001. at azcentral.com, ND Baral, a 2000 Bastyr graduate, writes in "With Vaccines, Let's Stick to Objective Data" (2015-02-09)[my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"[in brief we're told] a naturopathic doctor sides with vaccinating children after weighing both sides of argument. Yes, there are side effects to vaccines [THERE ARE GENERALLY?] -- but the disease can do a lot of damage, too. All want children to be healthy and happy [...]";
and here we are with this HUGE discrepancy: do it though it has side effects. In what way? Because the message here for the lay person is that 'vaccination is RISKY'. Statistically, that is hugely WRONG. A WRONGLY weighed argument. And so I ask myself regarding Bastyr's naturopathy, where ND Baral graduated from: are there any holy cows that NDs truly don't 'weigh both sides of the argument' about? And I conclude: yes. Naturopathy makes a FRINGE argument that the GROSSLY science-exterior is indeed scientific: vitalism, supernaturalism, homeopathy and kind. Yet, where is that 'yielding to preponderance', that weighing by exercising FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, that ND Baral is in this article is POSING to display [while skewing the safety of vaccines]?
"[ND Baral states] let's clarify some important points [...] I take issue with individuals only presenting severe positions, either purely anti- or purely pro-vaccine [...]";
what? That's RIDICULOUS. That's like saying 'it is extreme to believe the earth goes around the sun. It take issue with that extremism.' Pseudoexpertise: vaccines are HUGELY great and that's that. An overwhelmingly supported scientific fact is not a form of extremism.
"as a Phoenix naturopathic physician [...he claims to have] an objective perspective on the vaccine debate [...] vaccines are generally safe, effective and beneficial to our society [...]";
WTF? You just stated they have side effects scaring people away from them, and now they are NOT SUCH. And naturopathy itself is a form of sectarian medicine, so it is anything but objective. Of course, it is naturopathy that states that the article of faith known as a 'life force running physiology' is an objective fact. So their idea of what is objective is equated with what is subjective: that typical naturopathic reversal of values.
"if you need 100 percent effectiveness to believe something works, show me anything in medicine, naturopathic or conventional, that works 100 percent of the time. Nothing like that exists [...]";
yet, it is naturopathy that IGNORES the huge STATISTICAL interpretation that HOMEOPATHY IS BUNK. Go figure, on this cognitive dissonance: statistics work for me unless it contradicts my sectarian obligations.