Tuesday, May 15, 2012

NMD Deville Explains: The Supposed Difference between Naturopathy and Conventional Medicine [19th Century Philosophy vs. Science]

here, I cite from the Tuscon Citizen of Arizona column of NMD Deville, who, in quite the thought-muddled manner that characterizes naturopathy, 'explains' medicine, and naturopathic figmentation-laden 'philosophy' / methods [see 001., below]; then, I quote from two of her web pages [see 002.,below]:

001. Deville, L. (NMD SCNM) [pictured wearing a stethoscope, of course!] writes in "Natural Medicine Tips: What Causes Illness" (2012-05-11) [vsc 2012-05-12; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"Dr Lauren Deville, NMD [...] a board-certified naturopathic physician in Arizona [...]";

when an ND / NMD is licensed, they term themselves board-certified.  If an MD did this, they'd get in a lot of trouble, I think, because a licensed MD is not board-certified until they specialize and get all that 'board approval' in their specialty area. Calling licensure 'board certification' is part of naturopathy's false market posturing.

"the main difference between conventional and naturopathic medicine is in the philosophy. Traditional medicine [conventional] views the body from a mechanistic point of view.  This means that each body system is separate, and sometimes things just go wrong.  The symptoms themselves constitute the disease in most cases, and the job of the physician is to make the symptoms go away [...]";

this explanation is actually an artificial polarity that naturopathy erects, ironically: the 'natural' people create 'fake-crap' all the time.  The position of modern medicine isn't philosophical at all.  Find me someone who says 'I am a medical mechanist'!  Very odd.  Modern medicine is based on science and evidence, to the best ability [and in my opinion, accelerating along these lines].  Before medicine became, specifically, an applied science [rather late in the history of science, most would say], there truly was philosophical medicine: e.g., 1600 years of Galenic 'theory'.  I don't quibble too much with the idea that science is mechanistic.  It is, of course, but not merely mechanistic and not the ABSURDLY myopic point of view that the ND characterizes it as.   After all, NASA does planetary, intrasolar, and even larger of-context science.  There are many diseases that modern medicine has identified as, lets say, organismic, affecting many body systems and not 'stand alone issues', like genetic syndromes that have multiple effects in terms of body systems.  I can't quibble with the idea that some causes are not known, and 'sometimes things just go wrong.'  Genetic disorders are like that, sometimes there are mutations and conditions created by them.  And sometimes there are environmental reasons why those occurred that are known, and yet, some things are so rare they are uncharted territory.  Naturopathy instead likes to invent causes when it doesn't have real ones and NOT EVEN LOOK / VERIFY, while science will admit it is still looking or was wrong.  That modern medicine shallowly understands 'symptoms constitute the disease' is quite a false position.  Naturopaths claim to treat the cause, as if modern medicine doesn't / can't.  But, modern medicine isn't shallow: symptoms of inflammation, for instance, in multiple body systems, could be found to be lupus, and the test for lupus is quite accurate and is a SIGN.  I always find this so interesting: modern medicine uses objective testing diagnostically and relies on the patient's reported symptoms to guide, but the results of tests are not symptoms, they are signs.  The best lab and imaging results point out 'the thing itself', not symptoms which are only the patient's experience.  The doctor doesn't merely make the symptoms go away, ignoring the measurements of medical instrumentation, that would be negligence, in many cases: e.g., if an elderly patient in the ER is having a massive headache the doctor will certainly run imaging to determine if there is a possible stroke happening, not just give a heavy pain killer for the symptom of pain.  But, such mischaracterizations are how NDs / NMDs manipulate the public.

"naturopathic medicine views the body [philosophically!] from a vitalistic point of view.  This means that everything in the body is interconnected, and the body is designed to heal itself [...]";

well, there we go: the admission of vitalism and then, along the lines of fake-crap, a very poor definition of it.  Lets go to a 'core' naturopathic source for the ACTUAL details of this vitalism:  NCNM (here)states that vitalism is the belief that the body heals itself due to a life force.  And a life force is a 'philosophy' quite science-ejected: it simply has no facts to explain in this day-and-age, and is exterior to biology and physiology, to name at least two scientific areas that debunk it.  Of course, the body is interconnected, and heals.  These are not the defining hallmarks of vitalism, or of naturopathy.  Vitalism is the defining hallmark of naturopathy, falsely posed as able to survive scientific scrutiny as that NCNM page illustrates.  And this falsehood is quite easy to show.  So, though it is an error to state that modern medicine is a philosophy of mechanism [it is scientific], it is quite accurate to state that naturopathy is a philosophy of science-ejected junk thought.

