Sunday, July 4, 2010

Q and A with the AANMC Regarding 'The Science of Naturopathy' on Facebook 2010-06

here, I recount an exchange I had at the AANMC page on Facebook.  I'd asked AANMC directly about naturopathy's science-basis, and AANMC indirectly answered [see 001.a.]. I then present a summary of AANMC's 'homeopathy and naturopathy are scientific' absurd claim, as if from their own perspective [see 001.b. etc., below]:

001.a. the recent exchange [vsc 2010-07-04]:

Q: "I've noticed that on your web site you state naturopaths' 'diagnoses and therapeutics are science based.' I was wondering if AANMC has a preferred definition of 'science'?"

A: "Rob, naturopathic medical schools require their students to study anatomy, biochemistry, human physiology, histology, human pathology, immunology, macro and microbiology, neuroscience and pharmacology in the first two years [science!]. Naturopathic physicians use science and their knowledge of holistic therapies to diagnose and treat patients. You can read more about the academic curriculum for naturopathic students by following the link below. Thank you for your question and interest in naturopathic medicine."

Note: my question wasn't directly answered, yet the impression of the AANMC answer is that naturopathy's science is 'the preponderant science.'  The AANMC linked to the AANMC page "Academic Curriculum", which makes these claims:
"naturopathic medicine students [...] are educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic physicians [...] during their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences and diagnostics [...] some member schools in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic medical schools [and AANMC links to ALL of their member schools]. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

So, science, science, science -- as a foundation / base!  A word on AANMC's label "allopathic": it is a bogus label applied bogusly to modern medicine.  It is as proper to call modern medicine allopathy as it is to call modern astronomy astrology.  Wow, naturopathy is so [not] into being ACCURATE!  Now, one naturopathic statement that hugely contradicts all this "science" background / expertise / content is the absurd label that AANMC puts on naturopathy's homeopathy -- the sugar-pill treatment! -- in "AANMC Brochure" [vsc 2010-04-07]:
"the final two years [of ND school] offer comprehensive clinical training in the holistic and nontoxic approaches to disease treatment and prevention that distinguish naturopathic medicine. In their supervised, hands-on experiences with patients, students learn to scientifically apply [...] homeopathic medicine." 

Yet, homeopathy is bunk.  So bunk, in fact, that in the UK it is considered akin to witchcraft.
   
001.b. also at Facebook, AANMC claims in "Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC)'s Photos - Naturopathic vs. Allopathic Science Hours" [vsc 2010-07-04], through one gallery diagram in particular, "An ND's Basic Science Education" [vsc 2010-07-04]:

"[first number is 'allopathic MD', second is 'naturopathic ND'] anatomy & embryology: 13, 19; histology: 6, 5; physiology: 5, 14; biochemistry: 8, 12; pathology: 10, 12; microbiology / immunology: 11, 10.5."

Note: I'd boil this down to a claim by naturopathy that naturopathy students, overall, study more basic science than regular medicine, and therein naturopathy is claiming equal in science if not more science expertise than regular medicine.  Yet, HOW does homeopathy, hugely science-implausible and without merit, get labeled "science" -- even on naturopathy's board exams?  This goes back to my question to AANMC.

So, I believe naturopathy's definition of science could be posed like this: science is like a letterhead on a blank piece of paper to us, which we then fill up with any kind of nonsense we please.

002. so, how absurd is the claim by naturopathy that 'the naturopathic survives scientific scrutiny'?  

to sum it up, this is how absurd naturopathy could be posed as: 'even when science hugely ejects profoundly nonscientific things [by definition!], we here at 'naturopathy central' still falsely label such science.  Take our homeopathy, for instance!  It's science -- to us.'

AANMC has stated quite overtly that naturopathic therapeutics and diagnostics are science based.

But, naturopathy's homeopathy hugely contradicts this claim.
Post a Comment