Sunday, April 27, 2014

ND Gleixner: The Naturopathic Goal of Resectarianizing Medicine

here, I cite from a Canadian ND's proposal that all of medicine adopt naturopathy's principles [see 001., below]; then, I look at what that MEANS [see 002., below]:

001. ND Gleixner writes in the Times & Transcript's "New Health-Care Paradigm Could Save Government Millions" (2014-04-24)]:

"in a number of previous columns [...] I proposed an integrated approach that includes [...] the adoption of six guiding principles for all doctors and health professionals and [...] a new health paradigm that aims to determine and address the true cause of one’s medical concerns."

so, there's the absurd accusation that regular medicine is only palliating symptoms and not getting to 'the thing itself.'  And there's them principles that ALL should abide.  Well, what are they?  Are we being told enough in the sense of informed consent?

002. naturopathy's sectarian core, its principles:


002.a. now ND Gleixner is a graduate of BINM.   We can get to the contents of those principles there:

002.b. BINM and naturopathy's principles:

002.c. there's naturopathy's central belief in vitalism, a science-ejected doctrine, in the first edition of BINM's newsletter Natural Selections (archived here) [vsc 2014-04-27]:

"we all have an innate ability to heal called the 'vital force'. When this force is weak you are susceptible to disease [...& the sidebar states that the] principles of naturopathic medicine [...include #3] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [...] acupuncture stimulates your vital force and promotes drainage [...] homeopathic remedies will desensitize you to your allergen, relieve your symptoms, promote drainage, and stimulate your vital force."
obviously, naturopathy believes that this 'vital force figmentation' is the true cause.
003. so:
of course, the Times & Transcript article written by this ND doesn't tell us that naturopathy is based on a science-ejected, sectarian figmentation.  That's not good for business.  Even the ND's own pages DON'T, in the sense of informed consent, transparently communicate naturopathy's central premise and its epistemic status.
we are all marks for this is shady business, and I don't see how disguised figmentations and science-ejected, unnecessary, sectarian articles of faith...
save money.
and speaking of paradigms or models, and Canada, CASS did publish in 2013, in terms of the contents of naturopathy school:

hear, hear.
Post a Comment