Friday, May 20, 2011

Naturopathy Irrationality Microcosm: New York State's ND Fey's Science Label, the NCNM Opaque Revealed, and NPLEX Homeopathy Absurdity

here, I first cite a 'naturopathy-is-science' claim from ND Fey [see 001.a., below]; then, the whole shebang / epistemic irrationality from her alma mater NCNM that explains, explicitly, 'the naturopathic' [see 001.b., below]; and finally, there is ND Fey's claim that homeopathy is "highly effective" [see 002., below]:

001. 'the naturopathics' supposed science-basis:

001.a. in "Naturopathic News Fall 2008" [vsc 2011-05-08]:

"what is different between us [NDs] and MD's? Basically our education is focused on the same basic sciences as an M.D., but ND’s also study natural approaches."

Note: ah, so simply related.  So, the science is claimed as actual science / science-that-is-science.

001.b. the opaque revealed: ND Fey's alma mater National College of Natural Medicine states in "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2011-05-20; my comments are in bold]:

"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 [...]";

ah, the GRAND / ALL ENCOMPASSING label that naturopathy uses upon 'the naturopathic': that such is, essentially, scientific and objective fact!  As I've said many times, the claim is that 'the essentially naturopathic' survives scientific scrutiny.

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: 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. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#2] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...this is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [...]";

ah, the 'of the professions' claim, and vitalism!  The HPN-VMN / LF / VF is claimed as scientifically IN FACT.  This is FARTHEST from the truth.  Vitalism is IN FACT hugely science ejected: and stating it survives scientific scrutiny doesn't make it so.  That is a form of magical thinking, and a sign of scientific ignorance.  Naturopathy claims professionalism and science but both are transparent and not false, generally speaking. The term "profess" is within the text of that page seven times, actually.

"homeopathic medicine [HM] is based on the principle of 'like cures like.' Clinical observation indicates that it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels [...]";

ah, so now within the 'able to survive scientific scrutiny' is homeopathy and supernaturalism.  HILARIOUS.  So, supposedly HM works, is powerful, acts, and though natural is supernatural-effecting; and supposedly all this is science supported.

Note: this page is, in my view, the Rosetta Stone of naturopathy.  ND Fey does not relate these contents on her New York State web pages, to my knowledge.  That is why I call her portrayal of naturopathy "opaque".  NCNM doesn't accurately represent the true 'nature' of naturopathy, either: what's science-ejected falsely labeled as science-supported.  And this is all licensed in Oregon from the educational institution all the way into the NDs clinical suite: licensed falsehood.

002. ND Fey's super-absurd naturopathic claims regarding homeopathy's efficacy and its science basis:

002.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine" she writes [vsc 2011-05-20]:

"homeopathic medicine [HM] is a holistic [whatever that means!] form of medicine that aims to help the body heal itself. It works for both acute illnesses and chronic conditions. Homeopathic remedies act on both the physical and emotional level with seldom side effects, and they are safe for all ages. Homeopathy is a powerful form of medicine that has been used for more than 200 years."

Note: the claim is that HM heals, works, acts POWERFULLY.

002.b. in "Naturopathic News Fall 2007" she writes [vsc 2011-05-20; my comments are in bold]:

"homeopathy treats the whole person by using minute doses to stimulate the body's own healing mechanisms. Homeopathic remedies are nontoxic, inexpensive, and highly effective [...]";

the claim is that homeopathy treats, stimulates, and is hugely effective.

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) receive a 4-year postgraduate level training at an accredited naturopathic medical school. The 4-year training includes graduate level study in the medical sciences and clinical medicine; in addition to, training in naturopathic therapeutics [like homeopathy]. After graduation, NDs must pass a national board examination [NPLEX] consisting of basic medical sciences, clinical sciences as well as naturopathic modalities [like homeopathy] to become licensed doctors."

and, of course, the claim that 'naturopathy subset homeopathy' is science-girded!  Now, I'd like to straighten out the location of homeopathy within that NPLEX examination, because what is written above is the 'old' NPLEX.  It is in fact most accurate to state this formulation when it comes to that exam, currently: NPLEX subset clinical science subset homeopathy.  The formulation, of course, is in fact false.  This is one item that supports my label: licensed falsehood.  BUT, as we've seen from the principles page of ND Fey's alma mater NCNM, naturopathy indeed equates science and nonscience and then labels the whole thing falsely science.  The specific labeling of homeopathy as science is merely a symptom of this epistemic muddle known as naturopathy.  Of note: science has HUGELY refuted homeopathy to such an extent that further research is considered UNETHICAL.  Oh SNAP!

003. what's so sad:

journalists these days don't seem to have the chops to report on naturopathy IN FULL, IN DEPTH, and ACCURATELY.  Each piece instead seems like an ad placed by the NDs.

wouldn't it be nice of journalists abided by the highest of journalistic professional code?
Post a Comment