Sunday, April 29, 2012

Changelog 2012-04-29 and ND Video:

here, I summarize this week's additions to my public naturopathy database.  I also link to an ND's video each changelog, quote from, and tag the video in some detail:

001. added:

the vitalism of:

ndhealthfacts.org whose ND/NMD editors and advisers include:
ND Iva Lloyd, ND Joseph E. Pizzorno, ND David Lescheid,
ND Paul Saunders,ND Nadia Bakir, ND Heidi Fritz,
ND Catherine Darley, ND Katherine Neubauer, ND Heidi Kussmann

ND Deville, ND D'Souza, ND Derry, 
ND DeLuca, ND Dashiell

[updated] Honeycutt and Milliken
(ISBN 1435486609, 9781435486607; 2011)
to Appendix B.06.b.;

alt. med. overall per New York Times 1996
to Appendix B.07.iii.;

Dye, Fassa to Appendix B.06.ab.;

ND Albano, ND Barry-Dignard, ND Hauk, and ND Singh;
ND Ayoubzadeh;

ND Ayoubzadeh and ND Chaumont

the science claim of:

ND Abell to Appendix I.05.a.;

ND Stevens, J.; NMD Steriti, R.

the Alaska Association of Naturopathic Physicians
to Appendix I.03.;

ND Youngren, ND Young, W.,
ND Young, J.R.,
    ND Yarish, M., ND Yik
    to Appendix I.05.p.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claim of:

[edited] Yockey, H.P. 

002. video of the week link [not to pun]:

Krier, C.A. (ND Bastyr 2003) [bio here] states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2012-04-23; my comments are in unquoted bold; the excerpts are out-of-order from the original video]:
.

.
"[the title asks] ‘What is Naturopathic Medicine?’ [via] Chad Krier, N.D., D.C. [aka here CK, to what appears to be a very gray audience…CK speaking] welcome to the naturopathic medicine lecture [...]";

and this ND's explanation of naturopathy, I promise, is very misleading in this sense: so much is left out.

"[he speaks of] allopathic institutions [...and] allopathic training […and] allopathic medicine [as conventional medicine…and] a paradigm shift [...]";

well, to label modern medicine allopathic is akin to labeling modern astronomy astrology [etc.] -- completely wrong.  If a paradigm is defined as "a system of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality" [from here], then I'll go for the idea that naturopathy has a particular paradigm. First on its list of 'ways' is to mislabel modern medicine!

"[CK says] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP...] definition of naturopathic medicine is quite involved [...and reading from a slide] a distinct system of primary health care; an art, science, philosophy and practice of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of illness [...]";

right away there's something also obvious about 'the naturopathic paradigm', it is oxymoronic! Naturopathy is claimed as distinct, yet as we will see, ND Krier does not distinctly entail naturopathy's true context: that which is labeled explicitly as science, while containing actually nonscience.  So, it is distinct but it blends.

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice; these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances [...]";

ah, one of my favorite of all naturopathy falsehoods: the 'these ideas survive scientific scrutiny, continuously' bullshit position.  Suffice it to say, naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism is in no way able to survive scientific scrutiny [nor it's supernaturalism] and therein is in no way 'objectively observed.'  How does one scientifically and objectively observe a figmentation [a vital force, spirits etc.]?  Naturopaths have missed out on a quite more-than-100-years-old scientific methodological truth: if it's not ascribed by EVIDENCE [like figmentations] then it's not science. 

"[new slide concerning NDs'] basic and clinical science […Bastyr] 1639 […] Yale = 1383 [...]";

so, there's what I call the 'naturopathy superscience claim'.  But what's the LOGIC in ever claiming actual science, like such quantitatively, when within "science" for naturopathy is obviously nonscience, qualitatively.

"[and he adds] every couple of years or so, the AANP will get together and come up with new principles based upon the new scientific advances that they discover [...]";

really? I can't think of ANYTHING that naturopathy has scientifically discovered.  Really.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but of the stuff inside their muddle that is actually supported by science [say like basic physiology], those things are not naturopathic, they are, parsimoniously, physiology.  And, by the way, the claim that scientifically speaking there is a life force and a spirit within you is not a discovery...such are figmentations falsely posed as scientific.  Such are falsehoods.

"[slide] what makes naturopaths so different than other doctors? […and he adds] namely it’s the principles and the treatments that we use […include on the slide] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN …] the healing power of nature is the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restore health.  It is the physician’s role to support, facilitate and augment this process […] one of the primary principles of naturopathic medicine, ‘vis medicatrix naturae’ ‘the healing power of nature […]";

so, HPN-VMN!  Presented in language that does not do the idea justice!  This is a coding for the idea that physiology is run by a "life force" and here it is 'in the flesh' at Bastyr, ND Krier's alma mater, in their 2001 catalog: [archived: notice, the course is TITLED "NM5136 The Vis Medicatrix Naturae: naturopathic medicine’s core clinical principle, the vis medicatrix naturae [...] the vital or life force. The course introduces the clinical application of techniques to restore health, prevent illness and optimize wellness by respecting and augmenting the vis medicatrix naturae. These techniques include water as living energy, chronobiological research and healing cycles, the vis medicatrix naturae in relationship and the healing power of prayer].  So, part of the naturopathic paradigm is, in my opinion [here as shown before a room of senior citizens, apparently], DECEPTION and absurdity posed as edification and scientific fact.  What is 'water as living energy' anyway?  No idea, it sounds BIZARRE.  I'd think too that when "life force" figmentations are posed as scientific facts, one would have to be doing a lot of praying [that the curtain isn't drawn back and the ruse is discovered].  And by the way, on that same archived page is this language: "the vitalistic context of science-based, modern naturopathic medicine is emphasized." Loving the absurdity of it all.

"[we're told] a principle objective of naturopathic medicine is to educate the patient […]";

not sure how that's going to happen with any quality if the institution that educates the ND educator conflates science and the science-ejected, and trains the ND to pose naturopathy similarly.

"licensing […] as a protective measure [..] to prevent putting the public as risk."

ah, licensed falsehood marches on: both clinically and academically.  Is there a bigger racket?
Post a Comment