Thursday, August 5, 2010

Naturopathy's Wackaloon Claim of Scientific Superiority - Ritz, J. (ND SCNM):

here, I cite a naturopath's 'ND superscience claim' [see 001., below]; then, I illustrate how this same ND does not transparently communicate to the public 'the essentially naturopathic non-scientific' [see 002., below]; by comparing his definition of 'the naturopathic' with pages I've gathered from SCNM, his ND alma mater [see 003., below]:

001. Ritz, J. (ND SCNM) states in "Naturopathic versus Allopathic Basic Science and Therapeutic Modality Hours" (2010-07-14) [vsc 2010-08-04]:

"an ND's basic science education [...MD per UWSM then ND per Bastyr, respectively] anatomy & embryology: 13, 19;  histology: 6, 5; physiology: 5, 14; biochemistry: 8, 12; pathology: 10, 12; microbiology / immunology: 11, 10.5."

Note: the MD column has the absurd and false label of allopathy upon it.  I call that naturopathy's 'reverse sectarian false accusation.' But, lets take a moment to encapsulate what this 'ND superscience claim' hides, even if the hours in science that are tabulated here are quantitatively greater [with the ND having more than the MD]: naturopathy is absolutely obligated to a science-ejected premise that is falsely labeled scientific / naturopathy's definition of science is so broad contextually that science and nonscience are actually indiscernible [see 003., below]. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many hours of science an ND studies, it cannot make the naturopathic scientific because: a) the essentially naturopathic is centered upon a science-ejected figmentation that NDs are committed to by oath and which frames everything naturopathic and b) science has been needlessly unbounded and therefore is improperly used as a label by naturopathy.  NDs won't tell you this, though.  And they should.

002. ND Ritz's practice page "History of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-08-04] states:

"naturopathy has been around since ancient times [not true, it was invented rather recently IMHO]. Hippocrates, a physician who lived about 2400 years ago, formulated one of the main principles of naturopathic medicine, vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN...] the popularity of more institutionalized large scale 'scientific medicine' contributed to the decline of naturopathic medicine by mid-century [...] naturopathic medicine is based on a holistic approach combining safe and effective traditional therapies along with modern scientific approaches in medicine [...] naturopathic medicine is based on six philosophical principles [...#2] the healing power of nature - vis medicatrix naturae: the body has an inherent ability to restore health through nature’s healing properties [VMN-HPN...] licensed naturopathic doctors (N.D.s) have attended a rigorous four-year graduate level medical program at an accredited institution. During the first two years of the program they are trained in the same basic science and clinical applications that traditional medical students are educated in [...and are licensed after] passing national science boards [...our treatments] are scientifically researched and formulated."

Note: ah, so much to comment upon here.  Regarding:

a) "around since ancient times" - bullshit.  I'd argue that naturopathy is less than 110 years old, and specifically it has only been around as it is since the AANP unanimously passed their ND sectarian creed at the Rippling River convention in the late 1980s;

'based on VMN-HPN' - this is a coding for the vitalistic-spiritistic-teleologic science-unsupported sectarian belief amalgam that is at the core of naturopath's 'philosophy';

the scare quotes around scientific medicine - this implies 'so-called', as in not actually so, but it is naturopathy that is not actually what it says it is [not science] calling modern medicine what it not actually is [allopathy];

"holistic" - this is, for me, a meaningless / nebulous label but, minimally, it contains supernaturalism and here the ND is admitting that the supernatural [the non-science-supported] is absurdly within what's being labeled science;
"rigorous" - when different things are labeled identical, e.g. science and what's profoundly nonscientific, no, that is not rigor -- this, in part, is what makes naturopathy CULTIC;

"same basic science" and "science boards" - when what preponderantly ISN'T science is falsely labeled science, then the science isn't the same and the boards [which I completed, by the way] are a ruse because overarching an 'doing naturopathy' are those sectarian principles of their creed which science actually EJECTS;

b) if we assume this is an explanation of naturopathy, we aren't being fully informed about important aspects of the truly naturopathic.  But, it is truly naturopathic to label the profoundly non-science-based as science.  So, to a large extent, this is the real thing: naturopathy's systemic falsehood of placing scientific labels upon figmentations!

003. now, this ND's alma mater, SCNM [with some help from me as a gatherer], states that naturopathy is:

003.a. science;

003.b. and is, I kid you not, actually premised upon the science-ejected

Note: and that is wackaloon.
Post a Comment