reminds me of the "same basic medical sciences" label that naturopathy claims as the BASIS for itself, only to then add their overarching science-ejected figmentations from Cloud Cuckoo Land;

-"the greatest amount of practitioners of natural medicine are medical doctors", is an odd statement.  This may be true, but it doesn't make them right.  As far as I see it, "natural medicine" is inherently irrational and unethical: e.g., labeling the science-ejected sectarian as science-based nonsectarian.  I actually think the regular medical community, at least on paper e.g. the AMA Code of Ethics, polices regular doctors whereas the ND community actively trains their members into naturopathy's opaque, 'hide the true naturopathic and label it instead as science' mode;

-"we’re not oblivious to the fact that naturopathic doctors have a long way to go", is another shocker.  I haven't seen the ND community at all attempt to weed out its woo from the aspects of healthcare that are legitimate that it has subsumed.  How do you get there if you ain't even spinning your wheels? E.g., my naturopathic alma mater claims that science includes the nonscientific, and engages in commerce in that context.  I don't see ANYONE on the ND side making strides towards fair trade standards in naturopathic education, which would be a beginning towards bringing up naturopathy's academic standards to the actual professional rigor that they are already supposed to meet.  You have more rights on a used car lot!;

-"we look at the science", bullshit.  It is moreso this way: science is a commercially successful label that we place upon the science-ejected naturopathic.  We cherry-pick Pubmed citations, but on the preponderance, the essentially naturopathic is indeed a nonscientific belief system masquerading as 'science-based medicine.'
Post a Comment