Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Likening Naturopathy to Tobacco's Racketeering

here, parallels, parallels between tobacco's racketeering and naturopathy:

001. I recently read "Is the Fossil Fuel Industry, Like the Tobacco Industry, Guilty of Racketeering?" (2015-09-30), as reported by Dana Nuccitelli at guardian.com, which states:

"in 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups. In 2006, US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the tobacco industry’s campaign to 'maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for cigarettes through a scheme to deceive the public' about the health hazards of smoking amounted to a racketeering enterprise."

now, replacing some words, you could IMAGINE:

"in 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit against the major naturopathy interests in the US and Canada. In 2006, US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled that the naturopathy industry’s campaign to 'maximize industry profits by preserving and expanding the market for naturopathy through a scheme to deceive the public' about the health BENEFITS of naturopathy and the RISKS of conventional medicine amounted to a racketeering enterprise."

002. an then I started imagining about naturopathy.  So, perhaps I have it wrong, but I've often thought of racketeering as a form of manipulation involving deliberate falsehood which is used to manipulate another for the purveyor's gain.  How naturopathic:

i) deliberate falsehood
[claims for risk, or potential harm from other treatments;
false claims of efficacy];

ii) manipulation
[aka fake solution for the artificial crisis created];

iii) gain
[$$$].



002.a. let's take this formulation academic:

i) there's, for instance, ND schools claim that they are categorically "science";

e.g. the University of Bridgeport]; a 'science subset naturopathy' claim with such science-ejectednesses within as homeopathy;

ii) there's the claim of something SPECIAL to help with supposed PROBLEMS;

e.g. UB writes "what is the difference between naturopathy and modern medicine?  The main difference is the approach to patient care and the philosophy [...] naturopathy approaches health care from a whole-person basis, focusing on finding the root cause of illness and then supporting the body in overcoming that illness or challenge. Patient care and the doctor-patient relationship are strongly emphasized."; so the claim is that regular medicine doesn't get to a root cause, and therein is at best negligent and weakly interested in a doctor-patient relationship and unsupportive of the body.

iii.) and of course, UB is doing quite well financially from all this tuition and such: here they are building up the University from their deep coffers [I took the picture from the street, the destruction of Shine Hall for a new residence hall; my four years of tuition, in action, from years ago, in-part!]:

002.b. let's take this formulation institutional:

i) the US naturopathy organization AANP claims naturopathy is "science based" with such things as homeopathy and qi within;

ii) the US naturopathy organization AANP claims homeopathy is efficacious;

iii) the US naturopathy organization AANP is the guild-leader for increasing naturopathy commerce in the US;
002.c. let's take this formulation to the individual ND, this time through Canada as an example, because the US and Canadian naturopathy field is unified [e.g., they take the same NPLEX licensure exam; this example is from my last post]:

i) the NDs' claim that treatments are "science" as "science based medicine";

ii) the NDs' claim that 'you are toxic' and need detoxified from everyday life toxicities or you will not be healthy;

iii) their fee schedule as mentioned on that above link.

Note: and I'll throw this one in too, from a podcast interview of the Bastyr University's ND program Dean, Guiltinin:

i) she tells us she "wholly embraces research and science" and then she defends homeopathy, stating she is "open-minded" and that homeopathy is "controversial" [science is not a absolute open-mindedness, in the sense that it is predicated on rigorous evidence and interpretation; and homeopathy is patent nonsense];

ii and iii) and of course, Bastyr is in the business of naturopathy education, with the false label "science-based" and empowering upon such things as homeopathy and supernaturalism, and detoxification or you won't be healthy.  And you can find that accusation of modern medicine as 'not thorough' directly at Bastyr: "naturopathic diagnosis focuses on identifying the underlying causes of disease [as opposed to modern medicine!], while naturopathic therapies are supported by research drawn from peer-reviewed journals from many disciplines, including naturopathic medicine, conventional medicine, European complementary medicine, clinical nutrition, phytotherapy, pharmacognosy, homeopathy, psychology and spirituality."
Post a Comment