here, I cite from recent audio up at the AANP's Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ] regarding the importance of scientific research, ISYN [see 001., below]:
001. Gaby, A. (MD UM) states in "Renowned Nutritional Medicine Expert Alan Gaby, MD, Discusses the Importance of Scientific Research" (2012-04-03) [vsc & mp3 download 2012-05-24; my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"[from the description, as] interview by Karolyn A.Gazella, publisher of the Natural Medicine Journal [...]";
NMJ is the AANP's official journal.
"section: sponsored podcasts [...] about the sponsor: Integrative Therapeutics [IT...] is North America’s leading manufacturer and distributor of proprietary, natural, dietary supplements for medical professionals and their patients [...] well-known for developing the highest quality, most effective and proven natural health solutions in the industry [...they are] clinically proven, effective products [...] their ingredients have been the subjects of more than 2,500 independent, peer-reviewed-published clinical trials and studies [...] Alan Gaby, MD, explains why he constantly reviews the scientific literature";
from what I can tell, IT is owned by a supplement conglomerate. I'd be interested to know if Gaby has his hand in that or any other supplement company, and if he shares that information with the public. Notice the emphasis on experimental evaluation...that is, SCIENTIFIC study leading to convincing evidence and PROOF.
"[from the audio, Gazella talks of him] distilling the research [...and asks] why have you focused so heavily on staying abreast of the most current scientific research? [...]";
again, the talk of scientific research, at the official journal of the AANP / American naturopathy.
"[Gaby] it's not just the current scientific research, but obviously you need to know all of the research that is out there in order to provide a balanced perspective [...] to try to figure out what's real and what's hype in this field [...] what research is good [...to] get people on the straight path [...]";
again, talk of science and looking at ALL that science has to offer, to determine what is actual and what is, as I often term it, a figmentation. The fact that this language is at an AANP site has vaporized my irony meter.
"[and Gaby speaks of] absolutely no effect [about blah blah blah...possible] research fraud here [regarding blah blah blah...and speaks of] the basics of how to interpret medical research [...that] I've probably read over fifty thousand articles in the past 35 years [...and speaks of] randomized clinical trials [...and] confounding factors [...] we just have to be careful with what we're doing [...] there's this block there [...the] substandard [...many things are ] easily debunked.";
ah, nice. So, we have the claim that what is supported by evidence and therein scientifically supported can be separated from what cannot / what is bunk / what is substandard. Why, FFS then, does this happen at the principle naturopathy school in North American, NCNM, if such is true: the hugely science-ejected is falsely posed as within science / scientifically supported. This AANP hypocrisy is disgusting, careless, and quite a block. You got their journal talking up the importance of scientific rigor, yet their primary school [and their main textbooks] absurdly claims that that which is for-several-decades and also for-a-few-hundred-years exterior to science IS SCIENCE [that is easily debunked]. I've been doing it for years. Talk about fraud! He speaks of this preponderance of research, of high quality measuring devices and carefully weeding through their flaws, but herein we have that so bullshit-laden position naturopathy places itself within: we're scientifically supported when HUGELY NOT. E.g:
how is it that naturopathy's label is
science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy-vitalism-supernatural spiritism-craniosacral therapy-qi-prana-blood type diet-genotype diet-electrodermal screening-colonics-NLP-AK-Bach flower remedies-balneotherapy [etc. etc. etc.].
don't they realize that in stating the importance of scientific rigor, they simultaneously contradict their claims that the science-debunked is science [after all, you can't have something WITHIN a category that it EXCLUDES], which is their orthodoxy?
naturopathy is, again, pretend science, pretend rationality, pretend expertise, pretend sanity and intelligence.