001. the publisher of Natural Medicine Journal, "the official journal of the AANP", Karolyn A Gazella, writes in "The Naturopathic Message in the Age of the Sound Bite" (archived here):
"David Macallan, ND [...] a 1991 graduate of National College of Natural Medicine (NCNM) [...] asks how the profession's message is being delivered to patients, legislators, other physician groups, and the media. A former broadcast journalist, Macallan describes the topic of the opening keynote address he will deliver at the upcoming AANP conference. The talk, titled 'Got Vis? Naturopathic Nuance in the Age of the Sound Bite' [...]";
that 'of the professions' claim. ah, so "vis." Often pronounced 'veez' though I'll say 'vis' [rhymes with kiss] So, there's that AANP conference keynote talk, which was for 2012. I've bought that keynote, and I'll cite from it below. Now, to be quick about it, naturopathy's "vis" is the science-exterior concept and obligation of "vital force", as explained by the State of Oregon and as written into naturopathy's oath by way of OANP. Falsely, of course, posed as science-based at both AANP and CAND. Which obviously belies this label of "profession."
"he tells us about his keynote and the naturopathic message in this audio interview [...]";
002. the interview about the keynote:
002.a. the mp3 link is here (archived here).
002.b. what is said by ND Macallan:
"when I'm going to Harvard or something, I [first] don't say that I'm a naturopathic physician [...] an approach that I call Trojan Horse [...] by the time you tell them National College, Bastyr, Southwest, Bridgeport [...] Canadian College [...] they've already accepted you [...] it really opens the door [...]";
sneaky. but, have you been honest with such a technique?
"when I came to the U.S. [...] I was actually shocked and dismayed when I looked at the general state of journalism here [...the] overt bias [...] when I worked for the BBC, we considered ourselves very curious. We always had a rule, you tell the truth, you tell the story. You are a reporter. You find the facts, you report the facts [...as opposed to presenting opinion [...as] facts [...] people here don't very often get honest reporting. You can find it but you gotta look for it [...] I grew up with this whole thing about being completely, totally high integrity in journalism. You find the story, you tell it [...] it's all about investigation, it's all about figuring things out [...]";
really, perhaps this is a Trojan Horse kind of honesty: where journalism's integrity is confused with ND conference smoozing-manipulation strategies. Now, in terms of truth: naturopathy is an unethical sectarian pseudoscience. When reported honestly, with integrity.
"its all about crafting the message [...] it's what you say and it's how you say it [...] yes you have to adapt [...] with physician's] you don't talk about certain things. You don't talk about vis. You just don't do that. There's times when you can, but that's not one of them. You talk medicine [...] avoid strange language, things that are internal to our profession [...] people say well, am I abandoning my principles? No, you don't abandon your principles, you just choose which ones you are going to reveal right out of the gate. It's like when you are starting a relationship with somebody. You don't tell that that you like to sit in front of the TV and pick your toenails while watching American Idol [...] we need to do the same [...]";
so you are advised to OMIT naturopathy's central premise, as if it doesn't exist. It is considered INTERNAL, UGLY and SECRET!
"so [...] no vis medicatrix naturae [...] lets stop speaking Latin [...] let's get up to date [...] you have to be clear, concise [...]";
see, I'd call this advice 'to engage in manipulative lies of omission.' If naturopathy were truly to be up to date, it would abandon what is patently science-exterior like its defining vitalism, and if it were to be clear, and concise, it would state the falseness of labeling such science.
"this is an amazing profession [...] every time that somebody sees someone talking about nutrition, about botanicals, about homeopathy [...] they think naturopathic doctor [...] so that we become what it is that we are which is content experts in natural medicine [...]";
the experts in falsely posing what is science-exterior as legitimate science-based and medically worthwhile. Yes, quite amazingly professional.
003. the ND Macallan keynote, which can be purchased here at playbackaanp.com for $16 [my various comments are in unquoted bold]:
Note: two things which I'll mention before you may spend your money on this mp3 download, a) the swaggering smarmyness of the presenter likely will give you a headache, b) though "vis" is in the title, there's no immediate vitalism in the keynote. The presentation is about how to be "cagey" with media relations.
"naturopathic medicine is the medicine of the future [...]";
I don't know how conflating what is science and patently not science is progressive. It is contrary to the granularity of details that modern thought continues to produce.
"healthcare is broken [...] how do we cure the problem? I think it's this, the application of the principles of natural medicine to everywhere [...] wouldn't this healthcare system be better if we were everywhere in it? [...]";
I cringe at the idea that naturopathy's sectarian principles, falsely labeled science-based, will be everywhere. That would be SO RETROGRADE. So middle ages. I'd argue, though, that the science-illiteracy and lazy thought that naturopathy exemplifies is not so uncommon, even in healthcare.
"that's one of the reasons I left journalism because of all of the stuff you have to make up [...]";
for me, North American naturopathy uses labels that are QUITE made up, and naturopathy is held to a standard even lower than that of journalism.
"we have an amazing profession [...] this is a profession of stories [...] stories sell [...]";
ah, the profession claim. Stories are often fiction, aren't they?
"we get these amazing clinical outcomes that no one else gets [...]";
sure, sure. With science equated with the patently non-scientific, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW?
"[our detractors] the pejoratives [...] are the worst quacks and pseudoscientists on the planet [...for them] science is meaningless [...]";
ah, the irony, the irony. He advises to not for a moment entertain the arguments of critics. That's how you keep the sect secure in its cuckoo-land. And it is quite amusing to hear the 'q' and 'p' word used by an ND.
"we're a cross-disciplinary integrative specialty [...] integrative specialized primary care [...]";
yes, kind of like the distinct system that blends. The broad / blended specialty / distinction. So much illogic.
"and I never say I'm an ND, by the way. Never, ever, ever, ever because I don't want to invite prejudice [....] this is what I call the Trojan Horse approach and it works really, really well. And that's why I now have a lot of really cool friends at Harvard [...]";
yeah, you are cool. So cool by association. Except for the omission. We heard about the principles' omission in the Gazella interview, and here the credential omission.
"how are we going to adjust our language so we don't freak them out? Because let's face it gang, we could freak them out real good [...]";
I aim myself to aid in that freaking by EXPOSING.
"if we give them a plausible explanation about what we do, as opposed to sounding like an astrologer [...] not that there's anything wrong with astrology [...]";
but isn't there something wrong with posing astrology falsely as astronomy?