001. reporter Lawson, M. (? ?) states, regarding Fullerton, K. (ND CCNM), in "Vaccine Not Solution For All: Naturopath" (2009-11-04):
"proponents of alternative medicine may be surprised to know local naturopathic doctor (ND) Kerri Fullerton doesn’t encourage everyone to turn their back on flu clinics [!!!...as an ND she is a] regulated and licensed professional [...] with at least seven years of post-secondary education in medical sciences [...] Fullerton explains her general opposition to vaccinations of any kind (pharmaceutical or homeopathic [!!!]) is their one-solution-fits-all approach to health care. 'It’s not the way I was taught homeopathy' [...and then says regarding whatever treatment, GENERALIZING!] 'that most people can benefit from them' [...] she stresses the importance of keeping the germs from taking hold [...] 'the more you disrupt their terrain, the less likely they are to take hold'".
Loving the supposed 'professional' and 'science expertise' claims.
So, in terms of her "general opposition to vaccinations", does she merely encourage MOSTLY EVERYONE then to avoid them? How can herd immunity occur if that is the case? We know that vaccines work and are safe. Opposing them? For what? Mostly everyone NEEDS TO GET THEM!
Ha, the illogic of staying 'generalizations are not what I do' and then stating, 'this is what I'd generally do'!
And regarding 'homeopathic vaccination', what are the ethics of treating someone with NOTHING a.k.a. homeopathy, and then telling them that they are protected from future infection? All the while claiming professionalism and a science pedigree! And what is "terrain"? I can only assume it is the human body, because that's what's mentioned as the place to stop the germs from taking hold. Is that what hand-washing is...disrupting terrain? I thought it is about washing germs off the skin. Merely disrupting hand terrain wouldn't do that; clapping your hands together would do that.
In terms of an ND education, in fact, on Fullerton's own biography page, she writes "Kerri Fullerton, BSc, ND". So, that BSc with her ND amounts to about 8 years of 'science'. Science, science, science.
And on her "Frequently Asked Questions" page, we're informed that "naturopathic doctors have a minimum of seven years post-secondary education. An undergraduate degree with a focus on human sciences is a pre-requisite to acceptance at a naturopathic school. Naturopathic doctors receive extensive training in basic medical sciences [...] naturopathic doctors speak the same language as your MD [...] any medical condition is something that an ND could treat."
And in "Naturopathic Medicine", she tells us:
"naturopathic doctors (ND) [...are] integrating scientific research with the healing powers of nature [coded vitalism...] ND’s have a variety of treatment options that are designed to work with the body’s inherent ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] by looking at the whole person [...per] physical, mental and spiritual aspects [supernaturalism...] training for naturopathic doctors includes several different treatment modalities [...including] botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, lifestyle counseling, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture [TCM]."
It is not strange that NDs don't honestly reveal their vitalistic context [to me], nor that of homeopathy or TCM: pretending science is naturopathy's m.o.
002. following up on naturopathy's essential homeopathy, she states in "Homeopathic Medicine":
"homeopathy [...] these remedies stimulate the body’s inherent ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] no two people experience an illness in the same way."
Note: the coded vitalism is typical of naturopathy. The idea that illnesses are so absolutely unique flies in the face of the science, and homeopathy. How is any knowledge possible if illnesses are so idiosyncratic? And anyway, homeopathy generalizes remedy types from COMMONLY SHARED symptoms. Hilarious.
003. following up on naturopathy's essential vitalism, she expressly states on her page "Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture":
"traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) [...] this system of medicine recognizes that blocked energy (chi) leads to pain, disease and impaired organ function. The role of acupuncture in TCM is to remove blocked energy by inserting needles at specific points along energy meridians. This allows the chi to move through channels with ease."
Note: energy, a scientific concept, is being used here to represent "chi", a vitalistic superstition. Chi simply doesn't exist, just as its pathways don't exist. So do you wonder: why is a supposed science expert unable to tell the difference between what's 'in evidence' and an archaic figmentation?