Thursday, February 27, 2014

ND Catanzaro, Psychologist Valerie Tarico, and Washington State-wide 'Questionable Naturopathy'

here, I reflect on the hypocritical idea of 'questionable naturopathy' which implies that there is some kind of status of 'unquestionable naturopathy'

001. psychologist Valerie Tarico [an antifundamentalist apologist?] writes at crosscut.com in "Why Mars Hill was the Perfect Incubator for Questionable Naturopathy" (2014-02-27):

"naturopath John Catanzaro['s...] license suspension came because Catanzaro charged cancer patients thousands of dollars for questionable treatments he developed himself without appropriate research and review [...which is] an awkwardly public transgression of medical and scientific ethics [...]";

well, yes.  But naturopaths across the State of Washington, perhaps not treating cancer though with unapproved and unmonitored cancer vaccines, do this ALL THE TIME.  Thousands of dollars are taken from patients daily and the treatments are very questionable, and hugely unethical.  For instance, I'll take something core to naturopathy and generic: homeopathy.  The naturopathy school in Washington State broadly labels naturopathy "science based" and beneath that label are activities in the state like homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, applied kinesiology, drainage and the like.  That's a typical day for naturopathy: posing the absurd as science. That is core naturopathy stuff.  So, with all of naturopathy "questionable" because science-exterior figmentation is blended with the science-based, IMHO there isn't ever "unquestionable" naturopathy.  I'm quite confident that anything done by NDs that is safe, efficacious, and scientifically well-supported already exists in some other part of the health care system. 


"the Mars Hill worldview is painfully consonant with how Catanzaro practiced medicine [...] the Mars Hill approach to Christianity is built on hierarchical authority, in-group trust and suspension of critical thought in the face of poor quality evidence [...aka respectively] trust in authority is considered a virtue [...] tribalism [...] poor standards of evidence [...] the kind of biblical literalism endorsed at Mars Hill is increasingly difficult to sustain in the age of information and Internet [...]";

ironic, because I just listened to a part of the 2013 naturopathy national convention by ND Sensenig, by way of the internet, wherein he sermonizes from core naturopathy sources, Hahnemann and Lindlahr, their gospel taken as 'final word' much like biblical literalists.  And I guess the audience was in the realm of a thousand or two.  A sectarian healthcare megachurch-like event!

"when considering novel or alternative medical procedures, patients and family members are their own best protection against quackery [...] when it comes to 'natural' supplements, practices and additives, the guardrails are mostly gone [...] alternative medicine patients are largely on their own [...]";


this is actually a VERY SAD statement of how naturopathy basically CAN'T be trusted.  Now, naturopaths claim to be professionals, and yet here the author is rightly observing 'you have to look out for yourself'.  Professionals are, by definition, hired to LOOK OUT FOR YOU.  It is a fiduciary relationship.  LICENSED naturopathy is less regulated and has less consumer protections than a used car lot!  And the State of Washington is its partner: caveat emptor.
Post a Comment