Wednesday, October 10, 2012

MD Aw Promotes Naturopathic Nonsense [how not sensible and Aw-ful!]

here, I excerpt and comment upon a recent article written by an MD about naturopathy in Canada's National Post [see 001., below]; then, I go to that doctor's practice page promoting naturopathy [see 002. below]; finally, I excerpt from the alma mater of the ND at that page to highlight the NATUROPATHILLOGICAL [see 003., below]:

001. in Canada's National Post, MD Aw writes in "Naturopathic Medicine: From the Margins to the Mainstream" (2012-10-09) [vsc 2012-10-09; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[he writes of] alternative medical techniques like Chinese, naturopathic or Ayurvedic medicine [...]";


I'd not call these techniques, they are more appropriately called "systems" or possibly even paradigms [but hey].

"[years ago] I would have told you it was fringe stuff [...] I’ve changed a lot from the way I handled things as a young doctor [...]";

but, have you changed for the better?  Are you wiser? I'll talk about the shenanigans of naturopathy in 003., below, but I'll ask here: is it NOT FRINGE STILL to promote a system of pseudomedicine that QUITE PATENTLY labels the hugely science-ejected falsely as science?  Good doctor, I question your expertise in terms of what naturopathy is all about, and why you'd think such an absurdity is mainstream.


 "I now believe some aspects of complimentary alternative medicine (CAM) can be an effective adjunct to the Western approach [...]";

well, since a portion of CAM is taken from conventional medicine anyway -- like relaxation techniques, exercise and the like -- it's not much of an adjunct at all, when effective.  It's conventional medicine borrowed and given a patina of the exotic.


"this year I participated in the development of an integrative medical department at the clinic where I’m medical director [$$$...] in my own practice, the proportion of people interested in alternative medicine seems to be growing [$$$...] 'integrative medicine' describes the combination of mainstream techniques with complimentary alternative medicine [ye old blending!]";


this I will talk about in 002., below.  Notice the equation that has occurred in just these first few sentences: naturopathic medicine = alternative medicine techniques = complimentary alternative medicine = integrative medicine = alternative medicine.  Now, also, to integrate is TO BLEND or COMBINE, which I think is at the heart of the nonsense going on with naturopathy that I'll highlight wherein 'the then blended' is falsely labeled unblended 'scientific' by naturopathy.

"what triggered my evolution? Part of it is simple experience. I’ve witnessed first-hand [...] I also believe patients deserve choice [...]";


well, when scientific knowledge and methods via studies are not the primary demarcator of what to do in medicine and instead subjective and anecdotal stuff is, I don't actually think medicine has EVOLVED.   If we've learned anything over the years it is that "simple experience" can be quite wrong.   Need I mention 1600 years of humoral theory?   Patient's do deserve choice, but that choice must be INFORMED and not at the cost of honesty.

"alternative medicine remains controversial because it’s really difficulty to subject it to randomized placebo-controlled trials that satisfy the rigorous standards of the scientific community [...]";

lame, bullshit.  This is a complete and total fabrication and cop-out.  Even acupuncture can be shammed.  And, surprise surprise, the higher the scientific rigor in studies for that parlor trick, the closer and closer acupuncture looks to be no better than placebo.

"many of the health benefits that come from naturopathic or alternative therapies seem to come from placebo effects or similar phenomena [...]";


this is quite an admission of something REPUGNANT: taking money from people at one's practice when actually engaging in, essentially, a manipulative placebo deception with them.

"conventional clinics and hospitals that open integrative departments are assisting patients by continuing to supervise care under an evidence-based umbrella [...]";

yeah, right -- but, you just said that the stuff is PLACEBO mostly, and now it's evidence-based, and being touted as 'like or conventional non-placebo stuff' that's science-supported.  This is quite a situation of cognitive dissonance.

002. MD Aw's practice has the pages:

002.a.  "Ben Klinck, ND: Program Manager, Integrative Medicine" [vsc 2012-10-12] which states:

"Ben Klinck received his naturopathic medical degree from the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM) in Toronto [...] Ben is a board certified naturopathic doctor and holds a membership with the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors [...he'] an advocate for integrative medicine";

I will refer to these two entities in 003., below.


"mind, body, and spirit [...] integrative medicine can offer a natural perspective on a wide spectrum of health concerns [...] through the program at Medcan, our naturopathic doctor (ND) will use vitamins and minerals (nutraceuticals), acupuncture, herbal medicine, and traditional Chinese medicine to help reduce pain and manage disease from a scientific and natural viewpoint [...]";

I'm loving the categorical bogosity of these sentences.  First, the scientific and natural view is claimed to contain the supernatural spiritual in general, second, systems which are at their foundation science-ejected and supernatural in context like TCM are claimed also to be scientific and natural.  Then, too, is the implied claim that there are pharmaceuticals and then just as effective there are nutraceuticals. Truly knowledge therein is quite blended bullshit: but isn't that where so much of medicine is at today, unable or unwilling to think about epistemic and ontological categorizations that are quite elementary.


"integrative medicine [...] for which there is evidence of safety and effectiveness [...] a well-rounded view of clients’ health [...] safe and effective ways";

when actually true medical ideas are combined with the bullshit of TCM and company, I'm not sure we're in the realm of efficacy and well-roundedness.  Affecting chi comes to mind: it's a supernatural fantasy, it doesn't exist, it doesn't therefore get changed by TCM to then change health.  Is combining astrology and astronomy of "evidence" and "well-rounded"? They guys need the Nobel Prize: they have evidence, apparently, that which is quite exterior to science like the supernatural is actually quite science-supported.

"naturopathic doctor (ND) is a regulated primary care health professional in the province of Ontario [...]";

ye old 'of the professional' claim.

"NDs undergo standardized board exams and are governed by a North American body [...]";

I'll mention the contents -- and the false labeling of knowledge -- of the NPLEX exam below in 003.

003. naturopathy: a irrational system of pseudomedicine that QUITE PATENTLY labels the hugely science-ejected falsely as science / the blended falsely claiming purity: 

003.a. via CCNM:

for instance, CCNM claims that naturopathy is science-based when the essentially naturopathic in context is science ejected;

003.b. via OAND

for instance, OAND claims that naturopathy is science-based when the essentially naturopathic in context is science ejected;

003.c. via NPLEX:

for instance, NPLEX falsely labels homeopathy a clinical science;

Note: that's ABSURD.  Yet, it is not just a marginal thing regarding naturopathy, naturopathy's false labeling of homeopathy is a microcosm of the naturopathillogical.

004. overall note:

when presented / investigated in a manner that's informed, clear, and honest, what I see in naturopathy is manipulation and falsehood.  A profession?  Oh dear me no.

naturopathy is instead quite a REVERSAL of values, wherein science is the science-ejected, what's effective is what's inert, the natural is the supernatural, the professional is the false.
Post a Comment