Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Let's Analyze: NCNM's President Schleich Claims NDs are Qualified PCPs 2013

here, I cite from a recent article by National College of Natural Medicine's President urging that naturopaths are qualified to be primary care providers [see 001., below]; then, as I often do, I revisit NCNM's page explaining just what naturopathy is to point out that the knowledge basis of naturopathy is abject irrationality [see 002., below]:

001. President Schleich, who is not an ND by the way, writes in "Doctor Shortage? Remove Barriers to Naturopathic Doctors" [saved 2013-08-20; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[photo caption] David Schleich, president of the National College of Natural Medicine, says barriers should be removed to making naturopaths primary care providers [...main text] Oregon [...] state is facing a healthcare hurdle that threatens to disable all its carefully orchestrated plans: a critical shortage of primary care providers to care for an influx of patients into the state’s new healthcare exchanges [...] as the Affordable Care Act goes live [...] nurse practitioners may well help breech the Oregon PCP gap [...] they are but one of several possible solutions. Naturopathic physicians are another [...]";



this sounds like quite an opportunity for the naturopathy crowd, who are more than willing to be elevated into that role.

"the good news is that NDs are ready, willing, qualified and able to help [...] David J. Schleich is the president of the National College of Natural Medicine, founded in Portland in 1956. It is the oldest naturopathic school in North America [...]";


let's look below at what naturopathy is, in their own words, at that oldest college, NCNM.

002. NCNM's knowledge misrepresentation!

002.a. NCNM writes in "About Naturopathic Medicine":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...]";
 
ah, that science-vetted claim: doctoral level multiply accredited to boot!

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] first do no harm, primum no nocere: the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...]";

ah, a science-ejected basis falsely labeled able to survive scientific vetting!  And that's naturopathy's qualifications: a knowledge basis as physicianship that does not discriminate between magic beans, unicorn tears and flying carpets AND what is actually science-supported.  What profession is distinguished by falsehood and the nonsense-talk of a scientifically in-fact science-exterior figmentation?

Overall note: so, is such 'epistemic conflation' as I call it a legitimate qualification for the practice of primary care these days?  It already is in the Pacific Northwest, where science is quite absurdly whatever-you-want-it-to-be and naturopaths' nonsense has .gov endorsement.

licensed falsehood marches on.
Post a Comment