Thursday, July 14, 2011

Mullin's 2011 "Integrative Gastroenterology" -- ISBN 0195371100 9780195371109 -- and Naturopathy's EM Vitalism via ND Pizzorno aka Old "Science-Based" Joe

here, I cite from the Oxford University Press 'just published' and MD Mullin edited "Integrative Gastroenterology" particularly regarding so-called 'energy medicine' and the naturopathy chapter by ND Pizzorno [see 001., below]; then, I cite from ND Pizzorno's own web page science-expert self-labeling and from his alma mater NCNM [see 002., below]:

001. editor Gerard Mullin MD's "Integrative Gastroenterology" (ISBN 0195371100 9780195371109; 2011) [my comments are in bold; a portion of this book is available for viewing at and]:

001.a. has a "Chapter 21 - Naturopathic Medicine and Digestion" by Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM 1975) wherein Old "Science-Based" Joe states:

"naturopathic medicine prioritizes supporting the body's innate healing processes [p.205...and NDs are] armed with a strong belief in the inherent ability of the body to heal [p.206...]";

coded vitalism ALERT!  Much more of a BELIEF in the beliefy kind of manner than immediately indicated!

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct system [p.205...]";

naturopathy's DISTINCTIVITY is one of their more hilariously irrational claims:

A) look at ND Pizzorno's alma mater NCNM [more will happen in 002., below] which states on the current page "Frequently Asked Questions" [saved 2011-07-13]: 

"naturopathic physicians craft comprehensive treatment plans that blend [etc.]."

so, in REALITY, you get the oxymorony of 'the blended distinct', which to me sounds not-very-distinct.

B) search the web with and the parameters "naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care that blends" [outside quotes removed] and you'll get quite a preponderance.

"naturopathic medicine [] a way of thinking about life, health and disease [...] it is defined [...] by the philosophical principles that guide the practitioner [p.205...] seven concepts provide the foundation that defines naturopathic medicine [...] as a guide to developing a curative relationship with patients [...#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [p.206...]";

and that's all you are told about #1.  No matter, I've quite a collection that preponderantly illuminates this here-coded expression as the vitalistic essential premise of naturopathy.  And truly, the vitalistic context does mean that naturopathy thinks about life, health and disease through that vitalistic lens.  They'd usually rather not broadcast that, though.

"[and speaks of] the scholarly discussion of naturopathic clinical theory [p.206...]";

oh how I wish NDs / NMDs had academic / scholarly integrity when it comes to their contents [theory is being too generous, in the scientific sense of the word] and actual science!

"[NDs are] a unique group of professionals [...and ND Pizzorno writes of] the profession [p.206...] naturopathy became a formal profession in the United States after its founding by Benedict Lust, in 1896 [p.207]";

and they insist PROFESSION PROFESSION PROFESSION.  There are actual characteristics of formal professions!  In my view, naturopathy's false labeling, irrationality, and opacity EXCLUDE it from being professional and even from meeting the lower bar of fair commerce!  After all, what kind of business or profession for that matter falsely labels the science-ejected IN A HUMONGOUS anyway?  Science is a distinct kind of knowledge, yet naturopathy seeks to blend in a whole bunch of junk with science and instead of simply calling it all now-not-science but a muddle, they insists that such blended knowledge is distinctly science anyway.

"the disease-centric approach of conventional medicine [p.206...]";

and there we go, a straw-man representation of modern medicine.  This is such a bad representation of modern medicine that ND Pizzorno should be ASHAMED.

"7 naturopathic guidelines [...#2] stimulate the vital force [p.206...]";

and there you go,  the Full Monty! Ye old archaic science-ejected vitalistic context which defines 'the naturopathic'.  The book has much more to say about such vitalism / so-called energy medicine [EM; see 001.b., below].

001.b. has a "Chapter 15 - Energy Medicine and Gastrointestinal Disorders" by Ann Marie Chiasson, MD who states:

"there is an underlying energy body within the physical body that affects health [p.156...]";

this is, of course, an article of faith.  There is no evidence for such, and no need for such to explain how the body actually works.  What this is really is supernatural spiritism and metaphysics hidden by scientific words like "energy".

