Thursday, May 31, 2012

Who Not to Trust: Naturopathy in New Hampshire via NPR then NHAND

here, I cite from recent 2012 credulous proponentry regarding naturopathy by National Public Radio [see 001., below]; then, I point out SOME nonsense that DEFINES naturopathy by way of their own pages in New Hampshire [see 002., below]:

001. NPR reports in "Baby Steps For Naturopathic Doctors In New Hampshire" (2012-05-31)[2012-05-31; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[as reported by Emily Corwin] although naturopathic doctors (NDs) undergo virtually the same training as medical doctors [...]";

NDs / NMDs no do have the same training as MDs, and I state this point-blank.  It is an entirely different worldview beginning with the typification of knowledge itself. Now, if you go the trunk of the naturopathic tree, NCNM, you can see this readily.  Medicine, by ethical decree, is committed to scientific knowledge and maintaining the integrity of such knowledge.  You can find this code at 2002's "Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter", which states, in part: "commitment to scientific knowledge: much of medicine's contract with society is based on the integrity and appropriate use of scientific knowledge and technology. Physicians have a duty to uphold scientific standards, to promote research, and to create new knowledge and ensure its appropriate use. The profession is responsible for the integrity of this knowledge, which is based on scientific evidence and physician experience." Meanwhile, in stetting up naturopathy's epistemological muddle, NCNM tells us that the patently science-unsupported survives scientific scrutiny.  This is not even modern thought, never mind 'the preponderance which is doctoral level science.'  As a measure of these nonexistent science standards, on that same NCNM page, homeopathy is labeled therapeutically "powerful" while, preponderantly, we know that homeopathy is so 'out there' from what actually is within science that there has been a call for it being completely DEFUNDED since it is a PLACEBO.  And there you are, within the epistemology and ontology of naturopathy: things are what they are not.  Science is the science-ejected, inert substances / magic beans and unicorn tears 'act powerfully'  -- a complete reversal of values.  So, don't trust them.  Amongst the items pictured in this article, ironically, are HOMEOPATHY PELLETS.  This is like an Onion satire. 

"today, naturopathy looks appealing to politicians for two reasons. First, states like New Hampshire are struggling with a shortage of primary care doctors — a service NDs are certified to perform. Second, about 75% of health care spending nation-wide goes to treating chronic diseases [...] these are the very diseases naturopaths excel at treating and preventing [...] so much data demonstrates cost savings [...they] don’t even want to look at the data [...]";

based on a completely unethical epistemological position [nonsense marketed as scientific], is it really wise for politicians to license falsehood?  I don't want a PCP who tells me that empty lactose pellets will act powerfully in my body, thank you -- and that it hugely science-ejected nonsense from the 1800s survives current scientific scrutiny.  Perhaps someone could have gotten away with such in 1850, as medicine itself was quite scary.  So, the group that tells us that magic beans and unicorn tears are powerful also tell us that they "excel" and have "data."  Well, how ironic: objective data shows us that naturopathy is rife with misrepresentation, from their ideas all the way down to their clinical interventions.

 "[...and the reporter speaks of NH's] ND Bert Mathieson  [...and] past president of the NH Association of Naturopathic Doctors Jaclyn Chasse [...and] Laurilee Schonebeck, an ND [...]"; 

so the web page for ND Mathieson's practice, who also practices with ND Beaudoin, is in New Hampshire (here) [so too for ND Chasse, who also practices with ND Chojnowski and ND DiBacco (here). ND Schonebeck is someone I can't find online].  This leads us to the NHAND.

002. the NHAND states [one of their sponsors is a homeopathic company!]:

002.a. on ND Fassler's page on homeopathy "Classical Homeopathy in Naturopathic Practice":

that homeopathy is a "science", which is bogus, 

and talks about using this sympathetic magic for someone with a "seizure disorder", which is scary.

002.b. on ND Martlew's biography page she uses:

"homeopathy" and "iridology", and her own practice page on naturopathy lists homeopathy,

and her therapies page states that iridology is a "science" that is diagnostically "powerful"

and that is quite WRONG.

003. licensed falsehood marches on:

if even through baby steps. 

what really gets to me here is the completely credulous, lazy, shallow reporting by a media marque name such as NPR.

'naturopathy's nonsense ideas, diagnostics, and therapeutics' are SO EASY TO SHOW -- the naturopathillogical.


Post a Comment