Sunday, November 21, 2010

ND Maloney vs. MD Atwood - The Medline Piece and ND Deflective Nastiness:

here, I cite from a 2010-07 blog post by ND Maloney regarding the 2003 MedGenMed piece by Atwood:

001. Maloney, C. (ND NCNM 2002) states in "Christopher Maloney, Naturopathic Doctor, Responds to Medline Quack Attack on N.D.s" (2010-07-30) [vsc 2010-11-21]:

"'where there are idiots, there is idiocy' [hmmm, I wonder who he's talking about?]. The most definitive negative information about naturopathic medicine on Medline was published back in 2003 by Dr. Atwood [there as a 2004 follow-up, too...supposedly] this is not an objective piece of writing [...] in looking through the study [it's actually a review / analysis / commentary, and the original unfortunately isn't up anymore at MedGenMed, but its follow-up is here] that Dr. Atwood did to become the established expert [...] on naturopathic medicine [strawman?], I found that Dr. Atwood had read a book [I have the original paper, and no, it's not informed by 'a book', it has 53 bibliographical endnotes...] the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine [wrong book, it's the Textbook of Natural Medicine that's referenced, which makes up 8 of those 53 endnotes...which is] a compilation of articles for the lay public [...] we must assume that Dr. Atwood is only as well informed as the lay public about naturopathic medicine [really?...and basically opines that Atwood lacks] the proper humility common to all good clinicians [oh snap!...] I do not need to clarify this contrast with what Dr. Atwood did.  His expertise is in internal medicine, but by claiming expertise based on a single book reading I begin to doubt his level of knowledge within his own area.  Anyone who feels comfortable expressing such definitive opinions with such little information seems unlikely to be exploring his own area with a great deal of diligence [seeing as how Maloney didn't actually read the actual study he is taking umbrage with, apparently, I think this is quite an ironic insult...] Dr. Atwood is unpublished in his own field [...and] seems unable to meet the standards necessary for peer review publication of a contribution within internal medicine [...] if Dr. Atwood were serious about studying naturopathic medicine [etc.]."

Note: so, it appears that ND Maloney only read the article's abstract and assumed its source.  Maloney's defense / rebuttal of the contents of the Medline pieces is, therein, uninformed character assassination / ad hominem.  He has not addressed anything substantive.  How can he, without having read the actual article!  He has accomplished nothing here but to spotlight the very thing about himself that he accuses another of: intellectual laziness.

This type of uninformed condescension / deflective nastiness makes sense, though, if you were part of a cultic group that has trained you to defensively prevent yourself from exposure to criticism of your group's contents.
Post a Comment