001. Elizabeth Hayes writes in "College of Natural Medicine’s Chief on Chronic Disease, Vaccinations and Mainstream vs. Natural Medicine" [2015 archived, vsc 2015-04-15; my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"David Schleich, president and CEO of Portland's National College of Natural Medicine [...] a strategic thinker who has grown the college to a major powerhouse in the world of natural medicine [...]";
ka-ching!!! Even while the concept of "natural" in terms of medicine is a logical fallacy. I did a whole podcast episode on that [here].
"[the author writes] I sat down with Schleich recently to talk about the college [...and] the profession [...] our school is much more professional [...]";
that 'of the professions' claim.
"[Schleich is] so worried about the number of people with diabetes [...and] cardiovascular problems, stress, anxiety disorders, depression, childhood obesity issues and on and on [...] natural medicine approaches, coupled with the best of allopathic (mainstream) approaches, is what we need [...] different ways of bringing harmony among mind, body and spirit [...] our allopathic colleagues don’t have that time in the monetized model [...] insurance people are locked into allopathic codes. Some of the treatments naturopathic doctors want to do are hard to monetize [...]";
ah, that stupid naturopathic claim that modern medicine is "allopathic." It's like calling astronomy astrology. And that claim of a special efficacy to 'the naturopathic' that modern medicine lacks. Are we creating a FAKE problem here that naturopathy has a custom-made answer to? As in racketeering? And that requisite supernaturalism, ironically from a place that calls itself "natural." And that rather oddly socialistic label implied upon naturopathy that it is somehow 'non-monetized.' All hail the peoples' medicine. How idealistic. And as regards codes, isn't it naturopathy that speaks in coded principles so often? And I don't get it: a doctor charges for their time spent with a patient. NOT HARD TO MONETIZE. But HARD TO JUSTIFY!
"[the author asks] where do you stand on vaccination [...he answers] the profession is in support of vaccination because evidence and data are strong about it being a preventative tool [...]";
and here's were I'm very keen to point out: if something is 'good' to do, because it has "strong" "evidence and data" then WHY OH WHY does NCNM claim that homeopathy AND KIND survives scientific scrutiny as a "powerful" therapy. This is the hugest of hypocrisies.
"naturopathic physicians are fantastic for primary care [...]";
a SCARY claim: we can't tell the difference between placebo and effective treatments, and we are front-line. The REVERSAL of values.