Friday, April 6, 2012

Two Naturopathic 'Luminaries' Heap on a 2012 Critic of Naturopathy

here, I cite from a recent article by MD Bartecchi regarding naturopathy [see 001., below]; then, I excerpt from two commentors, a naturopathy school president and a naturopathy schools' consortia web page editor [see 002., below]:

001. Carl Bartecchi (MD UPenn) of the University of Colorado School of Medicine and author of "The Alternative Medicine Hoax" (ISBN 0970755813) writes in "Naturopathic Treatment: ‘Unproven’ Medicine" (2012-03-25) [vsc 2012-04-05; my comments are in unquoted  bold]:

"what is a naturopathic doctor? [...] a practitioner who claims to use natural [...] treatments to stimulate the sick body to heal itself [...such as] homeopathy, acupuncture [etc....] most of the treatments could have little more than a placebo effect [...and] all of these entities fall under the category of alternative medicine, which by definition is 'unproven' medicine [...] the worst of which are homeopathic preparations, but also questionable Chinese medicine practices, 'natural methods' to treat cancers, acupuncture, colonic enemas and numerous other unproven therapies for real disease processes";

hear, hear.  I must add, the premise of healing in naturopathy is completely science-ejected: that a figment known as a "life force" is in charge of physiology and manipulating it reverses disease processes and causes healing, with both homeopathy and acupuncture based on such a figmentation then applied to "real" diseases.  'The vitalistic' is not just unproven, the premise is science-ejected nonsense . Yet, NDs / NMDs continue to label that central naturopathic context -- along with a whole bunch of other nonsense, as evident in what Dr. Bartecchi has listed-- "science-based.'

"the inability of naturopaths to apply science-based principles and scientific study to many of their most popular treatment modalities [and cherished BELIEFS!] has been a major concern to health care professionals";

agreed.  Regarding naturopathy's fundamental premise, that "life force", I've always found it quite revealing that there isn't any effort by them to actually scientifically establish it's existence.  They simply label it 'scientific', as if DECLARATION is what science is.  But of course, where would you look for such a figment experimentally?  What machine can measure such a figment?  That kind of a search, in light of thermodynamics and genetics and the preponderance of science, is of course, as justifiable as searching for the Tooth Fairy. 

"[...and] their longstanding opposition to childhood vaccination [...]";

the term I've often heard in naturopathic circles, particularly within their homeopathic subgroup, which labels the injury they believe happens to that vital force / life force is 'vaccinosis', which etymologically means 'a condition due to vaccination', which of course is a perceived harm to a figmentation and is akin to worrying that you harmed the Tooth Fairy's feelings.

"some naturopathic treatments are not only unscientific but blatantly unsafe [...]";

agreed.  More specifically, I'd say much more harmful / 'of risk' than beneficial and therein not reasonable as a choice particularly in terms of cost and false hope.

"naturopathic education programs are deficient in the study of the commonly used and scientifically proven effective drugs and other therapies that are so critical to modern approaches to a variety of diseases [...]";

yes.  I'd also add, in terms of naturopathic education and science overall, simply this: science is so unlimited by naturopathy that the hugely science-exterior is maintained as scientific.  I know this having gone to one of their schools for four years.  And with schools like NUHS granting naturopathy degrees, the mislabeling of "science" upon the essentially naturopathic / 'science-exterior' has reached a hyper-absurd extent.

"well-known British scientists have led the charge to drop public funding for universities providing degrees in areas of alternative medicine, which includes naturopathy, homeopathy, reflexology, Chinese medicine and acupuncture [...] these scientifically deficient practices [...even] Germany, the home of homeopathy [...] has called for a halt on public funding for homeopathy."

Australia is similarly coming around.  Next, I predict Canada, which is half of the North American naturopathy racket and a kind of hybrid of UK and US naturopathys proper.

002. the comments:

002.a. pmittman posted:

"as a naturopathic physician and president of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences I am compelled to address two inaccuracies in Dr. Bartecchi's article [...and mentions] Part II of the national board examinations (NPLEX) [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine is grounded in [...] the scientific literature. I cordially invite Dr. Bartecchi to come visit SCNM."

Note: if this is who I suspect and assume this is, this is Paul Mittman seeking to clarify "inaccuracies."   He is also a DHANP, by the way, an AANP homeopath of the highest order.  Now, what's fascinating about NPLEX part II is that it labels homeopathy a "clinical science" when the preponderance of science labels homeopathy ABSURD and IMPLAUSIBLE TO THE Nth.  I wish that inaccuracy would be addressed!  And of course, we're told 'what we do is grounded in the scientific'.  Well, here's the short tour of SCNM: nonsense falsely labeled science.  And here's the web-archived 'profession of vitalistic belief' that Mittman had up on his naturopathy school's web site (also here, live).

002.b. CoquinaDegerC, apparently / presumably the "managing editor" of the AANMC's newsletter [particularly since we are directed to an AANMC web page in the post], posted:

"I’m surprised and disappointed that this article was not more thoroughly researched or fact-checked [...]";

the irony is killing me.  It is AANMC still presenting as science that which hugely isn't.

"the accredited naturopathic education programs are very sufficient in the study of commonly used and scientifically proven effective drugs and other therapies [...] anyone seeking the facts on the curriculum that leads to earning a naturopathic doctor (ND) degree can begin their reading here: http://www.aanmc.org/education/academic-curriculum.php [...and she mentions NDs study] 'the same biomedical sciences as allopathic physicians'."

ah, the cultic label "allopathic" which is a FALSE label naturopaths / homeopaths place upon modern medicine.  Modern medicine is as allopathic as modern chemistry is alchemic. And, that science label again! But, how is homeopathy effective, scientific, proven beyond a nonspecific placebo effect when in fact THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PILL?  That is a fact.

003. overall note:

of course, once you claim that a system based upon a science-ejected figmentation is a branch of medical science, as AANMC does and I have all those pages archived, I guess ANYTHING GOES within such absurd ground-rules.  In label, I'd agree, naturopathy says "science": in fact, no.  And that pseudoscience facet is SO EASY TO SHOW.
Post a Comment