Sunday, July 15, 2012

ND Rothenberg at HuffPo (2012-07): 'ND Roots' That Dare Not Speak Their Roots

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post piece by ND Rothenberg of the New England School of Homeopathy and a graduate of National College of Natural Medicine who [supposedly] defines and describes naturopathy [see 001., below]; then, I go to the tenets web page of her alma mater and REALLY reveal naturopathy's 'core absurdism' [see 002., below]:

001. Rothenberg, A. (ND NCNM) writes in "Naturopathic Medicine Roots"(2012-07-10)[vsc 2012-07-10; my notes are in unquoted bold]:

"here's what naturopathic doctors believe: [#1] we should support the healing power of nature -- that the body's innate ability to heal is strong and that we can also capitalize on the healing energy of foods, plants, light, and other natural substances [...#2] we best identify and treat the root cause of illness whenever possible [...]";

are we REALLY told in this article "what naturopathic doctors believe"?  No, I don't think so!  It's interesting what this language LEAVES OUT [not to pun on all her tree talk within the article].  I'll fill in what is not provided in 002., below. 

"[#3] we ought to aim, like all physicians [...]";

dare I term the status of the naturopath METAphysician, as opposed to physician, when you get-right-down-to-it?  Yes.

"to uphold the classic tenet: first, do no harm [...]";

there is SUCH an interesting HIDDEN context to this idea-that-isn't-fleshed-out, which I talk about below in 002.

"we'd better educate patients. Knowledge is power, so we work to educate patients [...] we give good explanations as to why and how things work both with the body and with our approaches. We welcome questions from our patients. During this information age, we are often partners with patients who may come in quite well-informed [...]";

oh, how the irony is killing me: claiming to educate, inform, and explain without truly sharing / revealing naturopathy's beliefs clearly!  Knowledge IS power and even holding back facts is, in terms of successful marketing, A POWERFUL MODUS OPERANDI for naturopathy [there's some Latin for you, naturopaths-who-love-Latin].  Not mentioning in the Huffpo article naturopathy's absurd position of science subset nonscience IN NO WAY is a "good explanation".

"I love having a medical philosophy that is clear and consistent and that does not shift. I love being able to look at new approaches that may come along and to ask myself, 'is this within the bounds of the philosophy I so embrace?' And if not, to let it go' [...] my naturopathic medicine roots [...]";

I call this the 'ND sectarian creed'.   This type of stance, which here I applaud for its sectarian honesty, reminds me of a quote I often use from Popular Science published around the year 1900.  It states: "science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian.  Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed."  At Phi Beta Kappa, I'm reminded that "for over two and a quarter centuries, the Society has embraced the principles of freedom of inquiry and liberty of thought and expression."  And I was a PBK long before I got snookered into naturopathy school.

"[a naturopath has] an elegant philosophy [...] one that leads to effective treatment [...]";

hmmm.  If naturopathy's philosophy is so elegant, why it is SO EASY to destroy with the information in middle school science textbooks?  And effective?  Since when are such things as homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, applied kinesiology, reiki, colonics, and chelation therapy for heart disease effective?

002. at NCNM's 'Rosetta Stone' ND tenets web page [this is the TRUNK of the naturopathic North American tree] we're told in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2012-07-15]:

"[principle #1] the healing power of naturevis 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 [...]";

so there you go, HPN=VMN=LF.  This is a TRULY science-ejected idea.

"[principle #3] first do no harmprimum no nocere: the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...aka] this healing process [...aka] vis medicatrix naturae [...aka] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force";

I do not believe that ALL PHYSICIANS believe that "first do no harm" involves a vitalistic figmentation that has been EJECTED from science.  So, here is naturalistic language HIDING the explicitly sectarian-naturopathic.  It's always good to add a little Latin to naturopathic camouflage, too, keeps people off-guard.  Symptoms are as "in fact" "life force" effects as the money under a child's pillow is "in fact" from the Tooth Fairy.  This is their "root cause", essentially: a "life force" that is impeded by whatever and needs unimpeded to 'work right' and govern the body properly.  Yet, it does not exist BIOLOGICALLY in the same way that scientifically speaking FIRE isn't phlogiston but is instead CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS.  The body simply DOESN'T work via a life force figmentation.

"[and overarching all this sectarian metaphysical nonsense, we're told] 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. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [...]";

so, what kind of profession can be show to be full-of-falsehood using eighth grade science standards?  What kind of profession says that sectarian subjective figmentation survives continuous scientific rigor?

the naturopathillogic, of course, wherein, on this same NCNM page, homeopathy is labeled "powerful" [and the supernatural is also as-falsely-claimed to be within science, too].

Note: here is where ND Rothenberg, at her Connecticut practice, claims that homeopathy is a "science".  And what's even more interesting, compare her 'tenets' page to that of her alma mater.  Look at what isn't written on her page that claims to explain naturopathy!  Essential homeopathic and naturopathic vitalism, why-for-art-thou-so-coded?  What happened to the ethos claimed in the HuffPo article, wherein the ND's role was to 'educate, inform, and explain'?  Doesn't this throw informed consent out the window along with professionalism?
Post a Comment