Thursday, January 7, 2010

Naturopathy as 'the Future of Healthcare': Irrationalism and Absurdity Posed as Professionalism, Integrity and Physicianship - the AANP's Howard 2010

here, I quote from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' [AANP] 2010 "Natural Medicine Journal" article recently authored by AANP's executive director Karen Howard celebrating naturopathy's new Department of Labor [DOL] definition [see 001.a., below]; then, I decode the quite coded essential premise of naturopathy within that DOL definition using naturopathy's own ".gov" and ".edu" primary sources [see 001.b., below]; and finally, I muse upon these "metaphysicians" [see 002., below]:

001.a. in "The Future of Naturopathic Medicine: A Message from Karen E. Howard, Executive Director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians", she writes:

"the AANP’s vision is to transform the healthcare system from disease management to health promotion by incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine. The mission of the AANP is to serve our members by advancing the profession of naturopathic medicine and preserving its integrity [...] this fall, the US Department of Labor released a new definition of 'naturopathic physician' [...per] 'a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals [NHCI...] sample job titles include naturopathic physician, naturopathic doctor, physician, and doctor of naturopathic medicine' [...] this is a monumental success for the naturopathic profession."

Note: so, we have the claim of "profession", galore, [7 instances] in the article. Howard's NHCI -- naturopathy's coded vitalism m.o. -- will be fleshed out below.

001.b. regarding "the principles of naturopathic medicine" and "a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals":

001.b1. the foremost sources, in my mind, for iteration of naturopathy's "principles" are ".gov" and a ".edu" web site.  Both are based in Oregon, because that region is the 'trunk of the naturopathic tree', so to speak.  Oregon has the oldest AANP ND-granting school, and that State's ND apparatus has codified naturopathy's principles on the State of Oregon's website.

001.b1.a. per the ".gov", the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners [...] they are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [(this is naturopathy's kooky claim that the science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny)...principle #1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN=VMN...] nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...principle #3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...overall] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence [!!!] of the natural healing process [INHP...] naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition [VT] of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person [IHCP...a.k.a.] the body’s healing and immune response [BIIR...] the body’s innate healing response [BIHR]."

Note: obviously, vitalism is the cardinal premise of naturopathy, per HPN=VMN= LF=VF=INHP=VT=IHCP=BIIR=BIHR. Howard's NHCI is synonymous but, NHCI is 'vitalism coded' and therefore not honest / transparent in the way it should be in order to be 'of professional ethical status' [IMO]. OBNE and the State of Oregon has just told us that a "life force" is "in fact" an objective scientific fact.  Hilarious: claiming that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny is INSANE. Vitalism is profoundly science-ejected. Science that hugely isn't science is not-at-all conventional.

001.b1.b. per the ".edu", the National College of Natural Medicine states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [!!!]; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...#3] first do no harm -- primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [VF]."

Note: so, again the VERY WRONG continuous commercial activity of labeling as 'scientific fact' the 'in fact science-ejected vitalistic' [minimally].  This is what "natural medicine" is in AANP-land -- trading upon what is false, and known to be false 'by the preponderance of science' for several decades. Also, there's the quite wrong claim of professionalism [7 times on that page], because you cannot be hugely insanely premised and still be of credat emptor status.  What's also fascinating about the "new" AANP DOL definition of naturopathy is that naturopathy is still 'cultically coding' their essential premise.  Naturopathy is not being transparent: its supernatural, vitalistic and teleological premise / 'the science-ejected sectarian' is being falsely presented as naturalistic, science-supported, objective fact when in fact such is science-ejected / science-unsupported.  In fact, such misleading and opaque activity by naturopathy is not new; it is naturopathy's same old deceptive m.o.  Notice that they are grabbing for more generalistic titles, like "physician".  This sets up a Federal precedent that further allows AANP to achieve more State licensure laws for itself by saying "we're already Federally recognized" as _________.  I would argue that naturopathy is still quite incompletely, opaquely and falsely Federally described.  But,  why be surprised!  Naturopathy already has ".gov" support per Oregon to posture and trade upon the quite false-absurd: the idea that the scientific is what is not scientific.  I have termed this "epistemic conflation" [EC], the blending of knowledge type. EC illogically claims that something is equal to that which it is different from.  Yet, after thoroughly muddling knowledge type, naturopathy then superabsurdly-falsely represents that mingled heap as an 'epistemic delineation', per [supposedly] truly "science".  That is INSANE; and instead of this being 'a doctoral-level, scientific, professional physician context', I've termed the whole thing a fraudulent racket.  I will be blogging next post about naturopathy's goals towards expansion of all this insanity and absurdity.

002. regarding "physician", "the future of healthcare", "integrity" and "profession":

integrity's usage is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed.: "steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code [...] the state of being unimpaired; soundness [...] the quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness."  Now, the claim of "profession" is similarly a claim of trustworthyness, thoroughness, soundness.  Naturopathy claims professionalism and integrity while being completely unsound and opaque in its basic premise.

In fact, as I've said, I think naturopathic 'thinking' is INSANE: claiming that what's inside of the scientific is the same as what's outside of the scientific, that figmentations are the same as what is in-evidence / rigorously scientifically vetted.  At its core, naturopathy is simply nonsense in the 'sense' that naturopathy claims that 'something is the same as something it is profoundly different from'.  It other words, naturopathy claims that that which survives scientific scrutiny is that which has actually been ejected from science.  What is "conventional" about this kind of science?  What is even rational about it?  The fact is that such 'kind' of science, if I can be allowed such an absurd statement, is "pseudo" -- as in fake.  And such kind of 'thinking' is junk thought.

To believe in figmentation / what lacks evidence as a central premise, and to set it up as 'the truth about nature's workings' rings of metaphysics and sectic ideology.  So, I regard the 'epistemic position' of an ND not as that of a physician but that of a metaphysician, per 'the metaphysical merged with physicianship'.

The other appropriate term is sectarian medicine, as opposed to scientific medicine / modern-enlightened thought.

Naturopathy is as much "the future of healthcare" as the hugely science-ejected is the future of science.  Naturopathy is as much the future of healthcare as flat-earth theory is the future of geography.
Post a Comment