"there is no evidence for or against energy medicine [p.156...]";

bullshit.  I'd argue that science, as an aggregate, has DISCARDED the supernatural / spiritualistic / metaphysical that is truly the subject here and therefore there is HUGE non-evidence for it.  Since things are so well-explained parsimoniously without such, the burden is upon the claimant to provide such evidence, and justify this nonessential belief's necessity. 

"energy medicine is a newer term [many might say New Age term] coined to refer to healing modalities that work with the underlying energy or vital force of the body [...aka] energy body, biofield or subtle energy [p.156...] a subtle form of energy [...aka] 'qi [...] ki [...] doshas [...] prana, etheric energy, fohat, orgone, odic force, mana, and homeopathic resonance' [...this is] a resurgence of 'vitalism' or the belief [I'll say] that an underlying vital force exists in the body and is central to health [...] Mesmer [...] called it magnetism [...aka] the putative field [...] the resurgence of energy medicine is actually an integration of prior views of health and healing [p.157...]";

ah, so there we go, a rogues gallery of vitalism around the globe and for the last few centuries.  I think the devolution aspect of "integrative medicine" can be seen here, wherein science-ejected archaicisms are re-injected into medicine for no reason other than that the practitioner likes certain articles of faith and believes such figmentations are relative to human biology.  There's also a huge conflation between objective / mutual reality and subjective / individual imaginings here. 

"the belief in an underlying vital force or subtle body [...that] underlying energy of the body [] alternately characterized as spiritual healing [p.158...]";

and there you go, unmasked.  All this energy and electromagnetic talk is really camouflage for 'ye old spiritual blankety blank'.

"common energy medicine techniques [...include] acupuncture [...] healing touch [...] homeopathy [...] joh rei [...] polarity therapy [...] qi gong [...] reiki [...] sound therapy [...] tai chi [...] therapeutic touch [...] yoga [...] zero balancing [p.158...]";


"EM techniques arise from the ancient concept of a primary vital force within the body affecting the health of the physical body [p.163]."

ah, so in a nutshell, a definition that shows vital force is archaic. It is also an article of science-ejected faith / figmentation.

Note: her web page "Services" states:

"Dr. Chiasson is pleased to offer integrative medicine consultations [...for] $400.00 [...and] energy medicine treatments  [...for] $125.00 [...] energy medicine works with a model of illness that addresses the electromagnetic field (or energy field) that underlies the organs and physical structure of the body [...] energy  medicine  incorporates  hands  on healing and other techniques that change, stimulate, add or shift the underlying energy that is associated with the disease process."

you really have to wonder what happened to an MD who studied ACTUAL science and 'things of immediate evidence' to practice medicine, and then got into all this figmentatious masked-spiritualism vitalistic babble while masquerading the whole supernatural and superstitious thing with the quite inappropriate scientific language of "energy" and "electromagnetic" and "field" and even "force".

002. Old "Science-Based" Joe and his alma mater NCNM:

002.a. ND Pizzorno:

is famous at Naturocrit for his self-labeling "one of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine."  Specifically, he is talking about naturopathy and its contents.  Armed only with an ND [no PhD of a science variety and no apparent scientific activity of the 'hands-on active scientist' kind] Old "Science-Based" Joe is a self-made expert of science who isn't a scientist in the professional sense.

002.b. NCNM:

is his alma mater, and that is the institution that credentialed him academically.  It is interesting to see that at NCNM, science includes what is hugely not science.  But, I guess you'd incorrectly be labeling nonscience as science your whole career as Old "Science-Based" Joe has done if your origination educational institution had that very same approach.

003. in sum, the book:

shows naturopathy's vitalistic / EM / masked spiritistic requisite premise and how integrative medicine [IM] isn't about any NEW IN-EVIDENCE methods and ideas that are in any sense immediately medically necessary, but is instead a RETROGRADE DEVOLUTION to centuries-ago science-ejected superstitions, ideas, methods and claims then MIXED with current modern medical science and earnestly claimed NECESSARY MEDICALLY.

and there isn't much hesitation, in the IM and naturopathic realms, toward falsely labeling the big knowledge jumble all specifically "science-based".

Post a Comment