"there are essentially three causes of illness: 1) lowered vitality [vitalism, essentially...] 2) abnormal composition of blood and lymph [...] 3) accumulation of waste matter [...whereby] the presence of waste is what allows disease germs and parasites to thrive – in most cases the presence of bacteria, fungi, parasites or viruses are secondary, rather than the primary cause of illness!  (If your house is infested with rats, you could simply set out hundreds of rat traps, or you could clean it top to bottom and flood it with fresh air and sunshine, and the rats will flee.  Which do you think would be more effective in the long run?) [...]";

what can you say?  ONLY three causes of illness?  'Vitality' is usually laughed at by thinkers, in that it doesn't actually define much of anything when it isn't coding vitalism.  Perhaps it means 'lifeliness' or 'having the essentials', when not coding vitalism.  I simply find the idea to be vapid, and a veneer.  Now, naturopaths love to scare people into unnecessary detox therapies, including detox supplements that they sell directly to the patient and doing colonics.  The 'blame the patient' metaphor is simply wrong: there are tons of germs that can make perfectly healthy [not waste / garbage cluttered!] people sick.  This is because these microbes have co-evolved with mankind.  But again, naturopathy perverts biology.  Try totally adhering to these ideas of lifeliness, blood and lymph composition, and cleanliness, and then expose yourself to anthrax or tuberculosis.  I don't advise it.

"the naturopathic treatment principles for any condition must involve the same three! 1) improve the body’s vitality.  This means establishing a healthy regimen, including a strong spiritual connection [...] treatments such as [...] homeopathy, acupuncture [...] 2) build up the body fluids (blood and lymph) naturally.  This means eating real food – not processed crap, not sugar, not a standard American diet.  It also means drinking plenty of water – not soda, not (excessive) coffee or alcohol, not sugary juice concentrates [...] 3) promote elimination of waste and poisons [...]";

so, we're back to vitalism basically using vitalism-based therapeutics [homeopathy, acupuncture] premised on magic beans and unicorn tears! Again, talk of fluids.  I'm always interested in naturopaths talking about what is "real", and then they go and apply homeopathy and acupuncture to the patient to fix their imaginary vital force and chi.  And then there's the orthorexic diet moralizing and FORCED supernaturalism.  But hugely, what bothers me is scaring people that they are toxic, and only naturopathy has the solution.  It is actually a hold-over from that old Galenic humoural model and the late-era heroic purging methods. Since this toxicity thing is make believe, I regard this creation-of-a-fake-problem-only-NDs-can-fix to be a form of racketeering.

002. NMD Deville also writes, at her practice web page:

002.a. in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2012-05-13]:

"naturopathic physicians (N.D's/N.M.D's) receive four years of post-graduate training in medical schools structured specially for them.  The first two years of naturopathic medical school includes the same basic medical science courses and diagnostics required of their conventional counterparts, followed by a basic sciences board exam [...and] the principles of naturopathic medicine are as follows [...#2] the healing power of nature";

Note: so, supposed rigorous doctoral-level science.  And her page links to the AANMC home page, which within its many pages STILL falsely labels naturopathy a 'branch of medical science'.  And ND Deville codes naturopathy's vitalism instead of informing us up-front of that science-ejected figmentation.  Typical.

002.b. in "Homeopathy" [vsc 2012-05-13]:

"according to naturopathic philosophy, the human body is intelligent, and symptoms are your body’s attempt to deal with the illness [...] suppression [...] forces the illness 'deeper' [...] we should work with our body’s symptoms in order to achieve the quickest cure. Homeopathy is a great way to do this [...]";

again, philosophy!  It is interesting to attribute intelligence to the human body when only, truly, the human mind has intelligence [sometimes!].  Behind all this language is the idea that physiology is run my a purposeful / teleological life spirit / vital force.  We were taught in naturopathy school that if you ignore what the vital force is telling you, you will suppress.  What's interesting here is the lack of any consideration for 'signs'!  Homeopathy was created when medicine doesn't have much understanding of physiology and even less ability to measure.  But, naturopaths don't all that much care for objective signs, especially when they debunk their prized methods, like the empty pills known as homeopathy.  Therein, how homeopathy is a "great way" to cure beats me.

"what happens when I take a homeopathic remedy? [...] three things can happen when you take a homeopathic remedy: you get better, you get worse and then you get better, or nothing happens [...]";

why is the number always three with this NMD / ND?  What's interesting is that homeopathy is never impugned no matter what happens!

"homeopathic remedies are 'potentized' which means that they have been diluted to the point where technically none of the original substance remains, and shaken well between each dilution. This process has been shown to imprint the 'energetics' of the substance on the water in which it has been diluted [...]";

the magic beans and unicorn tears method!  And that use of 'energy' so inappropriately!  Energy is an objective measurement.  But, here it is used within the same context as the Tooth Fairy: an imaginary physically immeasurable and effect-less figmentation.

'the principle of 'like cures like' is well established clinically [...]";

really.  Well, yeah, in the sympathetic magic clinic.

"we don’t really know how it works! [...]";

actually, we know it doesn't work.

Note: yet, on the naturopathic board exam, homeopathy is labeled a "core clinical science." 
Post a Comment