Note: according to the NMJ, NMJ is "the Official Journal of the AANP".
001. NDs Senders and Erlandsen, along with PhD Zwickey, write in "The Importance of Research Literacy" (NMJ 2014-08):
"this article was initiated and supported by the Scientific Affairs Committee of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...]";
"we’re at a critical time in the evolution of naturopathic medicine in the United States [...]";
I would argue that naturopathy HASN'T evolved, in terms of its claims. What it has done is learn how to disguise.
"whole system naturopathic clinical trials have been published showing clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness [...]";
these are actually poor-quality studies that have no idea what to connect cause and effect directly between because so much is done at once. In that sense, everyone gets a prize!
"evidence-informed practice (EIP) [...] there have been repeated calls to apply EIP to our profession. What does it mean to apply EIP to naturopathy? Is it possible to do so while preserving our philosophical commitments? [...]";
perhaps, if you lie to yourself: that a life force is scientific objective fact.
"EIP may be considered a holistic approach to decision-making. One of our core naturopathic principles guides us to 'treat the whole person,' in mind, body, and spirit [...] we would never treat mind and body while ignoring the spirit [...] in support of our philosophical commitments [...]";
ah, that huge facade that spirit, as a claim, has EVIDENCE / is science-based.
"advancing the profession [...]";
ah, the profession that has at it's heart ABSURDITY.
"[and it speaks of] opportunities to build evidence-informed practices skills [...]";
yet, what if naturopathy's idea of 'in-evidence' is 'anything'? Like a life force that is figmentation that is science-exterior falsely posed as a scientific objective fact?
"research literacy is a means to strengthening naturopathic medicine within the current medical system [...]";
actually, as I became more informed, I realized I'd been had by the naturopathic apparatus. So, perhaps, research will need to EXPOSURE of this racket.
"when 'lack of evidence' is cited as a reason for not integrating naturopathic medicine into mainstream care, we will be able to counter those arguments with high-quality research [...]";
but my question would be, can you get to research when you can't even get to logic and rationality?
"if we can’t critically evaluate research, we risk misinterpreting results and putting patients at risk [...]";
that's quite an admission as to what naturopathy's thinking problems eventually result in affecting.
002. alma maters:
002.a. ND Senders graduated from NCNM and work there!
002.b. ND Erlandsen graduated from NCNM and work there!
003. ah, the importance of research, so let's do some research at NCNM regarding "the essentially naturopathic":
003.a. in "About Naturopathic Medicine", NCNM tells us:
"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: 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 [...which is] in fact [...and] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."
003.b. and did you know:
that that "life force" premise is completely scientifically discarded!
004. naturopathy's essential absurdity:
so, there is the complete reversal of values that is inherent to naturopathy's self-definition.
I don't see, in the context of that representative madness, why research matters.
what matters before all that is basic logic, and a basic literacy of what is rational conceptually.