Friday, September 25, 2015

Changelog 2015-09-25 and ND Video

here, I summarize recent additions to my public naturopathy database.  I also link to an ND's video each changelog, quote from, and tag the video in some detail:

[Mission emphasis: I do this continuous exercise to expose the inherent fraud that naturopathy is logically, academically, commercially, legislatively / politically and clinically.  Hugely misleading category labels such as "science based" and "evidence based" "nonsectarian" are being placed upon what truly is science-exterior and even more so disproven sectarian / quack nonsense!  Then, the largest of betrayals toward the public occurs with highly orchestrated '.gov' endorsements of naturopaths as "licensed" and "professional."  Beware, the naturopathic licensed falsehood racket marches on!]

001. added:

the vitalism [science-ejected subset naturopathy] claims of:

NDs Coombs, Gurm, Kassam;
ND Coughlan; 

the 'science subset naturopathy' category claims of:

NDs Batson, Gonzalez, Parker, Windstedt; 
NDs Berg, Chambers, Wolter; 

ND Davis; 
ND de Kadt; 
NDs Dennis, Myer; 

ND Tapp;
NDs Walline and Willi;
ND West;
ND Whittington;
ND Wurtz;
ND Yores;
ND Yu;
ND Ziegler;
ND Zytaruk;

the 'scientific rejection of vitalism':

Morris, B. (PhD{social anthropology} UL)
in "Anthropology and the Human Subject" (2014)
ISBN 1490731040, 9781490731049;

the scientific rejection of supernaturalism:

the California Science Teachers Association;

'naturopathy blends':

the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians;
the Yukon Association of Naturopathic Doctors;

ND Traub;
 
comments:

to premedlife.com's
by ND Yanez:

"Of course, you'd have to carefully check into naturopathy before changing your life course. Here's an FYI about the lack of quality of naturopathy's knowledge base: their Textbook of Natural Medicine, 4th edition 2013, on its cover claims it is: "the gold standard in science-based natural medicine." Then, inside, there's chapter 49 “Unani Medicine" [and other kinds like it]. Unani medicine is based on the 4 humours -- you know, of the Middle Ages BEFORE science -- and we're told: “epistemology and ontology […] because Unani medicine is rooted in the Islamic tradition, it is from this spiritual source where one must search for the answers to the questions regarding its theories on knowledge and existence.” Now, I'm all for someone's right to believe or not believe whatever they so choose. But SHOULD obvious non-science be falsely posed as science in a medical context? So, I repeat: carefully check into naturopathy before changing your life course. -The Naturocrit Blog and Podcast."

to kplu.org's

"Regarding the Naturopathy Dean's homeopathy defense:ND Guiltinin first commits herself with "I wholly embrace research and science [...] to document that what you do actually works and if you find out that it doesn't [...] you discard that practice."We then don't get a yes or no answer to the host's question "things like homeopathy [...] do you feel that that has a strong enough evidence base to warrant teaching it at the University?"We get instead "I remain open-minded [...to homeopathy] one of the more controversial modalities."What I've observed is this: there is NO controversy if you have rigorous scientific standards:homeopathy is PATENTLY science-ejected WHILE homeopathy is a sacred cow in naturopathyland.And what I've noticed is that Bastyr doesn't care what KIND of knowledge it calls science.They have a great motto: "science-based medicine that integrates body, mind, spirit and nature."That's science subset the supernatural, as in science subset NOT science, in terms of epistemics.What I call 'the naturopathillogical.'From such a basis, EXPECT nonsense.-r.c."

002. video link and commentary:

002.a. the YouTube account Australis Natural Health College has the video "Why Do An Advanced Diploma of Naturopathy at Australis Natural Health College" (2015) which states:
.

.
[tags: #australisnaturalhealthcollege #homeopathy #iridology]

"[from the video, naturopathy includes] homeopathy [...and] iridology [...] it's just like being a doctor except using natural means [...] there's definitely a lot of opportunities out there [...] the natural health industry [...]";

that's right the empty pills of homeopathy and the nonsense of iridology.

002.b. their web pages include "Why Choose Australis Natural Health College?" (2015) which states:

"blending tradition with evidence-based modern science: we believe that some educators are focusing too much on the scientific side of natural health without paying homage to the origin and heritage of traditional medicine. To understand the industry properly we believe that it is vitally important to balance the two perspectives. Because of this we have developed a unique and holistic curriculum that offers our students both perspectives. You will learn about the history and traditional methods of natural health practices whilst also developing an understanding of the latest evidence-based scientific practices and methodologies [...]";

so there's that epistemic blend / muddle. That is why nonsense like homeopathy and iridology are lauded.  And there's that weird term "industry".   Perhaps the naturopathic false education industry.

"learn how your body works [...] empower yourself and others by learning from our panel of industry experts on how your body works. Get a thorough understanding of anatomy and physiology, biology, herbal pharmacology, symptomatology & diagnosis, as well as naturopathic prescribing [...]";

so, how empowered are you if you think iridology is true?  If you think homeopathy does things?  Not.  Empowered. At. All.

 "gaining a thorough understanding of bodily systems and the wide range of effective natural health treatments available [...]"; 

well, homeopathy and iridology ARE NOT effective.  They are false.  That is NOT a thorough understanding.
Post a Comment